|
Components and Circuits For discussions about component types, alternatives and availability, circuit configurations and modifications etc. Discussions here should be of a general nature and not about specific sets. |
|
Thread Tools |
12th May 2019, 11:32 am | #1 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Seaford, East Sussex, UK.
Posts: 5,997
|
OC1615 as AF115, AF116, AF117 replacement
Just a note that there are some OC1615's available that have a similar specification to the tin whiskered AF11* and they seem to work fine as direct replacements and are cheap. They have metal can screening but are narrow and tall with a different pinout (underside view clockwise from tab e, b, c, can).
|
12th May 2019, 10:03 pm | #2 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Leominster, Herefordshire, UK.
Posts: 16,536
|
Re: OC1615 as AF115, AF116, AF117 replacement
Alltransistors reckons lower Ft (35MHz rather than 75MHz) amongst other details......
__________________
....__________ ....|____||__|__\_____ .=.| _---\__|__|_---_|. .........O..Chris....O |
13th May 2019, 12:40 am | #3 |
Nonode
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Stockport, Greater Manchester, UK.
Posts: 2,113
|
Re: OC1615 as AF115, AF116, AF117 replacement
I won the pack of 10 × OC1615 that was on eBay when you posted, so I will have a few to spare at £1 + postage if anyone wants
__________________
- Julian It's good here |
13th May 2019, 9:28 am | #4 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Seaford, East Sussex, UK.
Posts: 5,997
|
Re: OC1615 as AF115, AF116, AF117 replacement
They are used in continental sets as FM mixer/oscillators. In the set I put them in, the 472KHz IF was still exactly peaked and showed plenty of gain. Not sure I trust the specifications for Ge transistors as apparently all AF11* and AF12* are identical?
|
13th May 2019, 7:14 pm | #5 |
Dekatron
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Leominster, Herefordshire, UK.
Posts: 16,536
|
Re: OC1615 as AF115, AF116, AF117 replacement
There have been various discussions about equality or otherwise of the AF11x and 12x devices. I think the outcome was that they may have had some selected characteristics in early batches but later on, they were all "good" enough so it was just a labelling exercise to keep them in line with the earlier recommendations as to which to use where.
Quite possibly those OC1615s have rather better Ft than the minimum spec for the OC615 (the only data I could find). If they work, just use them........
__________________
....__________ ....|____||__|__\_____ .=.| _---\__|__|_---_|. .........O..Chris....O |