Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared
A lot of the rich folks were more lucky folks from what I understand. Apparently there was some benefits from being part of the MARS organization at one point. Rumor had it that it was free or drastically reduced Collins equipment for being involved. Anyone know anything about that rumor? --- On Thu, 6/16/11, Tom Swisher wa8pyr.l...@gmail.com wrote: From: Tom Swisher wa8pyr.l...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared To: k4...@mindspring.com Cc: drakelist@zerobeat.net Date: Thursday, June 16, 2011, 8:59 PM On Jun 16, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Garey Barrell wrote: Essentially, Drake came along and found less expensive ways to emulate the Collins equipment and circuitry to make it more affordable for the 'average' ham. Drake was just the reverse of Collins, i.e., the majority of their business was with hams, with a small (if any?) government segment. Heath did somewhat the same, although they went a little too far, in my opinion, and ended up with a product that felt 'cheap' and flimsy, compared even to the Drake. Drake was not fancy, but WAS and IS solid in construction. Well put, Garey. I've personally always considered Collins the gear for the rich man while Drake was the gear for everyman. Tom -- Tom Swisher, WA8PYR A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. - Thomas Jefferson ___ Drakelist mailing list Drakelist@zerobeat.net http://mailman.zerobeat.net/mailman/listinfo/drakelist ___ Drakelist mailing list Drakelist@zerobeat.net http://mailman.zerobeat.net/mailman/listinfo/drakelist
Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared
That's not a rumor - it's fact. The MARS service provides for its members to get surplus equipment when Uncle Sam decides he doesn't need it any more. I never got any S Line gear this way, but had a few R-390A receivers and some very good test gear. I know one fellow who received a complete KWM2A suitcase station, and saw some 651S1 receivers given out. 73, Mike W3MC NNN0RVG _ From: drakelist-boun...@zerobeat.net [mailto:drakelist-boun...@zerobeat.net] On Behalf Of Ron Sent: Friday, 17 June, 2011 05:24 To: k4...@mindspring.com; Tom Swisher Cc: drakelist@zerobeat.net Subject: Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared A lot of the rich folks were more lucky folks from what I understand. Apparently there was some benefits from being part of the MARS organization at one point. Rumor had it that it was free or drastically reduced Collins equipment for being involved. Anyone know anything about that rumor? --- On Thu, 6/16/11, Tom Swisher wa8pyr.l...@gmail.com wrote: From: Tom Swisher wa8pyr.l...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared To: k4...@mindspring.com Cc: drakelist@zerobeat.net Date: Thursday, June 16, 2011, 8:59 PM On Jun 16, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Garey Barrell wrote: Essentially, Drake came along and found less expensive ways to emulate the Collins equipment and circuitry to make it more affordable for the 'average' ham. Drake was just the reverse of Collins, i.e., the majority of their business was with hams, with a small (if any?) government segment. Heath did somewhat the same, although they went a little too far, in my opinion, and ended up with a product that felt 'cheap' and flimsy, compared even to the Drake. Drake was not fancy, but WAS and IS solid in construction. Well put, Garey. I've personally always considered Collins the gear for the rich man while Drake was the gear for everyman. Tom -- Tom Swisher, WA8PYR A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. - Thomas Jefferson ___ Drakelist mailing list Drakelist@zerobeat.net http://mailman.zerobeat.net/mailman/listinfo/drakelist ___ Drakelist mailing list Drakelist@zerobeat.net http://mailman.zerobeat.net/mailman/listinfo/drakelist
Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared
ALL - Once again, _WHY PRIVATE E-MAILS_. DO YOU LACK THE COURAGE OF YOUR CONVICTIONS? AFRAID SOMEONE MIGHT DISAGREE?? WHAT!?!?!?!?!? Like Paul, I'm interested in others responses, whether I agree with them or not. Aside from losing those opinions today, they are also left out of the archives. Sheesh!! 73, Garey - K4OAH Glen Allen, VA Drake 2-B, 2-C/2-NT, 4-A, 4-B, C-Line and TR-4/C Service Supplement CDs www.k4oah.com Paul Christensen wrote: Great set of responses, both from public and private E-mails. Many thanks to all for your input. It was a real learning experience for me since I have not lived the moment with a Collins S Line. Paul, W9AC ___ Drakelist mailing list Drakelist@zerobeat.net http://mailman.zerobeat.net/mailman/listinfo/drakelist
Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared
