[ARC5] Enola radio gear.

[Mike Hanz]

Kenneth G. Gordon wrote:
>> I'll readily admit there are still mysteries I am trying to
>> solve, like the AN/ARC-3 sets under both the flight deck and midships
>> observer decks...we only have records on one of them.
>>     
> Hmmmm....why two sets?
>   

So far my working theory is for the same reason there were also two 
ART-13s - one for normal liaison work and the other tied to 
instrumentation roles, like cutting an MCW tone when the weapon was 
released for the folks back home on Tinian to know when it was dropped.  
The other ARC-3 may have accomplished the same sorts of coordination 
functions for the photo and cannister dropping aircraft that were within 
a few miles of the plane carrying the bomb.  If you look at 
http://aafradio.org/NASM/Enola_3_035a.jpg you'll see a special panel to 
the right of the BC-348 that has SCR-522 labels on it - a remnant of the 
change from that older set in June 1945.  Its pairing with the "Collins" 
HF transmitter in the same unusual panel suggests the same or a similar 
function, designed to work in conjunction with the weaponeer's panel at 
http://aafradio.org/NASM/weaponeers_1.jpg .  I just haven't found any 
pre-flight notations or operational procedures about it yet. 

> Also, I think the AN/ARC-3 sets were a significant advance 
> over previous gear. The military must have thought so too, 
> since the AN/ARC-3 sets morphed into at least two further 
> types with a whole lot more channels, while remaining basically 
> the same.
>   

The SCR-522 had its share of reliability and operational shortcoming 
problems, like only having four channels vs ten for the ARC-3.  It also 
had a British lineage that was okay, but a home grown capability was 
always desired.  The ARC-5 VHF competitor was never really much 
competition - same four channel limitation - so the ARC-3 was quickly 
accepted as the gold standard for operational flexibility.

73,
Mike