[Milsurplus] Re: [ARC5] Re: What did they talk to ??

[Bob Macklin]

I have photos of the "Command Set" installation in a Grumman F4F Wildcat.
The receivers and transmitters were in racks in the rear of the fuselage.
The photos show 3 units. The control heads were on the right console in the
cockpit. The figthter pilots used carbon throat mikes, They were sometimes
uncomfortable and difficult to keep properly positioned. If a pilot had not
shaved it could make the audio scratchy.

BTW:
In the mid 50s the USAF was still using the ARC-5 R-28 Rx and T-23 Tx VHF
units.

Bob Macklin
K5MYJ
Seattle, Wa.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Stinson" <arc5 at ix.netcom.com>
To: <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>; <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Re: [ARC5] Re: What did they talk to ??


> We've covered this many times and presented documentation to
> prove the general use of HF, but here's a "summary" of the
> main points:
>
> 1. Liaison transmitter used in the lead aircraft to send
>     strike report, signals for ground DF reports and
>     "key-down" during crash and ditching.
>     Most radio operators listened to the Liaison receiver
>     for broadcasts and orders from base, plus MF watch
>     during operations over water.
>
> 2. HF Command Sets were absolutely, positively and
>     conclusively used for air-to-air, pilot-to-tower
>     and pilot-to-Army Airways Station communications.
>     VHF sets *supplimented* these sets, but did NOT
>     replace them except in specific locations
>     and in specific applications, such as
>     *late war* fighter escorts and forward-deployed
>     ground support aircraft in the ETO.
>     This applies even more to the Navy, where
>     fighter VHF did not become general until
>     *after* the war.  We have gone over reams and reams
>     of documentary evidence for this, yet this
>     "No HF" myth continues.
>
> 3. We have not one shred- not one tech order, aircraft log,
>     schematic, installation note or equipment tag anywhere
>     that proves "aircraft repeaters" made of SCR-522s were
>     in general use.  We have a couple of vague mentions and
>     some 60-year-old memories that say they were tried.
>     I don't doubt that one bit.  They tried lots of things.
>     But the stacks and stacks and stacks of documents say
>     these reports and communications were handled by
>     the standard *HF* radios.  Had every mission since
>     1942 been relayed through this phantom "repeater"
>     we keep hearing about, there should be piles of
>     tech orders and manuals around.  This is *not one*
>     in existence to my knowledge.
>
> Why do we choose to cling to this "vhf-centric" belief
> in the face of overwhelming and conclusive evidence?
> I think it has something to do with the emotional
> feelings for the gleaming P-51 "D" model with its
> bubble canopy and SCR-522.
> We also have a habit of visualizing fighters as outfitted
> in May of 1945 and projecting that back all the way to
> Pearl Harbor; it just ain't so, folks.
> The "D" model P-51 wasn't around for most of the war
> and most certainly was not in North Africa.
> "A" models were (they were called "A-36 Apaches" at that time),
> along with P-40s and P-38s, and guess what
> was in them?  SCR-283 and SCR-274N.
> They would have had a very hard time talking
> to U.S. VHF base stations,
> since any available went to England.
> And if they were "VHF only" and got lost, I guess
> they just died, because air charts of the time prove
> that there were very few VHF DF sets around in '42-'43,
> even in the States.
> Did they "cobble-in" some early Brit VHF sets
> so they could talk to the Brits?  Probably- even likely.
> Was this practice general for every USAAF aircraft in
> North Africa?  Absolutely not.  The Brits could
> hardly supply radios for their own aircraft at home
> and certainly couldn't outfit the entire U.S.
> air arm in the theater.  SCR-522 wasn't in full production
> at the time and crystals were in short supply.
> I have USAAF aircraft log pages from the
> *1945* that show HF used exclusively
> for pilot comms throughout the mission.
>
> I'm sorry if I sound a little frustrated,
> but we've discovered, documented and presented
> the proof on this issue over and over
> and still some folks cling to this "No HF" myth.
> We all have to "believe what we believe,"
> I guess, and I don't have the time to dig all
> that paperwork out again and argue about it again
> when I've been presenting it for years.
>
> I have to tell you- sometimes I wonder if
> anyone is listening, or if they think I'm
> just "making it all up."  Sigh.......
>
> Dave S.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
>