User Panel
Posted: 7/18/2017 10:07:08 AM EDT
I have a few PVS 7 units, but I am looking into getting a binocular system. The Gen III stuff is above my budget right now, but would a good condition PVS 5 have enough gain to be able to operate a vehicle with IR illumination? Also, can a PVS 5 unit still be repaired, are there still tubes out there for them.
|
|
[#1]
I have two PVS-5s. They are fine for driving.
However, if you wear glasses the PVS-5 can be difficult to fit and keep from fogging. I liked them in town too, where the darkest places aren't "rural dark" at all because of the indirect light that's almost always present. Further, I have been in dangerous places when one side or the other fails, and having the second tube, independent tube, was a real gift. |
|
[#2]
Sure PVS-5's can be maintained...
I recently converted a set I bought new in the 80's to the latest Gen 3 tubes... I've always liked the head mount support... |
|
[#3]
They are good to go especially with supplemental IR. Most likely you can go without. Maintence wise tubes are getting scarce and finding a matched one would likely be a problem. If i had one die id convert it to a mono.
|
|
[#6]
Never intended to get involved with discussions. Might as well have this as a first post.
Having owned a PVS-7 and -14, among other NV devices, the PVS-5 is one of the best dollar to performance ratios out there for a binocular system if you can get it relatively cheap. Binocular vision has very obvious benefits, especially when driving, and I have had good experience driving with PVS-5 goggles in conditions just a hair above "rural dark" with no illumination. Of the two pairs that I have (and paid too much for), both are well matched between each eye and do the job. The PVS-5C is a better candidate but not required for an initial "wow" factor. |
|
[#7]
I will also tell you to contact Ed. He has a ton of pvs-5 parts that he will sell. He mentored me and took the time to teach me me how to properly rebuild gen 2 and gen3 tubes, so I can say that replacing a bad tube requires onr to get a couple more dead tubes and have someone who is able tear them down to salvage the good parts and rebuild the tube. Matching two tubes can be done fairly easily by most knowledgable people who have alot of experience working with tubes and night vision devices.
|
|
[#9]
Quoted:
Is the Litton M909 a civilian version of the PVS 5? View Quote Longer answer from what I have written down in my notes I keep on any knowledge I gather about anything night vision related. "M-909. Litton Electron Devices produces the M-909 which, while based on the PVS-5A, uses substantially improved objective lenses and higher-gain, brighter second-generation image intensifiers. This results in twice the system gain offered by the PVS-5A and a useful range increase of 33 percent." Hope that helps. |
|
[#10]
This brings me back..... PVS5 was the first night vision devices we sold back in the 90's.
|
|
[#11]
Quoted:
This brings me back..... PVS5 was the first night vision devices we sold back in the 90's. View Quote |
|
[#13]
Quoted:
Short answer is yes. Longer answer from what I have written down in my notes I keep on any knowledge I gather about anything night vision related. "M-909. Litton Electron Devices produces the M-909 which, while based on the PVS-5A, uses substantially improved objective lenses and higher-gain, brighter second-generation image intensifiers. This results in twice the system gain offered by the PVS-5A and a useful range increase of 33 percent." Hope that helps. View Quote The 5b an 5c had better lenses. Litton made the 5b and ITT made the 5c. The 5b was marketed by litton for airborne ops, while the 5c was never flight rated (specifically prohibited actually). |
|
[#14]
Quoted:
I know you got that off the web, the 909 was the litton version of the 5a, the part about better tubes is probably right if its a late 80s production model. Bu the lenses are the same as the 5a. The 5b an 5c had better lenses. Litton made the 5b and ITT made the 5c. The 5b was marketed by litton for airborne ops, while the 5c was never flight rated (specifically prohibited actually). View Quote |
|
[#15]
So where does the Litton M915 fit in spec wise? I've heard it is better all around with Gen 2+ tubes. Is that correct?
|
|
[#16]
Quoted:
So where does the Litton M915 fit in spec wise? I've heard it is better all around with Gen 2+ tubes. Is that correct? View Quote The reason for the 5C being banned for aviation use had to do with its high light cut off feature; bright flash and the unit turning off in mid flight is a bad bad thing. But its a great feature for dealing with the issue of dumbass pvt snuffy leaving his NVG's on during the day. |
|
[#18]
Also the facemask was often altered by cutting off the bottom portion when used for aviation to achueve the ability to look at instruments by looking down where the bottom half of mask used to be. There is an aviation mount that was manufactured that held the MHAs and electronics that totally replaced the facemask with a more anvis like bridge set up that also flipped up like the Anvis. The aviation mount allowed pilots to "look under" at the instruments in the cockpit as well as allow use of corrective eye glasses which the original face mask did not accomodate. There were 2 versions made if I recall correctly. One for standard SPH flight helmets and also a second offset version for helmets that accomodated HSS.
