Obi-Wan transistors

For me I feel like I found a better option. The other vintage aircraft ones ones I’ve seen people using and I bought some have the interior chamfer to almost a point which is inaccurate. Plus for these more correct 10 pin Marconi the hole isn’t big enough for them to fit through. I was having to flip them on the other side so the top of the washer was wider, boring them out for a bigger I.D. putting a new chamfer on that side and sanding off the brass color. The only benefit was they were vintage. These ones I found just need a chamfer which is the hardest part, but they are closer in the other ways described. Maybe next time I’ll find the exact ones. Fingers crossed.

Don't forget to post some pictures with the Marconis when you have it ready :)
 
So member v312 has passed the torch a little bit, and i’m experimenting the stamping option for any replica transistors. I’m currently trying to find the best method. So when I can get something consistent, i’ll update you all! :)
 
Still haven’t gotten a great result stamping to be honest. I’ll be trying again soon though.
The ink is probably baked on. Personally I would have no interest in adding something replicated to an all real parts Obi. Maybe for a Romans being a replica anyway. I just would rather go without or use transistors, that’s just me I guess.
 
Thanks for the measurements!

Not everyone is capable of finding real parts (or willing to spend the money). Waiting on my Romans and wanting to add a little „spice“ to it by exchanging parts that are closer to the original ones.
 
Problem is this package size is not very common. For 2 washer Tunisia/Falcon saber setup is relatively easy to get 2 TO-5 transistors and sand them 1-2mm until they look right. But most people seem to prefer the one washer setup (to my surprise) and there it is more obvious if the transistor is too tall or too short.
 
5x8mm ( well, should be 4.95x8.1 or so according to the standards, but I don't have a tool to measure it with such a precision)

Are these 'standards' originally given in inches or in millimeters? If inches, is it perhaps 0.195" x 0.320"? Someone who is extra anal about these sorts of things might want to know that. Asking for a friend.
 
Are these 'standards' originally given in inches or in millimeters? If inches, is it perhaps 0.195" x 0.320"? Someone who is extra anal about these sorts of things might want to know that. Asking for a friend.
I'm not sure if the original specification is in mm or inches. Probably in inches as JEDEC is of US origin and it does not make sense to not round it to the mm if the original spec was metric. But does not matter that much as some dimensions are actually given as an allowed range rather than a fixed value.
Here's a link for reference where the dimensions are given both in mm and inches
 
Check out the two little spiders that crawled out of my mailbox today ! I think must be some seriously rare and endangered species ...

1624400452852.png


Thank you for making this happen (you know who you are :)) !
 
I’ve got no horse in this race, but if you need to chamfer the washer ID, this is something I do all the time. If you know the included angle, you could even match that.

Every hole I drill or bore, I always break the edge. All small holes I use the countersink (by hand) to break the burr. (I do other things for larger bores)

You could probably order a box of aluminum washers and then add the countersink.

 
Yeah, we never thought the DAT11 was the correct part number. While it's not possible to read the exact numbers on the prop with the references we have, these are a much more likely option as ME made these in the late 60s and early 70s.
 
Yes, when I found the DAT11s in my initial post I noted that just the logo is a match (and later I could confirm the overall dimensions match very well to the pictures). But I hoped once the brand is known someone will dig up more information and eventually find an old device of some sort that have the correct ones. And pretty much that's what actually happened :)
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top