[ARC5] Late ARA/ATA vs. AN/ARC-5

[Michael]

-----Original Message-----
From: arc5-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:arc5-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On
Behalf Of Mike Morrow
> Interesting.  I've never seen much hard information about the ARA-1, -2,
and ATA-1 
> immediate predecessors (prototypes) to the AN/ARC-5.  What I had heard is
that these late 
> ARA/ATA sets were very close to the final AN/ARC-5 configuration.

The ARA-1 was the ARA built by Stromberg Carlson.  The designation was
eliminated and the equipment was included with the ARA.  The ARA-2 only had
one receiver that I know if, that being the 46181 which was a 12v version of
the 46129 190-520 KCs Rx.  According to Ships 242A, equivalents to  all of
the ARA type receivers were to be included.  I've never seen any indication
this ever happened.

Also according to Ships 242A, the ATA-1 was like the ARA-1, Stromberg
Carlson built equipment folded into the ATA designation.  There was no ATA-2
and the ATA-3 became the AN/ARC-5 transmitters like the ARA-3 (not shown in
Ships 242A) receivers.  

> The loop antenna connections first appeared on the RAV CBY-46102 beacon
band and the 
> CBY-46103 BC band receivers.  The ARA CBY-46129 and CBY-46145 equivalents 
> eliminated the loop connection.  The R-23 and R-24/ARC-5 restored the loop
connection.

Pretty much.  

> On wonders why this outdated feature was put on the AN/ARC-5 units.  It
wasn't too useful 
> by the time the AN/ARC-5 rolled out, not even for use of the R-24 with the
ZB homing 
> adapter.

Apparently someone thought it a good idea at the time.  This doesn't
necessarily mean it was a good idea, just that someone in the decision
making process thought it was.  The R-24 wouldn't need it with the ZB since
the ZB used its own antenna.  Maybe an old pilot remembered that NDBs can be
pretty useful ashore?

Best regards,
 
Michael, WH7HG BL01xh
http://www.nationalmssociety.org/chapters/NTH/index.aspx 
http://wh7hg.blogspot.com/ 
http://kludges-other-blog.blogspot.com 
Hiki Nô!