My opinion from years of having both... The Sherwood R-4C I have blows away almost anything available today and in the old days as well. Yes I really said and mean that! It hears anything my TT-Orion II can hear and while the TT has a lot of nice bells/whistlesit does not copy weak DX any better then the R-4C. As to my Colllins...I really enjoy looking at it and using it regularly...it workd FB and I enjoy the audio. I use a KWM-2 and a S3 line. As to my Hallicrafters I enjoy them as well. 73, Lee -Original Message- From: Richard Tucker ri...@wavewls.com To: Don Cunningham d...@martineer.net; Paul Christensen w...@arrl.net; drakelist drakelist@zerobeat.net Sent: Thu, Jun 16, 2011 9:26 am Subject: Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared I have owned and used both Drake C-line and Collins S Line and both were are still great gear. The two things that always set Drake apart to me were the inclusion of 160M and the flexibility to transcieve and switch back and forth between R4C and T4XC PTO's. I enjoyed an appreciated all comments. Rick W0RT - Original Message - From: Don Cunningham d...@martineer.net To: Paul Christensen w...@arrl.net; drakelist@zerobeat.net Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:03 PM Subject: Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared Paul said This may seem like a trolling exercise to some, And in light of most of your posts, yes, it does, hi. I have several Drakes and several Collins rigs. I love different things about each and plan to keep ALL as long as I can enjoy and maintain them. I think you should have both, AND some Heathkits, some Swans oops, maybe I'm going too far there, :^)) 73, Don, WB5HAK ___ Drakelist mailing list Drakelist@zerobeat.net http://mailman.zerobeat.net/mailman/listinfo/drakelist ___ Drakelist mailing list Drakelist@zerobeat.net http://mailman.zerobeat.net/mailman/listinfo/drakelist ___ Drakelist mailing list Drakelist@zerobeat.net http://mailman.zerobeat.net/mailman/listinfo/drakelist
Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared
WOW! Strange statement on a Drake Reflector List.. I've owned several Collins Radios to include a 51S1 receiver (sold it for $1375.00), KWM-2 and 2A's (traded and sold all of them to include the special Collins microphone), even some commercial Collins HF equipment (tossed them too). I've used KWS-1's, 75A1's, A3's, A4's, 75S you name it, Once had a complete 32S/75S station to include phone patch's, watt meters and all (it was quite the station), R388's, R390's frankly I haven't missed any of them because none impressed me in any way. I didn't find the receivers to be special (other than the frequency coverage of the 51S1), the audio wasn't sent from heaven if you know what I mean. Sorry but Collins may look good but so far they were just OK nothing special. HOWEVER! My Drake radios, I've loved everyone I've had and still have. In High School I was given the opportunity to purchase a Drake TR-4C station with RV-4C, Speaker and W4 power meter, very nice! Some years ago I had a B-Line and was talked out of it by a friend and regretted it ever since, great station! The audio was wonderful, receiver selectivity tremendous, transmitter power and audio always great reports. Today, I have a C-Line (TX4C, R4C, TR4C, RV-4C), R4B, L4B, MN2000, W4, WV4, TR6, I'm I leaving anything out Collins, had'em but I'll keep my Drakes forever! Thank you very much, Oh I think that Collins Reflector is looking for a few more members..Hi Hi From: drakelist-boun...@zerobeat.net [mailto:drakelist-boun...@zerobeat.net] On Behalf Of Ron Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 2:27 PM To: k4...@mindspring.com; drakelist@zerobeat.net; john Subject: Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared I came into this as computers were making a mark on the electronic industry and taking away the appeal of ham radio so I may have this a little wrong. I recall being told that Collins radio equipment was manufactured for the government at a time when money was flowing easy. Drake on the other hand did manufacture items for the government, but their radios were primarily for the ham radio consumer market. If true, then John's statements ring very clearly. Was I told wrong? 73, Ron WD8SBB --- On Wed, 6/15/11, john joh...@nc.rr.com wrote: From: john joh...@nc.rr.com Subject: Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared To: k4...@mindspring.com, drakelist@zerobeat.net Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011, 5:46 PM Collins made extraordinary radios with extraordinary parts Drake made extraordinary radios with quite ordinary parts. John K5MO ___ Drakelist mailing list Drakelist@zerobeat.net/mc/compose?to=Drakelist@zerobeat.net http://mailman.zerobeat.net/mailman/listinfo/drakelist ___ Drakelist mailing list Drakelist@zerobeat.net http://mailman.zerobeat.net/mailman/listinfo/drakelist
Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared
Ron - That's a pretty accurate description. Collins had a long history with the military, which was their primary customer. Art Collins started out in his basement building transmitters for commercial customers. Of course there were amateurs who could afford his products, mostly well-to-do by necessity! The AM era stuff, 75A and 32V series, was primarily for ham use, but still priced pretty high compared to Johnson, WRL, Hallicrafter's, etc. Higher quality, but not 'greatly' superior in functionality. The KW-1 was a very low production item, (~250?,) and many of those were grabbed by shortwave broadcasters in third world countries. The 75A-4 and KWS-1 were 'for ham use', but were sold to the military for use worldwide, including airborne use by Art's friend Curtis LeMay for 'his' Strategic Air Command. One interesting tidbit was that Leo Meyerson was invited on the checkout ride with LeMay, Collins and others. They had the 75A-4 / KWS-1, 75A-3 / 32V, Globe King 500, and other gear of the time to compare the effectiveness of SSB v. AM for worldwide coverage for SAC planes. As they were getting on the plane, LeMay asked Leo, 'where's your SSB equipment', and Leo had to admit he had none. All the S-Line equipment, starting with the KWM-1, was designed with the military in mind, and so included complete parts lists, chassis photos, etc. typical of government contracts. Simple circuitry and operation were a primary goal. There were still hams who could afford Collins products, although I only knew of a few!! :-) Bottom line, Collins was designed for the military and government, with ham use a very small part of their total production. Essentially, Drake came along and found less expensive ways to emulate the Collins equipment and circuitry to make it more affordable for the 'average' ham. Drake was just the reverse of Collins, i.e., the majority of their business was with hams, with a small (if any?) government segment. Heath did somewhat the same, although they went a little too far, in my opinion, and ended up with a product that felt 'cheap' and flimsy, compared even to the Drake. Drake was not fancy, but WAS and IS solid in construction. I've probably omitted or gotten things wrong, but that's the best I can do from memory. 73, Garey - K4OAH Glen Allen, VA Drake 2-B, 2-C/2-NT, 4-A, 4-B, C-Line and TR-4/C Service Supplement CDs www.k4oah.com Ron wrote: I came into this as computers were making a mark on the electronic industry and taking away the appeal of ham radio so I may have this a little wrong. I recall being told that Collins radio equipment was manufactured for the government at a time when money was flowing easy. Drake on the other hand did manufacture items for the government, but their radios were primarily for the ham radio consumer market. If true, then John's statements ring very clearly. Was I told wrong? 73, Ron WD8SBB ___ Drakelist mailing list Drakelist@zerobeat.net http://mailman.zerobeat.net/mailman/listinfo/drakelist
Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared
This is a great thread! In the late '70's, I had a KWM-2A, remote VFO, etc.; all Collins. I decide to get back into CW, so, of course, the KWM-2A had to go (for those who don't know, the KWM's really don't do CW in spite of the CW switch position on the mode switch). After doing a lot of research, I traded the Collins for a C line, my first Drakes. I never regretted the decision. It was only after I wanted to try RTTY that I traded the C line for a 7 line. That was back in 1982. I still have the 7 line and it remains my main SSB/RTTY rig (I use a homebrew setup for CW, just 'cause). That should say something about Drake reliability, not to mention my fondness for Drakes. Oh, by the way, I also own a KWM-380. I still use the 7 line and prefer the 7 line. The only reason for the Collins is it is at my second home and it is nice to have a rig in one package (i.e. built in power supply) and I don't have much room for a shack in that second home. 73 Lee WB6SSW ___ Drakelist mailing list Drakelist@zerobeat.net http://mailman.zerobeat.net/mailman/listinfo/drakelist
Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared
