[ARC5] ARC-5 Mods

[Dennis Monticelli]

I agree with your philosophy, Kevin.  There is room for both
unmodified historic sets and sets that have been modified to operate
well on the air (without clicks, chirps, drift or harmonics).
Fortunately, ARC-5 sets need minimal help to enjoy on today's bands.
Yet I very rarely hear an ARC-5 on the bands.  I know that people go
to the trouble of getting them running, but I think it's a few QSO's
and that's it.  A shame really.  I have used a T-22 regularly for
several years and more recently a BC-453 with a converter.  Yes, they
were both modified when I first got them.  I undid most of those
original mods and put in my own.

Wright-Patterson is an awesome museum.  Been there only once and
remember it well.

Dennis AE6C

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Kevin Berlen <kberlen at verizon.net> wrote:
> Hello all. I have lurked on this list for several years, but have not posted
> previously. I enjoy the
> discussion regarding these fine sets, and have appreciated them ever since
> my "elmer" helped
> me get a BC-455 working as part of my novice station in 1975. I have a small
> collection currently,
> but always look at hamfests for another unit to bring home.
>
> I thought I would offer an alternative, if un-popular, view of some of the
> modifications that have
> been performed upon these fine old radios.
>
> Somewhat like classic aircraft, I believe that there is room for both 100%
> original non-modifed
> units, and for units that have been subjected to some sort of modification
> to make them practical
> and reliable to operate. I would have never developed my long lasting
> affection for these units had
> I not been introduced to them for use in my novice station (paired with a
> DX-40).
>
> The analogy that comes to my mind is one featuring one of the aircraft that
> these units were
> installed in, the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. I visit the Air Force Museum
> at Wright-Patterson
> often. It is wonderful to see a completely restored, authentic B-17 on
> display. This aircraft has
> been stone cold since it's restoration several years ago. It is a pristine
> example for all future
> generations of what a B-17 isand should be.
>
> This summer, I had the privilege of attending an air show where one of the
> remaining flight
> worthy B-17's made an appearance. When this aircraft made a low pass down
> the flight line,
> with all four engines screaming, flying, in the air, doing the job it was
> designed to do, the
> hair on the back of my neck stood up. It was a marvellous experience. This
> same show
> featured no less than five B-47/DC-3's and seven P-51 Mustangs. Given the
> choice between
> the museum example, and one out, being used, in my mind the choice is
> simple. I would
> rather experience the operational aircraft.
>
> I guess the point I am driving at is, in my opinion, these radios will be
> appreciated by some
> who otherwise my not have picked one up if they are put in shape to be used
> regularly. I have
> always been in awe of the engineering and attention to detail that went into
> the design and
> manufacture of these radios. Hopefully others who pick one up will develop
> the same appreciation
> for them.
>
> I certainly would not condone modification of pristine sets today, but
> finding a unit that has
> already been modified at a hamfest is not difficult, and "improving it" as
> was featured in the
> recent QST article, I can see nothing wrong with. Just my .02 worth. 73,
>
> Kevin, K9HX
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
>