[ARC5] Re: [Milsurplus] Re: GP-x Transmitter, RAX Rcvr? + TU Wanted

[Mike Hanz]

David Stinson wrote:

>----- Original Message ----- 
>Mike Hanz has photo documentation of an ATC installed with RAX 
>in a squadron of PB-4Y patrol bombers.  Very late war, to be sure,
>but still "in the game" by my lights.
>

These photos are from the Line Maintenance Manual for PB4Y-2 patrol 
aircraft, which were produced in relatively large quantities, so I would 
agree with you, Dave.  The majority of the photos are from July of 1944, 
so it wasn't *that* late.

>I include pby4comm.jpg because it shows the Command 
>Set included the ATB/ARB, with I think is the coolest-looking 
>WWII Command rig, even if it was scarce.
>

Can't disagree - it was the Navy's "command set" which, at least in the 
form of the ARB, combined the command and liaison functions.  Of course, 
in the PB4Y-2, the RAX-1 appears to have taken over the liaison role.

>>(I'm not too crazy about that AN/ARC-8 LF/MF external tank coil 
>>and antenna switching unit CU-32/ART-13A, though. 
>>It's actually slightly larger than the T-47A is!)
>>
>I need to get with you about these sets, Mike.
>I have all three of the tuning units
> (Pappa Bear, Momma Bear and Baby Bear;) but have not
>yet done the work to determine which goes with what set.
>

It's a function of mission and combat area more than anything.  I tried 
to give a rundown at http://aafradio.org/flightdeck/b29.htm.  I 
apologize for coining the whimsical 'three bears' concept, but it seemed 
a natural fit.

>>How are you going to satisfy the need for 800 cps AC for that GP?
>>
>Haven't worked that out yet; that set is for the future.
>

I have a solution for that one - separate note sent... :-)

>>One of my other USN aircraft radio projects is an ATD 
>>and ARB and ZB combo. 
>>Unfortunately, I don't have a confident feeling that 
>>many ATDs actually ever flew.
>>
>I think if it flew at all, it "counts."
>

I couldn't agree more.  If we were installing a set in fuselage 
44-32895, then the selection might be more of a problem.  To me, it's 
more about having fun and enjoying the challenge of getting these old 
sets working.  I *have* run across GP-7s with the service date entered, 
so they do, or did, exist.

>Is there a nomenclature for the set in the PB4-Ys
>with the ATC and RAXs?  I might decide to do that one
>rather than the AN/ARC-8, just because it was less common.
>That would mean duplicating the RU set...  ah, well.
>

Not that I'm aware of, Dave.  The Navy seemed to avoid combination 
labels, perhaps because it limited their flexibility to accomplish a 
specific mission, or maybe simply because they weren't as aggressive in 
the beancounting department as the USAAF.  Not having an A/N designation 
for the RAX-1 might have been a factor as well.  The lack of a taxonomy 
didn't seem to bother them in the operational area.

>Building all of these sets is probably just wishful thinking. 
>I'm going to have to "pick and choose" or I'll never have the
>room or time to do anything to completion.
>

I'm sure that sounds familiar to all of us, but hope springs eternal...

73,
Mike