5881 Replacement for 6L6?

kd4e doc at KD4E.COM
Mon Nov 5 19:39:15 EST 2007

Is it correct that the 5881 is shorter, more physically rugged,
and more electrically rugged than the 6L6?

Is it OK to sub the 5881 for the 6L6 in the modulator circuit
of a Multi-Elmac AF-67?

Since it is a mobile-portable rig a more rugged tube makes
sense.  Is there a "gotcha" here that I am missing?

I found this descriptive Tungsol text from 1950:

"The 5881 carries ratings similar to the 6L6, except that the allowable 
screen dissipation is 3.0 watts instead of 2.5 watts while the maximum 
plate dissipation is 23 watts instead of 19 watts for the 6L6. The tube 
has a low loss micanol base."


Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
Personal: http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html

This list is a public service of the City of Tempe, Arizona

Subscription control - http://www.tempe.gov/lists/control.aspx?list=BOATANCHORS
Archives - http://listserv.tempe.gov/archives/BOATANCHORS.html

More information about the Boatanchors mailing list