[ARC5] Re: ARC5 Digest, Vol 45, Issue 15

[Bill Beech (NJ7P)]

Guys,

I agree on the VHF.  Has anyone looked at the ARRL band plan for 2 
meters? I don't see any AM frequencies at all. 

I have an operational ARC-1 here and a nearly complete ARC-4.  I have 
the mount (flip the connector for one or the other radio) as well.  Both 
run on 28 VDC.  I have ground crystals to get the ARC-1 on the local 
airport frequencies.

I have never heard any AM activity here in Sierra Vista, AZ.  Anyone in 
Tucson or SE AZ on AM? 

Bill

PS: Dave, the ART-13 I got from you long ago is also up, unmodified, on 
HF along with a BC-348-R, also unmodified.  Power with an PP-1104.
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 17:05:43 -0500
> From: "David Stinson" <arc5 at ix.netcom.com>
> Subject: Re: [ARC5] Re: ARC-3
> To: "Mike Morrow" <kk5f at arrl.net>, <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>,
> 	<milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Message-ID: <002201c80865$0ea4ce60$6601a8c0 at boudreaux>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8";
> 	reply-type=original
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike Morrow" <kk5f at earthlink.net>
> Subject: [ARC5] Re: ARC-3
>
>
>   
>> Over the 40 years that I've been interested in military communications 
>> gear,
>> the predominant common error of opinion among hams seems to be
>> that MF/HF gear is the important stuff, the VHF gear much less so.
>> Historically that is 180 degrees out from fact, and doubtless stems
>> more from a ham mentality rather than a technical historian's outlook.
>> VHF was extremely important,...
>>     
>
> Hear, hear!
> My problem with VHF isn't VHF itself, but the "VHF Only" attitude.
> If I've ever given another impression, please allow me to correct it now.
> And thank you, Mike, for a great post.
> 73 Dave S.
>
> P.S.
> But I still think the SCR-522 is an ugly black lump ;-).
>
>
>
>