- Original Message - From: Ron wd8...@yahoo.com To: k4...@mindspring.com; drakelist@zerobeat.net; john joh...@nc.rr.com Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared I came into this as computers were making a mark on the electronic industry and taking away the appeal of ham radio so I may have this a little wrong. I recall being told that Collins radio equipment was manufactured for the government at a time when money was flowing easy. Drake on the other hand did manufacture items for the government, but their radios were primarily for the ham radio consumer market. If true, then John's statements ring very clearly. Was I told wrong? 73, Ron WD8SBB I am not sure what Drake manufactured beside the ham radio stuff but they did make some commercial radio gear. Collins began as a garage shop run by Art Collins. During the depression he began by selling custom built radio tranmitters to the wealthier hams, and there _were_ wealthy people even during the depression. Collins always built his stuff to a very high level of perfection and finish. It was sold as much for prestigue as for performance. At some point he began to build equipment for the airlines and broadcasting, all of very high quality. At some point he developed the Autotune system, an automated method of tuning transmitters to a given frequency by means of pre-set servo motors. This system became very popular among the airline users since they needed to have frequency agile circuits. From that it was a natural transision to military equipment especially stuff for aircraft. The famous ART-13 is an example of an Autotune transmitter made for aircraft use. As others found government contracts could be enormously profitable. For one thing they were reliable, the bills would be payed, and they could be quite large. Once the defense industry got going, shortly before WW-2, there was an enormous expansion of industries catering to it. A number of businesses were created especially to deliver on government contracts (Northrup Aviation is an example). Collins did very well at this. Unlike some others (like Hallicrafters) Collins contract operations continued after the war. He supplied equipment thought vital to maintaining a defense effort and the company made sure to apply innovative design to insure a continuing market. Despite this Art Collins never forgot the ham market that had given him his start, but always filled exactly the same role as when beginning in business; deluxe, state of the art, equipment for those who could afford it. The first Collins ham products after the war featured the new idea of a permeability tuned VFO plus a different method of generating the final working frequencies that allowed an enmormous improvement in stability and dial accuracy over anything else ever offered. Three of these new products were the 75A receiver, the 32V transmitter and the super-deluxe 500 watt 30K-1 transmitter. None of these had any real competition as regards its performance. Hallicrafters was still offering a post-war version of the HT-4, AKA BC-610, at more than $1500. In 1946 this was probably equivalent to $30,000 now. Of course surplus BC-610's were soon available at a fraction of this cost. The 30K was of a similar order of cost but covered all ham bands and had a very stable VFO plus many other features. It was entirely up to date, used late Eimac tubes, and was just a superior machine, if one could afford it. The 75A receivers was the key however, this was a double conversion receiver using the collins permeability tuned VFO, crystal controled first conversion and the now familiar method of tuning with out actual bandswitching. It had a good, low noise front end, and an excellent crystal filter, evidently licensed by Hammarlund. It was ham band only, somewhat unusual at the time. It offered the same sort of performance in terms of stability, noise, and low spurious responses at 10 meters that other receivers could offer only up to about 20 meters and many not there. It was just revolutionary. Other receiver makers quickly began to develop double conversion sets but most of them were based on the conventional tunable first LO and fixed second LO so that stability was as much a problem as with conventional single conversion sets. I think all had problems so that it was a few years before any competition came out. In the mean time Collins kept improving both the receivers and transmitters and quickly picked up on the trend to SSB, which the other big manufacturers did not. However, Collins was always priced right at the top so could be only dreamed of by most hams. That opened a window of opportunity for smaller manufacturers to fill the gap. Drake was one of the more successful of those although Hallicrafters eventually began to make some respectible equipment. However, I think Hallicrafters
Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared
