Quote Originally Posted by KA5PIU
Remember, Amateur Radio equipment is built to a price.
And that is exactly what did Drake and Cubic in. They couldn't cut corners enough with regards to manufacturing techniques to compete with the Japanese manufacturers...and rather than risk the hit for warranty claims brought on by substandard goods, they opted to pull out of the market.

'GUH, the TR-5 is essentially a transistorized TR-4...whereas the TR-7 was a totally original design. Drake could have offered an amateur version of their TR-4310 and R-4245 to the general public but it would likely have cost $500 or so more than the PTO-tuned versions of such.

A little comparo:

My TS-820S retailed for ~$1200, and the TR-7 fetched $1449. The '820 had a speech processor and noise blanker built in; those were extra options on the Drake equipment. The TR-7 had it over the Kenwood in that a general-coverage receiver was offered but most hams didn't care.

The Kenwood actually drifts less than the Drake: 400hz total vs ~1.2 khz from a cold start. (Of course, the '901 beats both hands-down: Zero drift, once warmed up.)

I've done a little perverse engineering where the RV-75 and R-4245 are concerned...looking at synthesizer layout...and have come up with a way to shrink the RV-75 using SMT devices to a size which will enable it to fit into the TR-7's PTO space.

Another approach is to use a PIC or STAMP to control a DDS and thereby generate a 5.0-5.6 MHz VFO signal. This offers the advantage of being computer-controllable. I have a working prototype of a design on my bench, and have to write some firmware to control the tuning via an attached optical encoder. Mine also incorporates a workable RIT.

Maybe I'll get around to building one or the other type and stuffing all my 5 and 7-line equipment with them...