Just Bagged Me a PCR.

[pwdrive]

Yes I wondered about that David, I would have thought a BFO would be a good addition, it would be good enough for SSB listening although I suppose you would have to drill the panel/cabinet for the controls, could always do an outboard job and feed an injector wire in to the detector through the power lead hole and replace one of the speaker sockets with a jack socket and use the spare socket for an AGC switch, not to much butchery involved.

Lawrence.

[Skywave]

. . . the 'PTR' - a variant communications receiver similar to the original PCR receiver, but which was fitted with a BFO valve stage and other circuit features making it suitable for both speech and CW (Morse code) reception.

Amazing what you learn here, innit? After all these years of fiddling around with various comms. receivers, I've never heard of a 'PTR' receiver, let alone as a variant to the PCR. I've always been led to believe that the abbreviation 'PCR' stood for 'Personal Communications Receiver'. On that basis, anyone know what the abbreviation 'PTR' stood for?

Al.

[Yorkie]

There's a little bit about the PTR (as well as quite a lot about the PCR range) at this link, but it doesn't explain what the acronym PTR stands for:

http://www.pyetelecomhistory.org/prodhis..._PCR_PCR2_

Unlike the 1155, which spanned the war years and beyond from 1939 and into the late 40s, the PCR range came into being quite late in the war in 1944, and continued in production into the 1960s. Unless my mind is playing tricks, I seem to recall them being sold by surplus dealers as 'Sputnik Specials' to monitor the Sputnik signals on. (1956 or thereabouts?).

They came with a separate power supply - either for AC mains, like Joe's, or a 12 Volt vibrator PSU.

When we look at prices of magazine adverts back in the 1950s and 60s and see such sets as 1155s, PCRs, 19 sets etc, at £10 each, they were really very expensive, and by no means a bargain. At that time they were so commonplace that few buyers would have considered them a collectors item - just a means of getting hold of a short-wave receiver which could be adapted and improved to suit their SWLing or amateur needs. Apart from that, components to build a short wave receiver or transmitter - unless culled from old sets be they civilian or military - could be bought.

As to collecting sets (other than to put them to good use), back then, few had any net disposable income to indulge in collecting such things, (which most at that time wouldn't have considered 'collectable' anyway), and few would have much space to store them. From my recollections, it was not until the mid 1970s that such sets started to become covetable. Nowadays of course, for those who wish to indulge themselves, there's e-bay...

[Skywave]

Indeed David - I agree with everything in those last two paragraphs: I recall those days well.

There's a little bit about the PTR (as well as quite a lot about the PCR range) at this link, but it doesn't explain what the acronym PTR stands for:

http://www.pyetelecomhistory.org/prodhis..._PCR_PCR2_

I see it states that 'PCR' stands for Portable Comms. receiver. 'Portable'? I think that that is open to some debate! Anyway, the author of that article obviously knows more about that receiver than I do, so I'll acquiesce to higher knowledge.

When we look at prices of magazine adverts back in the 1950s and 60s and see such sets as 1155s, PCRs, 19 sets etc, at £10 each, they were really very expensive . . . .

And so was the RCA AR88D! I did fleetingly contemplate buying a S/H one back in the mid '60s when I was a very keen SWL, but with only a very modest income from a paper-round, such a purchase was really quite out of the question. Besides, a good chunk of that income was used to pay back the loan that my father gave me in order to buy the bike that enabled me to do the round in the first place!
Many years have passed since, of course: I'm now the proud owner of another '88D (the third one I have owned). When I am using it, I will admit that I do occasionally become immersed in waves of nostalgia: I have a lurking suspicion that that was part of my motive for buying this one. To quote Pink Floyd:
"The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime".

Al.

[Yorkie]

The AR88 is a superb receiver. If you could only own one communications receiver, I think the AR88 would be it, albeit some might argue for Collins or Racal. The price of AR88s was astronomical and only the very wealthy could afford to buy them. Indeed, you could just about buy a car in America fnr the price of an AR88, so it's no wonder they didn't sell all that well in the early stages, but WW2 came along, and with money no object, they went into full scale production, and post war, hit the surplus market, but even then, were out of the reach to all but those with deep pockets.

Heaps of info about the AR88 here:

http://www.radioblvd.com/ar88.htm

I think one of the most remarkable receivers was the HRO - quite ahead of its time, given that it was conceived in the early 1930s when the superhet principle (the theory of which was known about in the early 1900s) was just beginning to be widely adopted. By then, improvements in valve technology began to erode cost advantages of TRFs, and the explosion of broadcast stations called for greater selectivity. The designers figured that by using plug-in coil packs bandswitching losses and complexity could be obviated.

History of HROs:

http://www.radioblvd.com/National%20HRO.htm

Post WW2 HRO and other communications radios here:

http://www.radioblvd.com/Post-WWII%20Ham%20Gear.htm

[pwdrive]

Glad to see you rate the HRO David, like you say ahead of it's time, max performance with min components, the AR88 was and is still an excellent receiver, the downside for me apart from the wieght is the tuning drive, switched selectivity (not variable) and no Xtal phasing control and the "s" meter arrangement.
The SX28 has switched selectivity and a Xtal phasing control and just about everything else including the Lamb based noise limiter.
The HRO has fully variable selectivity plus phasing control which is a bonus when trying to sought out SSB reception.
The attributes of the tuning drive on the HRO are well known with excellent resolution if the coil packs are set to bandspread mode, no backlash, no slipage and first class resetability, no noise limiter though until later on.
I think the AR88 was one of the first to use the then new fangled low loss polystyrene coil formers in the RF stages.
Prior to the AR88, the HRO had adopted the use of R39 Bakelite in the 30's which used crushed mica as a filler as opposed to wood flour which was hygroscopic, the new material giving a better Q figure, I think the R39 material was patented by Boonton? one of the best Q meter manufacturers around back then.The HRO's "S" meter used a bridge arrangement but with a "live" pot shaft! Also the IF's were capacitor tuned, and therefore also "live" no jammed or broken cores there.
These are only a few of the classic comms sets that were around at the time, there were many more. I believe some of the early Hammarlunds were very good although I have never owned an early one to try out.
In the more modern valve stakes the consensus seems to be the Collins 390A versus the Racal RA17/117, I always wanted the 390A but so far it eludes me, I hear the performance and engineering is 1st rate.

Lawrence.

[pwdrive]

To quote Pink Floyd:
"The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime".

From Obscured by Clouds a fine album as was Medal etc.

Lawrence.

[Skywave]

The AR88 is a superb receiver. If you could only own one communications receiver, I think the AR88 would be it, albeit some might argue for Collins or Racal.

Yes, you can include me in that latter category. I've always wanted a 75A-4: it looks 'the business' - and it is, too!
P.S. The Collins 75A-4 is featured in The Gallery.

Al.

[pwdrive]

We'd better not meet on Ebay then Al.

Lawrence.

[Skywave]

I believe some of the early Hammarlunds were very good although I have never owned an early one to try out.
Lawrence.

It may not qualify as an 'early one', but I did have the use of a Hammarlund HQ-180X many, many years ago (courtesy of G4IOT, now sadly S.K.) - and yes, its performance was excellent. Hammarlund receivers were never widely distributed in the U.K.: the one I mention above was imported to the U.K. by K.W. Electronics.
The HQ-180 is featured in The Gallery.

Al.