Roger D Johnson wrote:


It must have taken him hours of carefully bending leads so
he could get it into the case without shorting anything.
Needless to say, virtually every stage in the RX was
oscillating. I did a bunch of cutting and resoldering and
finally got it working. I wish I had a picture of my face
when I pulled it out of the case!

an artificial rats nest... what a hoot!
best regards...
--
randy guttery

A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews
so vital to the United States Silent Service:
http://tendertale.com

The tube lineup is from the later generation of miniature tubes - which
means mid 60's. It looks like the first conversion oscillator is crystal
controlled and the receiver uses a tunable if stage - similar to Drake.
That means it would be easy to change thr crystal controlled first
conversion stage and cover any other range. Might be a good 10 meter
receiver - or perhaps the 12 meter band. There could be some value to a cb
collector, since few home brew receivers were made.

One of the pots might be noise limiting adjustment, or one could be for a
Q-multiplier.

Colin K7FM

"COLIN LAMB" wrote in message
ink.net...
The tube lineup is from the later generation of miniature tubes - which
means mid 60's. It looks like the first conversion oscillator is crystal
controlled and the receiver uses a tunable if stage - similar to Drake.
That means it would be easy to change thr crystal controlled first
conversion stage and cover any other range. Might be a good 10 meter
receiver - or perhaps the 12 meter band. There could be some value to a
cb collector, since few home brew receivers were made.

One of the pots might be noise limiting adjustment, or one could be for a
Q-multiplier.

Colin K7FM


Didn't one issue of like an RCA Tube Manual - have a schematic in it for a
cb receiver or "transceiver"? I know I've seen them out there.

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:38:55 +0000, Michael Black wrote:
I thought building a kit CB transceiver was illegal due to the type
acceptance issue?
....
So perhaps the type acceptance came a bit later? I can't remember (not
that I was aware of such things at the time, but I have read lots of
back issues of magazines).

ISTR:

- Heath equipment was acceptable contingent on being assembled
according to the instructions. There was a notice in some of the manuals
about that - ISTR some devices where one part was a Part 15 label which
the builder was to sign & date & stick to the completed kit certifying
they'd followed the instructions.

- It was legal to homebrew CB gear in the early days of the service, but
that rule was changed - well before the 1960s. (I'm not sure it was
*ever* legal to homebrew 27MHz CB gear, it may have only been legal for
the old 470MHz stuff)

Hi,

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:34:00 +0000, Doug Smith W9WI wrote:

- It was legal to homebrew CB gear in the early days of the service, but
that rule was changed - well before the 1960s. (I'm not sure it was
*ever* legal to homebrew 27MHz CB gear, it may have only been legal for
the old 470MHz stuff)

It may not have been in the US, but before regulation and since
deregulation, one can build up to 5 CB's and call them prototypes in .ca
land, as long as they meet Industry Canada (then the Department of
Communications) specifications.

Maybe it's a Canuck rig?

Cheers,

__
Gregg

Just for clarification on my last post, info can be found in RSS210,
section 5.14 of Industry Canada's regulations. Home built for personal
use, not prototypes. My err.

Cheers,
__
Gregg

IN the sixties (and early seventies), it was common for the hobby
electronic magazines to treat CB as a hobby. This was especially so
for "Electronics Illustrated" that had quite a few construction articles,
going from simple to quite sophisticated.
In the early sixties I ordered one of those cb kits from an
electronics magazine. It consisted of a crudely punched chassis, a bag
of parts and a schematic. I never did get it to work.

I thought building a kit CB transceiver was illegal due to the type
acceptance issue?
=========================================
Building a CB 'receiver' from a kit can't be illegal.

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

Highland Ham wrote:

I thought building a kit CB transceiver was illegal due to the type
acceptance issue?

=========================================
Building a CB 'receiver' from a kit can't be illegal.


Surely there are those amongst us that built 27MHz walkie-talkie
kits from Allied (Knight) and others in the 1960's...

Regards,

Michael

msg wrote:


Surely there are those amongst us that built 27MHz walkie-talkie
kits from Allied (Knight) and others in the 1960's...

Back in the '60's - I was building AM broadcast transmitters, not CBs -
however - here in ought 7 - I have a 1962 Allied catalog in which the
back section is a KnightKit catalog. On page 408 there is a C-11
Citizens Band Transceiver Kit ($39.95). It transmits on any 1 of 22 CB
channels depending on crystal installed, and it manually tunes all 22 CB
channels. It does not list the tubes, but does note it's a superhet.

On the next page is a model C-27 Deluxe Transceiver Kit - for reception
it too manually tunes all 22 channels - plus has provisions for two
crystal controlled channels. The same switch also selects one of two
transmit frequencies. This is a dual conversion receiver, and while it
again does not list the tube compliment - it does say "7 dual-purpose
tubes, 2 single-purpose tubes, VR and rectifier". Since it mentions
regulated supplies for the oscillators, pretty sure that's the "VR".
$79.95 plus 2nd crystals - $1.95 each (transmit or receive, specify
channel).

best regards...
--
randy guttery

A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews
so vital to the United States Silent Service:
http://tendertale.com

Thanks for all the replies.

The chassis is very professionally done. The wiring is not so well
done. The filter cap wiring on the transmitter socket divider is a
joke. Thus the idea of a kit seems reasonable. There is only one
crystal socket. So the Knight Kit seems to be out. Family issues are
keeping me from more work on the rig right now, So I'll have to just
wait see what else is posted here, for a while before trying to draw a
schematic

I really am impressed by those that want to help, plus I've learned
some things.


Thankjs again.

Jim