I just picked one up a few months ago. Are they worth restoring,
and how does their performance stack up?

Pete

"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
...
I just picked one up a few months ago. Are they worth
restoring,
and how does their performance stack up?

Pete
They are pretty good receivers given the era they were
designed in. If you are not far from LA and don't want it I
will give it a good home. :-)


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

Uncle Peter wrote:

I just picked one up a few months ago. Are they worth restoring,
and how does their performance stack up?

In my opinion - they are a quite worth-while receiver - not quite in the
R-39Xx class - but not all that far from it. Definitely in the upper end
of the scale for that era and technology - being built more like a
military radio (using ceramic wafer switches, and sealed transformers,
etc.) Like some of the National and other "upper end" commercial units -
the AR-88 was used by the military quite a bit - some receiving formal
ID plates, etc. some of the later ones receiving Signal Corps
designation R-320 (though these were actually labeled by RCA as SC-88
receivers).

The FAA used them for many, many years - there was even a "triple
receiver" diversity rack having three stacked with supporting equipment...

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

Randy or Sherry Guttery wrote:
Uncle Peter wrote:

I just picked one up a few months ago. Are they worth restoring,
and how does their performance stack up?

In my opinion - they are a quite worth-while receiver - not quite in the
R-39Xx class - but not all that far from it. Definitely in the upper end
of the scale for that era and technology - being built more like a
military radio (using ceramic wafer switches, and sealed transformers,
etc.) Like some of the National and other "upper end" commercial units -
the AR-88 was used by the military quite a bit - some receiving formal
ID plates, etc. some of the later ones receiving Signal Corps
designation R-320 (though these were actually labeled by RCA as SC-88
receivers).

It's wide as hell. Consequently the audio quality on shortwave broadcasts
is excellent. It's not a DX machine, though.

I remember seeing an RCA Globecomm facility when I was a kid which was
equipped with three AR-88 sets and two Collins R-388 sets, and all of the
operators preferred working on the R-388 positions.

Still, saying "not as good as an R-388" is decent praise.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
It's wide as hell. Consequently the audio quality on shortwave
broadcasts
is excellent. It's not a DX machine, though.

I remember seeing an RCA Globecomm facility when I was a kid which was
equipped with three AR-88 sets and two Collins R-388 sets, and all of the
operators preferred working on the R-388 positions.

Still, saying "not as good as an R-388" is decent praise.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I'm surprised that it is that "wide." The selectivity curves are very
impressive;
and RCA put a lot of effort into the IF transformer design. I suspect
aligning
the IF and filter will be a bear to do.

This receiver is from an RCA Global Communications facility, it still has
the
RCA sticker and inventory number on the front panel. There's also a
custom calibrated BFO plate that wasn't on the orignal RX either.

Pete

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

It's wide as hell. Consequently the audio quality on shortwave broadcasts
is excellent. It's not a DX machine, though.

I remember seeing an RCA Globecomm facility when I was a kid which was
equipped with three AR-88 sets and two Collins R-388 sets, and all of the
operators preferred working on the R-388 positions.

Still, saying "not as good as an R-388" is decent praise.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I've owned a couple 88s in my time and yes it's no 390 but still a nice rig
if working well. They have decent audio and with a good antenna they are
capable of broadcast DX work to a point. Their no utility DX machine, but no
radio from that era really is.


--
Regards
B.H.
Hill Amplification
http://hillamplification.com

Brian's Radio Universe
http://webpages.charter.net/brianhill/500.htm

Uncle Peter wrote:

I'm surprised that it is that "wide." The selectivity curves are very
impressive;
and RCA put a lot of effort into the IF transformer design. I suspect
aligning
the IF and filter will be a bear to do.

To align the IF correctly - one needs a sweep generator. And yes - not
aligned correctly - they would imitate the nearest "barn door" for
bandwidth.

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

"Randy or Sherry Guttery" wrote in message

To align the IF correctly - one needs a sweep generator. And yes - not
aligned correctly - they would imitate the nearest "barn door" for
bandwidth.

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


Yes a sweep gen and oscilloscope are nice in this regard but the job can be
done correctly using a accurate sig gen or at least close enough for this
type of rig.

--
Regards
B.H.
Hill Amplification
http://hillamplification.com

Brian's Radio Universe
http://webpages.charter.net/brianhill/500.htm

In article , Brian Hill wrote:
"Randy or Sherry Guttery" wrote in message

To align the IF correctly - one needs a sweep generator. And yes - not
aligned correctly - they would imitate the nearest "barn door" for
bandwidth.

Yes a sweep gen and oscilloscope are nice in this regard but the job can be
done correctly using a accurate sig gen or at least close enough for this
type of rig.

I believe that the IF on the AR-88 is peaked and not staggered, which
means you can indeed get away with just a signal generator and a scope.

Again, the IF on the AR-88 may be pretty tight for something with only
LCR networks, but it's not anywhere near as tight as crystal or mechanical
filters will allow. This is either a substantial advantage or disadvantage
depending on your application.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Brian Hill wrote:

Yes a sweep gen and oscilloscope are nice in this regard but the job can be
done correctly using a accurate sig gen or at least close enough for this
type of rig.

Yes, someone with a mile of patience might get all sections tuned right
with a stable gen - I'm just not that patient, and "close enough"
probably depends on how good of performance someone is willing to settle
for.

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