[ARC5] AN/ARC-5 vs. SCR-274-N

[Henry Mei'l's]

Henry writes:

Look old buddy

I said I don't claim to be an expert on this

I said APPEAR  --  take it up with the Germans  and not
me about why they labelled  these unitsi E-274-1 & 2 because OBVIOUSLY they 
chose
to use 274 nomenclature on these units without taking regard to differences
in RXX/ARC-5 contra BC-4XX  --  Tell them, not me to look for the 12SF7.

And excuse me if I typed a wrong number..

I've been playing along with you to try to show good will.


There are some on this thread that share your view and others
that do not. Some are very concerned with 100% historical
accuracy  and preservation and others here are mostly concerned with
enjoying the Command set gear they happen to have.
As I said my interest is in using these Command sets to suit my
needs and tastes -- I've tried looking it at your way but I wear
different glasses - OK?
I don't feel old mil gear is holy -- hundreds of thousands maybe millions
of Command items were produced -- so there's enough around for
those who just enjoy experimenting  with them and those who want
to maintain them as historically correct systems -- we'll leave
that to you and others who want to do that.


My shack is NOT a museum and I am not a custodian.
I keep my gear close to the original because I like
the way they  look in that state BUT  eg. I don't need
fire-hose thick original cables for my TCS rigs
getting in my and if I think original setups interfere with my
operating pleasure, I do things my way.

I am not interested in debating this kind of thing.
If  you think my attitude is wrong, I accept that -
I'm not so sure I'm all that crazy about yours either -
can you accept that?
I think there's room here for different approaches with respect
to mil gear.

Have fun.








I feel that more than can be expected
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Morrow" <kk5f at earthlink.net>
To: "Discussion of AN/ARC-5 military radio equipment." 
<arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 7:25 PM
Subject: [ARC5] AN/ARC-5 vs. SCR-274-N


> Henry wrote:
>
>> The usual US ID bakelite (?) etiquette .. "BC-45X .. replaced by plates
>> with the following text::
>> (on one unit , 1.5 - 3 (MC /MHz):
>>
>> EMPFÄNGER
>> E-274-1
>> GERAT Nr, ***
>
>> (on other unit, 3-8 MC / MHz) unit reads
>> E-274-2
>> GERAT Nr. ***
>
> I assume you mean "3-6" and not "3-8".
>
>> SO they both APPEAR to be  BC-45X  SCR-274-N units and not R/2X-ARC-5
>> units.
>
> That is an incorrect conclusion, as can be quickly determined by reference 
> to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARC-5 .
>
> There is NO SUCH ANIMAL as an SCR-274-N receiver that covers 1.5 to 3.0 
> MHz.  That
> positively rules out the E-274-1 unit as having been SCR-274-N.
>
> Is the second IF tube of either unit a 12SK7, or is it a 12SF7?  ONLY the 
> AN/ARC-5
> receivers had a 12SF7 anywhere in them.  The RAV, ARA, and SCR-274-N used 
> a 12SK7 as
> the second IF.
>
> Only the RAV CBY-46104, ARA CBY/CCT-46104, and the R-25/ARC-5 covered 1.5 
> to 3.0 MHz,
> and I doubt that the E-274-1 started out life as either a RAV or ARA.
>
> The RAV CBY-46105, ARA CBY/CCT-46105, SCR-274-N BC-454-A or -B, and the 
> R-26/ARC-5
> covered 3.0 to 6.0 MHz.
>
> It is a trivial effort of about 15 seconds duration to distinguish an 
> AN/ARC-5 unit from an SCR-274-N unit.  Just look for that 12SF7!
>
> Mike / KK5F
> ______________________________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3167 - Release Date: 09/29/10 
21:50:00