[ARC5] More on SCR-183 Coils

[Kludge]

Again forgive any rambling.  My thinking has definitely been non-linear of
late.

-----Original Message-----
From: arc5-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:arc5-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On
Behalf Of David Stinson
> Original set designated "GF," which included the receiver
> as a "component" under the "GF Set" designation.
   ... Clip ... 
> While I don't have an example of the receiver nomen plate,
> it's likely the receiver was designated "RU-1" as a component
> under the "GF Set" contract since,

I doubt it.  The Navy was pretty insistent about identifying equipment
"properly" and if the receiver was labeled as an RU-1 the system would have
been called a GF/RU-1.  However it was simply called a GF so I'll bet you
that steak dinner you owe Phil that the Rx was so labeled.  I'll even go so
far as to pick up the tab for both yours and his if I'm wrong.  :-)

What I do think is that the GF receiver is the follow up to that original RU
receiver (and I thank you for reminding me of that letter regarding the
Navy's flight testing it which I actually have in my files) covering a
broader range with the RU-1 more closely resembling the RU-2 and covering an
even greater range.  Note that the RU only covered 250-1800 KC while the
RU-1 covered 250 KC to 14 MC, slightly more than the RU-2's 224 KC to 12.5
MC.  The GF receiver covered 224-350 KC and 5.4-8.1 MC while the transmitter
covered 6.2-7.7 MC.   

> under the same contract, a "stand alone" receiver, designated
> "RU-2", covered 224-12500 KC using 10 different coils.
> The two receivers would require different designations
> because they have differing specifications (freq coverage).

The RU-2 is definitely a stand alone unit (confirmed by re-reading the
manual) intended for use with something other than a GF-x transmitter.  How
the RU-1 was employed is anyone's guess at this moment although I would
imagine it and the RU-2 were used with the earlier marks of the GO
transmitter.  

One other note of interest is that the GF receiver was electrically much
closer to the SCR-AA-183 receiver while the RU-2 more closely resembled the
later RU models in that it had a BFO although the tube lineup was changed in
later versions.  

While I'm thinking about it, Dave, you made a comment a couple years ago
about reserve units getting equipment with less than complete frequency
coverage.  I've given that some thought and believe, though I can't prove,
that the equipment they flew stateside as reserve stayed stateside and the
pilots were given better aircraft with better equipment when activated.  If
you look at a reserve unit as part of a training cycle this makes sense
since going into combat with less than combat-ready equipment would be
counterproductive.  Just a thought from a med-fuzzed brain ... :-)

Best regards,
 
Michael, WH7HG ex-K3MXO, ex-KN3MXO, WPE3ARS, BL01xh ex-Mensa A&P PP BGI 
I am me.  I’m the only one who’s qualified.
http://www.nationalmssociety.org/chapters/NTH/index.aspx
http://wh7hg.blogspot.com/
http://kludges-other-blog.blogspot.com
Hiki Nô!