On Jun 16, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Garey Barrell wrote: Essentially, Drake came along and found less expensive ways to emulate the Collins equipment and circuitry to make it more affordable for the 'average' ham. Drake was just the reverse of Collins, i.e., the majority of their business was with hams, with a small (if any?) government segment. Heath did somewhat the same, although they went a little too far, in my opinion, and ended up with a product that felt 'cheap' and flimsy, compared even to the Drake. Drake was not fancy, but WAS and IS solid in construction. Well put, Garey. I've personally always considered Collins the gear for the rich man while Drake was the gear for everyman. Tom -- Tom Swisher, WA8PYR A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. - Thomas Jefferson ___ Drakelist mailing list Drakelist@zerobeat.net http://mailman.zerobeat.net/mailman/listinfo/drakelist
Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared
Paul - You have covered the differences pretty well. 'Value' of the different features is in the eye of the beholder, which may sway a purchaser one way or the other. Paul Christensen wrote: For the past few weeks, I've been comparing receive structures between the Drake 4 series and Collins 75S-3 series. I'm surprised by the similarities - as well as the differences. Some obvious differences: - Mechanical IF filter versus crystal or LC filtering; L/C filter preferred by some, including me, for day to day hamming purposes. The distortion of very steep-sided crystal filters can be very tiring. I also like to know what is going on around MY frequency. -160m coverage ability; Simple crystal addition for the Drake. - Tunable BFO versus PBT; PBT is preferable, since you essentially move the 'window' around the signal without changing pitch, but is difficult with a fixed filter. Look at the mechanical nightmare of the 75A-4. - Q Mult in 75S-3. Nice feature, handy in a few situations. Similarities: - PTO VFO with 1 kHz dial markings; - Preselector (similar octave structure?); - Crystal 1st LO (unlike early JA receivers during the same time period); - Audio power and AF driver stages similar to R-4B; - Extensive use of RCA jacks, including RF IN; This is the one that gets all the flack. Really unjustified, as the RCA jack is every bit as good as the UHF or BNC connector at the frequencies involved. It does suffer some from mechanical stability, but typically not a problem unless you insist on using RG-8/U with three adapters hung right on the RF Output jack! IF you do a LOT of setup/teardown of your station, these connectors do weaken, and in that case I would suggest short pigtail leads left in the RCA jacks with a more robust connector on the other end. Collins, like Drake, used PBT in the 1950s and I'm curious why it was abandoned in the S line. Perhaps too complex to use among commercial/military/amateur users? In essence, the least common operating denominator wins? See 75A-4 mechanicals. Both series use the chassis for the filament return, although Collins used four (!) heater lines in the 75S3. The filament wiring was dictating by the necessity of operating from multiple power supplies, requiring different series/parallel combinations to allow for filament voltages up to 28 VDC. I found Collins' treatment of the headphone jack quite interesting. They use a resistive divider network to load the output line during periods of high Z loads. Seems wholly unnecessary given that the 4-ohm transformer tap is routed through the H/P jack's N/C contacts and the 500-ohm tap makes use of the divider in which one resistor is bypassed during insertion of headphones. My recollection of the S line tuning feel is sketchy but I recall a superbly designed VFO tuning mechanism onto the PTO -- probably at least as mechanically well designed as the those found in the Drake 4 series? The PTO is where Collins superior mechanical construction is most obvious. Nice, solid machined case, gear driven dial with 'cute' fractional dial plates. Probably the best single feature of the Collins. There is a story floating around that said that Collins bought one of the very first TR-3's with the Drake PTO, and when they opened up the PTO housing they found a note that said, Pretty neat, huh Art? Bob Drake. The Drake PTO is much less mechanically robust, but there is elegance in simplicity of design and execution that results in essentially identical performance. I have found a Drake PTO or two that did NOT meet the Better than 1 kc when calibrated at nearest 100 kc point or 3 kc end-to-end specification, but in each case there were at least indications that someone had been 'fixing' inside them. The 100 cycle stability after warm up was outstanding in it's time, and still isn't too bad today. The Collins is marginally quieter as a