[ARC5] In panel ARC-5 control

[Mike Hanz]

Mike Morrow wrote:

>>Agree.  But don't forget the J-23/ARC-4 and its MT-80 for power and
>>fuses...heh, heh...
>>    
>>
>I was afraid someone would mention that!  Using that would complicate the
>number of connectors needed.  I've seen the J-23 in the AN/ARC-4 manual,
>but:
>
>1.  Do they really exist in any practical (ie, obtainable) sense
>

That's a hard question to answer.  I have seen them occasionally at 
hamfests around the Washington DC area over the last 14 or 15 years, but 
it /has/ been a while since I saw the last one.  I think I had two or 
three extra at one time but gave them to needy folks.  Now that you 
mention it, I don't recall ever seeing one on ebay.

>2.  Do you suppose they were ever actually used, especially in aircraft with
>open wire harnesses?
>  
>

Dunno.  My impression is that as a piece of commercial gear, the ARC-4 
was relegated more to the Navy ash and trash haulers, especially after 
the ARC-1 began to be delivered in quantity, but it's just an 
impression.  I wired mine with shielded cable connectors, but perhaps 
that's not the only option.  The J-23 does provide a convenient junction 
box and fusing for other uses, so all I can do is conjecture that it was 
more often used in oddball installations.  The J-17 takes care of its 
function for the ARC-5 system, so I'm not surprised to see it absent in 
the ARC-5 manual.

>I know that the various ARC-4 systems in the ARC-5 manual AN 16-30ARC5-2
>show no use of a J-23/ARC-4.  For that matter, it doesn't appear that the
>also rare J-28/ARC-5  was specified for the VHF ARC-5 installations except
>for those with shielded conduit type cables.
>  
>

Another one of those mysteries, since the VHF ARC-5 was primarily a 
Signal Corps sponsored set foisted on the AAF (against their will), and 
seldom the twain (Navy and Signal Corps) shall meet (or ever met), yet 
I've seen photos of Navy aircraft with the T-23 and R-28 in them.  Maybe 
the ARC-5 nomenclature fooled 'em... :-)

>There is an error in the ARC-5 manual for the ARC-4 systems shown.  The
>C-52/ARC-4 is shown as an alternate control box to the C-51, yet for some
>reason the C-52 was designed for an AN-type connector rather than the C-51
>PL-153-type connector, and that AN connector is not called out in the system
>diagram.
>  
>

Lowest bidder performance...heh.

73,
Mike