|
|
[#19]
Quoted:
Also the facemask was often altered by cutting off the bottom portion when used for aviation to achueve the ability to look at instruments by looking down where the bottom half of mask used to be. There is an aviation mount that was manufactured that held the MHAs and electronics that totally replaced the facemask with a more anvis like bridge set up that also flipped up like the Anvis. The aviation mount allowed pilots to "look under" at the instruments in the cockpit as well as allow use of corrective eye glasses which the original face mask did not accomodate. There were 2 versions made if I recall correctly. One for standard SPH flight helmets and also a second offset version for helmets that accomodated HSS. View Quote |
|
[#20]
Quoted:
Correct on all counts. Historically speaking the cut off masks were only made AFTER several rather nasty Helo crashes in the late 70's and early 80's with PVS-5a's. You also had to relocate the battery compartment to the top of the unit rather than the bottom. Then in the late 80's the COBB mounts came out that interfaced with the ANVIS helmet mounts and there was the standard and then the offset models. My COBB mounted 5B's still get a moderate amount of use for driving etc. View Quote |
|
[#21]
Quoted:
The 915 is similar to the PVS-5b which litton advertised specifically for aviation use, but it didn't have the 5B AA comparment. So, better tubes and better lenses. Also litton tubes of the era were generally better than ITT/Varo tubes of the era. The numbers for the F numbers on the lenses on the 5b's and C's are also pretty close, 1.09 vs 1.05 respectively. The reason for the 5C being banned for aviation use had to do with its high light cut off feature; bright flash and the unit turning off in mid flight is a bad bad thing. But its a great feature for dealing with the issue of dumbass pvt snuffy leaving his NVG's on during the day. View Quote Consider it my opinion, but Id go even further to say that litton/NGeos/L3 tubes no matter what era are better tubes when one is considering the overall build quality of the parts used to build the tube(tube module, power supply and the other consumable parts. The easiest example I can think of to show this is to simply compare an itt 11769 pigtail and an L3 11769 pigtail, while a not so easy way is to compare bare tube modules of the same era from eachnmanufacturer side by side. The difference in quality between modules can be seen very easily and the difference in durability of the tail is obvious just by looking at them side by side. And the fact that L3 thought to put the resistors physically on the 11769 power supply itself so if the tail was removed or damaged the chance of burning out the tube while running without tail is greatly reduced, where running an ITT 11769 without a tail is a sure way to make your tube output a very very noisy image until it it is permanently damaged after a short time if using it without the tail. Anyways just wanted to agree with your statement about Litton tubes being better and need to refrain from straying too far off the subject of the thread. Haha. |
|
[#22]
Quoted:
Thanks for adding the reason behind the modified facemasks. I totally forgot to include the cause that brought about the modified masks. Since you use yours for driving, how do you have your setup? ANVIS ground mount on a ballistic kevlar helmet, bump helmet, or other? If you dont mind me asking. I havent ever set one up for ground use with the aviation mount, although can think of a couple ways to do it. I was just curious how you set yours up since you have experiennce with actually using the COBB for ground operations. View Quote |
|
[#23]
Quoted:
Well, as you might have noticed I'm not into the Bro Bro uber Tacticool thing. I've got several ground models that I use just normally with their masks and headstraps. But for the Cobb mounted PVS-5 I run it just like my anvis, I'm just a lot less worried about breaking it. I've got a ground anvis adapter plate that fits onto my really old school skateboarding helmet, and also a Cyre Nightcap and the power supply for both is on the back of each one as counterweight. View Quote |
|
[#24]
Can the COBB modification kits still be had? I did purchase the Litton 909 unit and I am happy with it, the tubes are in pretty good shape, but the face pad is shot. I would love to be able to convert it so I could use the Crye nightcap (I have two for PVS-7 units). The whole facemask setup is terribly uncomfortable.
|
|
[#25]
Check ebay for a spare face mask cover, or I think STANO might have some left. Way cheaper than a cobb mount. Last COBB I saw was north of 200, and then you need the anvis half of the interface and the battery pack, figure at least 100 for each of those, not to mention how to mount the anvis mount to something. You will pay more trying to mount your PVS-5 than you paid for it.
|
|
[#26]
Earlier this year, I think it was, Ed Wilcox had a huge lot of PVS-5 parts on Ebay for sale. It looked like he was getting out of the PVS-5 game.