result of lower B+ producing less thermal noise, but I don't think there is anywhere in the world where a receiver isn't limited first by externally generated RF noise, so not really any 'value' unless you have a screen room for your ham shack. Perhaps the Collins S line has a slight edge with quality of construction and components although I've not taken a look at whether the 75S-3 uses ceramic switch wafers versus Phenolic -- and whether they used Teflon harness wiring (where Drake fails). It's been a while since I was inside my S-Line, but I believe they used some 'plastic' wafers along with some ceramic, similar to Drake. The Collins only went to Teflon wire late in production, early used a thermoplastic type, although it was MUCH less heat sensitive than the Drake wire. I've NEVER seen wire that heat sensitive in ANY other equipment. Drake used the small PC boards as component accumulators, with little regard for what was on what board. Most had more than one circuit 'section' on it, basically just
Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared
Collins made extraordinary radios with extraordinary parts Drake made extraordinary radios with quite ordinary parts. John K5MO ___ Drakelist mailing list Drakelist@zerobeat.net http://mailman.zerobeat.net/mailman/listinfo/drakelist
Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared
My 2cents worth I've had the pleasure of owning both B and C lines,as well as a Collins S3 line. I liked the Collins S line,it was well designed built,and sure performed well,but it's gone 3 years and I still have my B and C lines. Main reason was lack of 160 meters on S line,but not the only reason. I could hear anything on my Drakes as well as I could on my Collins. Drakes took up less real estate on the desk also. The two were about the same for vfo drift,not bad,but VERY respectable. Big plus is the pretty blue meters / dials! Nuff said AD3G On 6/14/2011 10:30 PM, Paul Christensen wrote: For the past few weeks, I've been comparing receive structures between the Drake 4 series and Collins 75S-3 series. I'm surprised by the similarities - as well as the differences. Some obvious differences: - Mechanical IF filter versus crystal or LC filtering; -160m coverage ability; - Tunable BFO versus PBT; - Q Mult in 75S-3. Similarities: - PTO VFO with 1 kHz dial markings; - Preselector (similar octave structure?); - Crystal 1st LO (unlike early JA receivers during the same time period); - Audio power and AF driver stages similar to R-4B; - Extensive use of RCA jacks, including RF IN; Collins, like Drake, used PBT in the 1950s and I'm curious why it was abandoned in the S line. Perhaps too complex to use among commercial/military/amateur users? In essence, the least common operating denominator wins? Both series use the chassis for the filament return, although Collins used four (!) heater lines in the 75S3. I found Collins' treatment of the headphone jack quite interesting. They use a resistive divider network to load the output line during periods of high Z loads. Seems wholly unnecessary given that the 4-ohm transformer tap is routed through the H/P jack's N/C contacts and the 500-ohm tap makes use of the divider in which one resistor is bypassed during insertion of headphones. My recollection of the S line tuning feel is sketchy but I recall a superbly designed VFO tuning mechanism onto the PTO -- probably at least as mechanically well designed as the those found in the Drake 4 series? Perhaps the Collins S line has a slight edge with quality of construction and components although I've not taken a look at whether the 75S-3 uses ceramic switch wafers versus Phenolic -- and whether they used Teflon harness wiring (where Drake fails).I have nearly no operating time with an S line and I was considering a purchase. But based on what I'm seeing in the schematics, I'm not impressed enough to unload my bank account for a S line. This may seem like a trolling exercise to some, but I find the comparison between the two products to be very interesting especially when comparing cost and evolution of their product lines. Thoughts on the matter very much appreciated. Paul, W9AC ___ Drakelist mailing list Drakelist@zerobeat.net http://mailman.zerobeat.net/mailman/listinfo/drakelist ___ Drakelist mailing list Drakelist@zerobeat.net http://mailman.zerobeat.net/mailman/listinfo/drakelist
Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared
Paul said This may seem like a trolling exercise to some, And in light of most of your posts, yes, it does, hi. I have several Drakes and several Collins rigs. I love different things about each and plan to keep ALL as long as I can enjoy and maintain them. I think you should have both, AND some Heathkits, some Swans oops, maybe I'm going too far there, :^)) 73, Don, WB5HAK ___ Drakelist mailing list Drakelist@zerobeat.net http://mailman.zerobeat.net/mailman/listinfo/drakelist
Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared
Great set of responses, both from public and private E-mails. Many thanks to all for your input. It was a real learning experience for me since I have not lived the moment with a Collins S Line. Paul, W9AC Original Message - From: Paul draked...@comcast.net To: drakelist@zerobeat.net Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:52 PM Subject: Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared My 2cents worth I've had the pleasure of owning both B and C lines,as well as a Collins S3 line. I liked the Collins S line,it was well designed built,and sure performed well,but it's gone 3 years and I still have my B and C lines. Main reason was lack of 160 meters on S line,but not the only reason. I could hear anything on my Drakes as well as I could on my Collins. Drakes took up less real estate on the desk also. The two were about the same for vfo drift,not bad,but VERY respectable. Big plus is the pretty blue meters / dials! Nuff said AD3G On 6/14/2011 10:30 PM, Paul Christensen wrote: For the past few weeks, I've been comparing receive structures between the Drake 4 series and Collins 75S-3 series. I'm surprised by the similarities - as well as the differences. Some obvious differences: - Mechanical IF filter versus crystal or LC filtering; -160m coverage ability; - Tunable BFO versus PBT; - Q Mult in 75S-3. Similarities: - PTO VFO with 1 kHz dial markings; - Preselector (similar octave structure?); - Crystal 1st LO (unlike early JA receivers during the same time period); - Audio power and AF driver stages similar to R-4B; - Extensive use of RCA jacks, including RF IN; Collins, like Drake, used PBT in the 1950s and I'm curious why it was abandoned in the S line. Perhaps too complex to use among commercial/military/amateur users? In essence, the least common operating denominator wins? Both series use the chassis for the filament return, although Collins used four (!) heater lines in the 75S3. I found Collins' treatment of the headphone jack quite interesting. They use a resistive divider network to load the output line during periods of high Z loads. Seems wholly unnecessary given that the 4-ohm transformer tap is routed through the H/P jack's N/C contacts and the 500-ohm tap makes use of the divider in which one resistor is bypassed during insertion of headphones. My recollection of the S line tuning feel is sketchy but I recall a superbly designed VFO tuning mechanism onto the PTO -- probably at least as mechanically well designed as the those found in the Drake 4 series? Perhaps the Collins S line has a slight edge with quality of construction and components although I've not taken a look at whether the 75S-3 uses ceramic switch wafers versus Phenolic -- and whether they used Teflon harness wiring (where Drake fails).I have nearly no operating time with an S line and I was considering a purchase. But based on what I'm seeing in the schematics, I'm not impressed enough to unload my bank account for a S line. This may seem like a trolling exercise to some, but I find the comparison between the two products to be very interesting especially when comparing cost and evolution of their product lines. Thoughts on the matter very much appreciated. Paul, W9AC ___ Drakelist mailing list Drakelist@zerobeat.net http://mailman.zerobeat.net/mailman/listinfo/drakelist ___ Drakelist mailing list Drakelist@zerobeat.net http://mailman.zerobeat.net/mailman/listinfo/drakelist ___ Drakelist mailing list Drakelist@zerobeat.net http://mailman.zerobeat.net/mailman/listinfo/drakelist
[Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared
For the past few weeks, I've been comparing receive structures between the Drake 4 series and Collins 75S-3 series. I'm surprised by the similarities - as well as the differences. Some obvious differences: - Mechanical IF filter versus crystal or LC filtering; -160m coverage ability; - Tunable BFO versus PBT; - Q Mult in 75S-3. Similarities: - PTO VFO with 1 kHz dial markings; - Preselector (similar octave structure?); - Crystal 1st LO (unlike early JA receivers during the same time period); - Audio power and AF driver stages similar to R-4B; - Extensive use of RCA jacks, including RF IN; Collins, like Drake, used PBT in the 1950s and I'm curious why it was abandoned in the S line. Perhaps too complex to use among commercial/military/amateur users? In essence, the least common operating denominator wins? Both series use the chassis for the filament return, although Collins