| Author |
Message |
    
Kirk
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 5:55 pm: | 
|
Which of the 4 (that I know of) are most sought after and why? I have a chance at a 3 and a 4. Can someone who knows tell me what one might be better or different in one way or another? I have no clue with Browning, but would like to learn. 73 |
Kwick_73
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 12:51 am: |
|
I have owned both the Mark III, and the Mark IV. The III takes a litte more know how to run but is in my opinion the better radio. alot of people may try to detour you away from buying an older set, but don't let that discourage you from getting one if you want it. I have a brand new ranger and my unmodified Mark III out preforms it.
Please note that these are my personal opinions, I'm not a tech or professional, this is based on my use of the equipment mentioned.
Kevin
kwick_73
Golden Eagle
BT-073 |
RCI 2990
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 1:14 am: |
|
My faves?? A good working MK 3 or a MK 2... IMO i actually liked the MK 2 better than the MK 3 i had but i liked them both.... I had a MK 2 and built a crystal box for it to TX on some of my fave regular 40 channels that the TX portion of the MK 2 couldnt access.. :-)
I have a MK 4 but it is sick and in the radio shop....... :-( |
Crafter
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 1:27 am: |
|
I've owned III's, IV's and a IV-a...But my opinion I liked my mark three's. Once you get used to talking on them its easy, But dont think your going to talk alot of ssb I just used mine AM with a glen slider. They sure bring good money on e-bay now. I got a friend who has a set of bi-Centinnial eagles the gold one's with the gold d104. I'm really thinking of getting them off him just to have another good old radio. |
2600
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 1:49 am: |
|
I have repaired literally hundreds of Browning Radios, and for my money the miles matter as much as the years. Both Tram and Browning abandoned the traditional "open-chassis" wiring method to build their last models. The original Tram D201 was a pretty well-designed radio, but very expensive to produce. Tram did what everybody else in the business had done, and started putting most of the parts onto printed-circuit boards. It radically reduced the cost of their assembly labor. This changed the airflow through the cabinet, and not for the better. Parts that were hanging upside-down with free space around them in the old design were now atop a flat surface with reduced air flow as a result. Made some parts get hotter than the original design had intended. Routine service for a circuit-board D201 involves pulling a dozen or more overheated resistors and replacing them with bigger ones that won't get so hot.
The Mark IV Browning had more problems than JUST the restricted airflow/overheating parts. Browning had begun design of the Mark IV as a 23-channel radio, but didn't get it approved to sell in time. When 40 channels was announced, all pending approval of new 23-channel radios was immediately cancelled. The 40-channel technical performance rules were a LOT tougher, and all 23-channel designs flunked the new, tougher lab tests.
The routine troubles in a Mark IV radio have to do with more than just the circuit-board/heat problem. Tram just used more crystals to get 40 channels into the D201, and called it the D201A. Browning went a different way. The Mark IV receiver is essentially the same as the Mark III. Most of the differences had to do with how much RF energy is allowed to "leak" out of the radio. The Mark IV receiver is a Mark III design altered to meet those tighter leakage limits. The transmitter on the other hand, is a different story. Rather than copying the Mark III transmitter, which would have required 46 crystals total for 40 channels, they designed a "revolutionary" Phase-locked-loop frequency synthesizer to control the transmitter's channel frequency. It had about a dozen primitive, power-hungry "TTL" chips just for the PLL. The "electronic" channel selector used another dozen-and-a-half of these to run the channel up/down knob and two LED digits. The original Mark IV transmitter has exactly TWO quartz crystals. Revolutionary, sure. Ahead of its time? 'Fraid so.
The folks at Browning had no prior experience with these new, high-tech "logic" chips. It showed. The Mark IV PLL/channel selector is a plain, simple Train Wreck of a design. The company lasted long enough to introduce the "Mark IV-A", with a redesigned transmitter. The PLL used a chip that is still being put into new Galaxy/Connex/Superstar etc. radios, the MC145106. The channel selector board went from 18 (19, maybe?) chips to two. The PLL went from 11 or 12 chips to two. Big improvement in both performance and reliability. The "A" was too little, too late. The company closed, and an ex-employee bought their parts and remaining radio stock. He still upgrades Mark IV radios to a Mark IVA, last I heard. Pretty pricey, though.
A radio with extremely low mileage might well run for about a year. In that much time, a whole class of parts will remember how old they are and begin to fail, one by one. A radio that was run a lot of hours will need most if not all the electrolytic capacitors replaced before you can rely on it.
Any radio that old, whatever brand will also have potential issues with crystals. They do fail from age AND from use. The relay in the Mark III and older radios is not available anywhere, and can only be replaced with a new socket, and relay to match the new socket. You won't find one that fits the old socket. Not unless it's as old as the radio.
I compare the "100,000-mile tuneup" job of replacing all the old stuff that won't be reliable to restoring a 30-year old english sports car. Sure, there are cheaper ways to ride to work, but doing it in style is worth whatever it costs, right?
There are folks who will just patch "what's broke today". If the guy's intent is to sell it, that makes economic sense. Returning one to dependable service means replacing the rest of the stuff that is almost guaranteed to fail in a year or less.
Tubes are a wild card. A "high-mileage" radio will need more of them than a "low-miles" specimen. You can't just swap them around to see which ones work better. Two-thirds of the tubes in a Browning radio have an adjustment screw or "tuning" slug alongside them. Changing any of those tubes will usually disturb the setting of one or more adjustments. Change one tube, and you might not be able to tell. Change half of them, and a dozen critical adjustments will now be out of whack. This is what underlies the often-heard complaint. "It worked better with the old tubes", even when some of the old tubes were weak or noisy.
On the other hand, putting it on a shelf to admire won't cost much more than a bottle of Armor-All and a little scrubbing.
My experience with old cars is one that needs suspension, steering and brakes sells cheaper than a car that has had those parts serviced already. Likewise, a radio that has already had "100,000-mile" service will cost you more than one that still needs it. The fella who spent the money to do it will want that money back out of the selling price.
73 |
Kirk
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 9:16 pm: |
|
Thanks guys for all of your input. I appreciate it---73 |
Crafter
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 2:22 am: |
|
Kirk did you get my photo ? |
|