|
|
[#27]
Quoted:
Earlier this year, I think it was, Ed Wilcox had a huge lot of PVS-5 parts on Ebay for sale. It looked like he was getting out of the PVS-5 game. View Quote |
|
[#28]
|
|
[#29]
Quoted:
Here you can find my way of updating PVS-5. This is housing that I designed and will be 3D printed soon. https://naforum.zapodaj.net/eba2f614f7cc.png.html https://naforum.zapodaj.net/52eb5f0cb947.png.html https://naforum.zapodaj.net/c81b797d6a75.png.html View Quote |
|
[#31]
Quoted:
Haha seeing that design reminds me of a monocular I once built using a pvs-5 tube and MHA with eyepiece and objective, a switch assembly, a tripple A battery box I cut out of an old TV remote and a whole mess of JB weld to form it all into one self contained beater/loaner beater monocular that if something were to happen to it, no worries, id just make another one real quick. The thing sealed tight too so I was able to purge abd backfill with nitrogen. Check out the pictures and feel free to laugh out loud. I know I sure had a chuckle when I was reminded of it after seeing this design. It aint pretty but it work and works well fore what its intended as. Just be aware, the pictured unit has a US patent pending so dont even think about stealing the idea. Jk! Hahaha lol! Go ahead and steal the idea if you want a no thrills, durable beater/loaner mono you can build n the ultra cheap side of the financial scale. I dont mind one bit.http://i1361.photobucket.com/albums/r680/dts-blackout25/20170822_101347_zpsrjnacnnh.jpghttp://i1361.photobucket.com/albums/r680/dts-blackout25/20170822_101922_zpsohxwfdzt.jpghttp://i1361.photobucket.com/albums/r680/dts-blackout25/20170822_101737_zpsqhfiz6rv.jpg http://i1361.photobucket.com/albums/r680/dts-blackout25/20170822_101538_zpss6wf2atx.jpg http://i1361.photobucket.com/albums/r680/dts-blackout25/20170822_102131_zpsjllexbk9.jpg http://i1361.photobucket.com/albums/r680/dts-blackout25/20170822_102221_zpsys8csryw.jpg View Quote I used 2x AA for mine.... and a shitton of epoxy. |
|
[#32]
Ya I would have used either AA or AAA. I just used the first salvageable battery compartment from the first broken electronic device i found haha. Wasnt looking to spend too much time searching for parts to make this beater. Just wanted something that would do the job and also be durable. I used JB weld because it is a close alternative to the stycast or 20/20 that was originally used to seal the hole where the tube's +- leads came through the MHA and the JB sealed the hole up perfectly. Were you able to purg/N2 backfill yours or attempted to pull a vacuum to see if it sealed up ok with the epoxy. It really doesnt matter being a beater and all but im just curious.
|
|
[#33]
I am sure your work just well. But it still is not a pvs-14 j-arm compatible :P and 3d printing is easier and give better results than JB weld ;).
I've got two sets to modify and I like them because PVS-5 optic is so much better than PVS-14. One is running decent MX9916uv nothing fancy but second one uses Photonos XX1940 43mm fat anvis tube and it is rally nice setup! |
|
[#34]
No it doesnt do those things but was never really meant to do anything like that. Just a grab and abuse when needed kind of deal.
|
|
[#35]
Quoted:
Ya I would have used either AA or AAA. I just used the first salvageable battery compartment from the first broken electronic device i found haha. Wasnt looking to spend too much time searching for parts to make this beater. Just wanted something that would do the job and also be durable. I used JB weld because it is a close alternative to the stycast or 20/20 that was originally used to seal the hole where the tube's +- leads came through the MHA and the JB sealed the hole up perfectly. Were you able to purg/N2 backfill yours or attempted to pull a vacuum to see if it sealed up ok with the epoxy. It really doesnt matter being a beater and all but im just curious. View Quote |
|
[#36]
Quoted:
I am sure your work just well. But it still is not a pvs-14 j-arm compatible :P and 3d printing is easier and give better results than JB weld ;). I've got two sets to modify and I like them because PVS-5 optic is so much better than PVS-14. One is running decent MX9916uv nothing fancy but second one uses Photonos XX1940 43mm fat anvis tube and it is rally nice setup! View Quote |
|
[#37]
Quoted:
No purging, I live in a dry climate and don't usually bother with it. View Quote |
|
[#38]
|
|
[#39]
But it looks more like MX11769 than PVS5 gen2 glass input tube :)
|
|
[#40]
Quoted:
But it looks more like MX11769 than PVS5 gen2 glass input tube :) View Quote ETA: So it wouldnt be untrue to say that it is an autogated, filmless green phosphor(P-20) tube. |
|
[#41]
|
|
[#42]
Quoted:
LOFL.... View Quote |
|
[#43]
Quoted:
I thought this would make you chuckle a bit. Haha. Just one of the many little tube projects I do when boredom strikes(which isnt too often because of all the little projects I think up or figure out how to do). I thought it would be a good post to get a few good laughs out of. Lol View Quote |
|
[#44]
Quoted:
How would focus on that work, could you actually put it in a PVS-14 and not have a problem with the FO input vs a glass input? View Quote ETA: the OEM 9916 tubes also were adhered with stycast or milspec 20/20 adhesive that was dabbed around the front face of the plastic boot, from which rhe FO face plate protrudes, to adhere the tube to the metal can. This adhesive hardened and made the distance from the 9916' FO pc input to the objective lens element a bit further back, but still not enough to make up for the focal distance requirement on a gen 3 10160 tube with glass output. |
|
[#45]
Wow that's really something new :). Could you post pictures of image generated by this tube? I read somewhere here that gen 3 power supply is beneficial for image quality of mx9916.
|
|
[#46]
|
|
[#48]
Not the greatest comparison, considering full moon conditions But thanks for posting, perhaps you should follow up with 1/4 or no moon, you'd probably see some serious differences then.
|
|
[#49]
Quoted:
Not the greatest comparison, considering full moon conditions But thanks for posting, perhaps you should follow up with 1/4 or no moon, you'd probably see some serious differences then. View Quote |
|
[#50]
Dts-blackout25 thank you very much for posting these photos. It is a pleasure to see something new :)
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.