used four (!) heater lines in the 75S3. I found Collins' treatment of the headphone jack quite interesting. They use a resistive divider network to load the output line during periods of high Z loads. Seems wholly unnecessary given that the 4-ohm transformer tap is routed through the H/P jack's N/C contacts and the 500-ohm tap makes use of the divider in which one resistor is bypassed during insertion of headphones. My recollection of the S line tuning feel is sketchy but I recall a superbly designed VFO tuning mechanism onto the PTO -- probably at least as mechanically well designed as the those found in the Drake 4 series? Perhaps the Collins S line has a slight edge with quality of construction and components although I've not taken a look at whether the 75S-3 uses ceramic switch wafers versus Phenolic -- and whether they used Teflon harness wiring (where Drake fails).I have nearly no operating time with an S line and I was considering a purchase. But based on what I'm seeing in the schematics, I'm not impressed enough to unload my bank account for a S line. This may seem like a trolling exercise to some, but I find the comparison between the two products to be very interesting especially when comparing cost and evolution of their product lines. Thoughts on the matter very much appreciated. Paul, W9AC ___ Drakelist mailing list Drakelist@zerobeat.net http://mailman.zerobeat.net/mailman/listinfo/drakelist
Re: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared
- Original Message - From: Paul Christensen w...@arrl.net To: drakelist@zerobeat.net Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:30 PM Subject: [Drakelist] Collins and Drake Compared For the past few weeks, I've been comparing receive structures between the Drake 4 series and Collins 75S-3 series. I'm surprised by the similarities - as well as the differences. Some obvious differences: - Mechanical IF filter versus crystal or LC filtering; -160m coverage ability; - Tunable BFO versus PBT; - Q Mult in 75S-3. Similarities: - PTO VFO with 1 kHz dial markings; - Preselector (similar octave structure?); - Crystal 1st LO (unlike early JA receivers during the same time period); - Audio power and AF driver stages similar to R-4B; - Extensive use of RCA jacks, including RF IN; Collins, like Drake, used PBT in the 1950s and I'm curious why it was abandoned in the S line. Perhaps too complex to use among commercial/military/amateur users? In essence, the least common operating denominator wins? Both series use the chassis for the filament return, although Collins used four (!) heater lines in the 75S3. I found Collins' treatment of the headphone jack quite interesting. They use a resistive divider network to load the output line during periods of high Z loads. Seems wholly unnecessary given that the 4-ohm transformer tap is routed through the H/P jack's N/C contacts and the 500-ohm tap makes use of the divider in which one resistor is bypassed during insertion of headphones. My recollection of the S line tuning feel is sketchy but I recall a superbly designed VFO tuning mechanism onto the PTO -- probably at least as mechanically well designed as the those found in the Drake 4 series? Perhaps the Collins S line has a slight edge with quality of construction and components although I've not taken a look at whether the 75S-3 uses ceramic switch wafers versus Phenolic -- and whether they used Teflon harness wiring (where Drake fails).I have nearly no operating time with an S line and I was considering a purchase. But based on what I'm seeing in the schematics, I'm not impressed enough to unload my bank account for a S line. This may seem like a trolling exercise to some, but I find the comparison between the two products to be very interesting especially when comparing cost and evolution of their product lines. Thoughts on the matter very much appreciated. Paul, W9AC I would be interested in hearing from others who have both systems. I do find Drake gear difficult to work on because of the very short leads, use of component leads as connection wires, and low-temperature insulation. I just have trouble with the very confined spaces. There is good reason for the short leads and it shows up in the performance of the gear, nonetheless, its difficult to work on. I don't know that Collins is any better. What I remember is that Collins made a big splash with the S line stuff when it came out and then Drake blew them out of the water with about similar performance (sometimes better) at maybe 2/3rds the price. -- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles WB6KBL dickb...@ix.netcom.com ___ Drakelist mailing list Drakelist@zerobeat.net http://mailman.zerobeat.net/mailman/listinfo/drakelist
