Drake Usage?

[W6ONV]

I know this will probably come off sounding foolish, but is it worthwhile to have and use a rig like the Drake TR-7 (with PSU) or the TR4, TX4? I know very little about older rigs, when tubes were the standard (too young). It is very possible I could acquire these as "hand me downs" in the very near future. All the units have been stored and not used for many, many years (1980s at least). I know boatanchors are quite popular but what would these rigs provide in today's standard of operation that my FT-1000MPs wouldn't? If for no other reason I want them for nostalgic stake because my father used them when he was active. Comments? Oh and for the inquiring minds I would not sell them.

[N8YX]

Absolutely.

If you can do without FM and memories, a TR-7 will still hold its own against many "state of the art" rigs. Want even more flexibility? Pair it with an R7 and/or an RV7-RV75 and work split.

[W6ONV]

I posted a bit prematurely I just noticed the other Drake thread.

[WB2WIK]

The TR-7 doesn't have any tubes.

If the stuff's been stored a very long time, chances are switch contacts are oxidized and need cleaning. The AC power supply for the tube stuff (AC-4 probably) might need new filter capacitors. The low voltage caps in the PS-7 power supply (for the TR-7) are likely just fine.

Receiving tubes have very long storage life and normally don't degrade just sitting.

Chances are if this stuff all worked when stored, it probably all still works but might need some switch and contact cleaning, etc.

[K0RGR]

The TR-7 is competitive with anything you can buy today. I'd definitely hang onto it. The noise blanker in the later TR-4's and the the TR-7 are better than anything they build these days.

Care and feeding of the transmitting tubes in the Drake Twins can be a chore.

[KA4DPO]

The TR-7 is competitive with anything you can buy today. I'd definitely hang onto it. The noise blanker in the later TR-4's and the the TR-7 are better than anything they build these days.

Care and feeding of the transmitting tubes in the Drake Twins can be a chore.

I don't use my T4XB often but I do use the R4B reciever a good bit. I have several sets of new tubes for both the transmitter and receiver but the 6JB6 sweep tubes used in the final are becomming scarce. I have three more sets and that should outlast me but you do have to treat sweep tubes with care to make them last a long time.

Unlike 807's and 6146's that can take a beating sweep tubes are not designed for more than about 25 or 30 watts of plate dissapation maximum. In intermittent service such as SSB and CW they can handle 120 to 140 watts of input for a brief period. If you are careful with them they will last for many years but they are very unforgiving of mistakes.

[WB2WIK]

Unlike 807's and 6146's that can take a beating sweep tubes are not designed for more than about 25 or 30 watts of plate dissapation maximum.

Ya know, the 6146 isn't rated much differently, truth be told. The original 6146 and 6146A were rated 25W dissipation, and the "new and improved" 6146B was rated 35W dissipation:

http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phys/la...46b/6146b.html

There were other differences that led to the 6146 proving itself a more worthy transmitting tube. I'm not even sure what they all were! Surely the base is more rugged (octal, bigger pins, metal reinforced base); maybe the glass is even different. Internal construction's different, too (compared with the sweep tubes).

No question the 6146 family handles abuse far better.

[KA4DPO]

Ya know, the 6146 isn't rated much differently, truth be told. The original 6146 and 6146A were rated 25W dissipation, and the "new and improved" 6146B was rated 35W dissipation:

http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phys/la...46b/6146b.html

There were other differences that led to the 6146 proving itself a more worthy transmitting tube. I'm not even sure what they all were! Surely the base is more rugged (octal, bigger pins, metal reinforced base); maybe the glass is even different. Internal construction's different, too (compared with the sweep tubes).

No question the 6146 family handles abuse far better.

Right you are but that's 25 watts continuous for the 6146, and they can take a lot more heat than a sweep tube. Sweeps have to be kept cool and every Drake rig should have a fan mounted on it. Sweep tubes were designed for intermittent duty but are OK in ICAS service. They also are not as linear as a 6146 but close if the design is good. The regular transmitting beam pentodes were designed for continuous duty.

It's too bad Drake built some of the best radios ever and used sweep tubes in the finals. But back then it made sense and who knew that one day they would be hard to find?

[WB2WIK]

Yeah, everybody except Collins, Heathkit and Kenwood used sweep tubes. Even E.F. Johnson did in many of their transmitters.

Swan did something interesting in that they used sweep tubes in all the HF rigs but 6146's in the six meter rig, SW-250/250C.

Yaesu used sweeps up until the FT101ZD model, which is the best of that series. Picking better tubes is one of the reasons.

I've modified some older transceivers to install octal sockets and re-wire for 6146Bs. In some cases, nothing has to be changed but the sockets and the wiring. Takes the rig out of "collector class" immediately, but sure makes the tubes easier to find.

[K9STH]

Steve:

You forgot about the Heath DX-20 and HX-11 which used a 6DQ6 sweep tube in the final.

Also, the "monobander" (HW-12, HW-12A, etc.) and the HW-16 units used sweep tubes.

Glen, K9STH