I usually call those "CATV transistors" :-). 2N5109 etc. They also have very reasonable power dissipations and despite being "UHF transistors" they are most commonly used today in low-frequency work where high IP3 is crucial.
That said, it is possible that going to multiple consecutive common-base stages with jellybean transistors, is good enough, that layout and packaging become more important than using specialized transistors. There's a real beauty to many of the NIST designs - using topology and jellybean parts to achieve the performance, rather than selected devices. Tim N3QE On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <p...@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > -------- > In message <fd679d47-7f70-4055-ab68-a6aea6e95...@n1k.org>, Bob Camp > writes: > > >There were (and maybe still are) SOT-89 versions of the 2N3804 and > >3906. They will handle more power than most of the other versions. > >That gives you better Vce on the string. They also have less > > Stupid question: I would have expected them to use capacitance > optimized transistors, also known as UHF transistors ? > > Something like BFQ19 maybe ? > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. > _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.