[ARC5] Data tags and contract delivery dates

[David L. Stinson]

Mike Morrow wrote:
> I do think that among us collectors, there's a tendency to
> ignore the SCR-522/524 set. 
That's true, and unfortunate.  I say that even though
I've been guilty of "dissing" it from time to time.
I'm coming around, though.

> From what little I know, were one to somehow
> rate the relative importance of the command set systems used in the ETO, it
> would be hard NOT to award first place to the SCR-522/524.  I'm proud of my
> almost complete SCR-522 (just missing the mounts for the PE-94 and the RT
> unit) as a representative of a set with great historical significance.
Believe it or not, I agree.  The 522 was a milestone in aircraft comm.
It was only a beginning, which is why it went away fast after the war-
lots of reliability problems.  If I had to pick the best *Army* VHF set
to come out of the war, it would be the ARC-3 hands down.  The early
SCR-274N / AN/ARC-5 VHF sets were good, but the ARC-3 was tops.
Late as it was, that was more a Korea/Cold War set, anyway.

> And also making the obsolete SCR-183/283 sets at least into 1943.  (Isn't
> the SCR-AS-183 the last version?)
I believe it was.  These sets were still primary command sets
at Air Corps training fields and were "first line" sets in
many allied aircraft in the western hemisphere
(Central and South America).  The SCR-183/283 gets less 
respect than it should; it fulfilled it's *designed* functions
very well. 
 The sets were designed to provide communication between
aircraft in a flight and to contact the tower for take-off and landing.
They were also designed to be easy to repair with cheap, 
available parts (had to pinch pennies in the 1930s).
They did these things spendidly.

I think they get snubbed because of the Airmail disasters
Gordon once wrote about.  They tried to use this set
to talk over long distances in bad weather- something for which
it was never designed.  That's not the fault of the set.
I like them very much and am actively trying to build an
early set.  Hmmmm... Maybe I shouldn't talk up the 183/283
so much.  It's easier and cheaper while people ignore it ;-).

> I guess I see it from the opposite angle:  As an item of interest among the
> WWII aircraft radio collecting community, the SCR-522's importance is
> usually unappreciated.
I think it would have more followers if it didn't look so....
so British!  Carry a BC-455 into a room and people say: "cool radio."
Carry an SCR-522 in and people say: "What's in the tool box?" ;-).
English home radios have this same "look" to them-
boxy, chunky, inelegant.  I know that's not a good reason
for ignoring an important radio, but it may be the 
real reason, nonetheless.

> Meanwhile, in the PTO the USN was continuing to field an interesting variety
> of HF and VHF sets....
I'd like to spend some time on that subject.
The Navy worked with some very interesting sets and combinations of
sets.
I guess they had that luxury, since F.D.R. was their patron.
Poor Army grunts had to stick to what worked early.
I like the ARC-4 as well, and the ARC-1, although it's a 
nightmare to fix.  I got mine running after installing 
a gazillion 6AK5s and finding a headache-full of little faults.
Very cool autotune on the ARC-1.  The dynamotor that they share
is so blasted noisy, though.

73 DE Dave AB5S