开云体育

Everybody seems to have missed the entire point of the 465M, it was
designed specifically for a MTTR of 30 minutes, and the modular
design makes that possible. The MTTR of a regular 465 is measured in
days sometimes. It is hardly an inferior version of the 465, but
really a model with the same functionality, but designed to be easier
to service. The case opens quickly with a coin, and the scope
quickly breaks into three major subassemblies, all easily probed and
repaired. Hardly a step backwards. The military asked for this level
of repair capability, and got it.

having worked on every variation and age of the 465/475 family, I
like the 465M the best, as it is far easier to trouble shoot and
fix. the modules are a real delight if you have spares, and make
some complex problems much easier to fix and isolate. like every
module connector in history, they need to be cleaned, and MAINLY go
bad because people failed to screw the modules back in correctly,
and "made metal" by vibration within the mating connector. I have
seen many with half the internal hardware parts missing, thanks to
previous technicians.

the 465 (no suffix) is (by contrast) a virtual pretzel of mechanical
design, and very, very difficult to work on or repair. all versions
function pretty well, but I never buy the no suffux version any more,
as they all have the same problems, (dry caps, switch problems, etc.)
due to old age. B's are very nice, especially high serial numbers,
but are still built for people with lots of time on their hands.

The 465 is a landmakrk design, and virtually all scopes by all makers
after them derive their ergonomics and control functions from the 465
concepts. Tek even published their book series about the same time
(69-71), spelling out how to design the key elements of a high
performance scope from the 465 to the 7000 series. No doubt they
regretted that, since every competitor quickly leared all their
deepest secrets, and the books were soon withdrawn. if you see a
set, grab them, they are the best books ever written on CRT and scope
design.

The T900 series was far different from other Tek products, and a
vastly upgraded product for Telequipment to sell in the UK, their
eventual european subsidiary. that corporate acquisition
(Telequipment already existed in the UK as a scope maker) was to
allow market access to the common market in europe, but clearly did
not go so well. The original Telequipment products were garbage, of
incredibly low workmanship standards, and marginal design
throughout. The T900 series was a way of rectifying that problem by
providing a better product base for Telequipment to sell and
manufacture, along with other Tek products.

The only common item between the T900 series and the 465M is the blue
plastic material used in the case, there is no other relationship.
People who think they have deeper internal commonality are directed
to the manuals, it is quite clear they are totally unrelated products.

On another note, For those deep into Tek restoration, we have many
Tek CRTs, semis, pots and transformers on our site, along with lots
of cross-ref data. more bits are getting added regularly, and we
hope to have a new section with trim, case parts, CRT filters and
knobs up soon. Our spares are mainly for later solid state scopes,
and other than CRTs and some tubes, we do not have too much for the
531/545/561 models.

walter shawlee
sphere research

Well, Walter, that's the nice thing about this world. Everybody's
different (especially those who think that hp made the best scopes,
although I did much prefer their 130C over the Tek 503) and that
makes for a lack of boredom. I still prefer the original 465 or 475
over the 465M. Now, if you want to discuss the queen bitch of the
Tek portables, turn to the 434, <B500000. Every mechanical engineer
on that project should have been summarily fired and sent to work for
Hewlett-Packard. But that's another story.

By the way, the 465M didn't have a fan, as I recall, likely part of
the specifications but just as likely a cost-savings effort by Tek
whose employee profit share had already bottomed out when that scope
hit the market. And the modularization was so that they could sell
the scope to the Army and Air Force who had their troopies so trained
on echelon step repair that the poor folks could only fix things by
swapping out entire modules rather than doing component level
repair. ;>) But that's also another story.

And it WAS more expensive to purchase. WHY? It cost so much less to
build. I don't understand.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the 465M HAD to be easier to
repair, because on a per capita basis, a larger percentage of them
failed. It was to the point that I was personally wondering if the
FAA had added a rider to their procurement contract, "A minimum of
10% of all units must arrive defective." Since the depot was in OKC,
I got all the FAA's failed warranty 465Ms (and all of their failed
1502s, no matter their status), so ended up getting a bad taste in my
mouth.

Just because you have a different opinion doesn't mean that you
aren't right. You've obviously had a much nicer experience with them
that I did, and that's great. I liked the T900s while a lot of folks
thought they were junk. I've met old TV repairmen who would take a
Telequipment over anything else. You just never know.

Dean

I think you answered your own question below, but just didn't see it. :)

-- jm