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

[Mike Hanz]

Mike Morrow wrote:

>>Very late war, to be sure...
>>
>I would guess just after the ATC arrived in what, 1943 maybe?
>

The BUSHIPS Radio & Sound Bulletin described it to the avionics 
community in April of 1943, which seems overly long for a transmitter 
whose contract was signed in what, June of 1940?  No indication of when 
it started getting deployed and it may have well been earlier...the 
article is ambiguous in that regard, unlike the article on the ARB/ATB 
in October of the previous year ( http://aafradio.org/docs/atb-arb.html 
), which clearly states that those units are "new" to the fleet.

> There seems to have been a fair number of PB4Y aircraft delivered to 
> the USN with the same radio gear that Consolidated placed in the USAAF 
> equivalent B-24. AT least, a good number of original B-24s were 
> delivered to the USN and re-designated as PB4Y. Had I been a USN 
> aviation radioman, that's the aircraft I'd have liked.


Well, except for the B-24's annoying habit of being too heavy for the 
Davis wing and underpowered engine combination.  The redesigned PB4Y-2 
was a significant improvement in the aircraft, eliminating the double 
tail and redesigning the hull for less drag.

>>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.
>>
>
>The ATB components, especially the mounting rails, seem to have disappeared to Neptune.  I've only been able to locate an ATB and the metering unit.  I don't care that much for the design.  I'd have expected the ATB and ARB to have at least hade the same shape and form factor, but they are very different.  What was RCA thinking?
>

I reached much the same conclusion at 
http://aafradio.org/garajmahal/atbmnt.htm after fussing with the mounts 
for quite a while.  The installation to a sub-plate system is easy using 
a Bridgeport with its .001" adjustable table, but trying to install 
those crazy mounts with a hand drill in a dark fuselage full of other 
obstacles must have generated some new curse words for the lexicon.  :-)

>>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 be challenging combo to do right.  Technology-wise, the RAX seems to me to be more matching to a GO, therefore mixing GE and Westinghouse sets!
>

Except for its lack of a crystal filter, the RAX broke some new ground 
in several places, not the least of which was its use of 160v on the 
plates of essentially the same tube set as the BC-348 and other liaison 
receivers.  Perhaps old fashioned looking (depending on your point of 
view), but no mean performer. 

73,
Mike