[ARC5] R-27/ARC-5 with C-131/AR Tuner - ART-13 Receivers

[Mike Morrow]

I wrote:

> It seems odd that the US Navy paid for the development
> of the finest HF aircraft transmitter of WWII (ATC, ART-13),
> then attached it to mis-matched kludges like the ARB and 
> these Yardley units...

John wrote:

> Perhaps not. The Liaison sets were designed to communicate
> with ground based stations which could easily transmit high
> power to relatively poor airborne receivers.  

I doubt that there was any *practical* difference in receiver *sensitivity* between units like the R-25, 26, 27/ARC-5, the ARB, or the BC-348.  But the selectable narrower pass band of the BC-348 might have very helpful in the presence of noise and interference.

Ignoring the issues of remote control and pre-set multi-channel capabilities, I think the mismatch actually is most obvious when frequency coverage is compared.  AFAIK, the USN never paired the ATC with a receiver that could provide coverage of the ATC's 9 to 18 mc range until the AN/ARR-15 was out.

The USAAF's AN/ARC-8 use of the BC-348 receiver resulted in an almost exact frequency coverage match to the USAAF's slightly improved T-47A/ART-13, including the LF/MF capability of the O-17/ART-13A.

When the USN's AN/ARR-15 finally showed up, it lacked coverage of the LF/MF capability of the O-16/ART-13.  I wonder what the USN typically used as a receiver when (rarely) operation in the LF/MF range was required (I'm guessing it was a R-23/ARC-5, or maybe the ADF receiver).   The AN/ARR-15 also lacks the capability to be switched between MCW and CW modes from the remote control box.  So, even the AN/ARR-15 doesn't perfectly compliment the AN/ART-13.

Mike / KK5F