[ARC5] RAX Receiver Component Numbers (CG-46xxx) Info Request

[WA5CAB at cs.com]

So the conclusion seems to be that RAX was converted to RAX-1 by replacing 
the original triple-receiver rack with three single-receiver racks and an 
external junction box.  The manual I have doesn't mention RAX and only goes up 
to Section VI.  In general, pages that show the single-receiver rack(s) 
and/or the junction box have RAX-1 in the Figure title.  Pages that don't for 
the most part only include the Navy Type Number in the title.  I'm not sure 
what the original date of my manual is.  On the title page where normally 
would be the pub date, sometimes prefixed by "Approved" or "Revised", mine says 
"Reprinted 15 March 1945".

In a message dated 2/11/2011 1:28:35 PM Central Standard Time, kk5f at earthlin
k.net writes: 
> Mike wrote:
> 
> >Not all -1 suffixes on Navy aircraft equipment denoted a 28v version of 
> >a 12v set, Mike.
> 
> Yes, I know there's never been any real hard and fast significance to
> the old USN nomenclature system's numerical increments.  Often, it's
> applied to the same equipment manufactered by someone else, or even
> the same equipment manufactured by the same people, but on a new order.
> 
> But...for years I've operated on the assumption, received from I don't
> know where, that there was a small number of 12-vdc systems made as
> the RAX, as opposed to the RAX-1.  But my search for several months
> was coming up empty.  Now I understand why.
> 
> >...The XRAX on 
> >the "flight deck" described at http://aafradio.org/flightdeck/RAX.html 
> >has no mention of a RAX-1 anywhere.  The cover page of the Instruction 
> >Book for the first RAX sets (GEI-14926B for Nos-74810 dated 29 June 
> >1940, serial numbers 1 to 75 inclusive) specifically states "for Navy 
> >Model RAX".  Section IX is entitled "Modification of Navy Model RAX to 
> >RAX-1 Equipment" but it is simply changing our the support racks and 
> >adding a junction box to the mix.  The receivers themselves show no 
> >change in model number or any internal modifications.
> 
> Fantastic!  Even the XRAX was 28 vdc.  All this conclusively demonstrates
> there were no 12 vdc RAX-type receiver systems.  Mike, I'd seen your
> XRAX pages several years ago but I'd forgotten all about them.
> 
> As everyone is aware, I make the most long-winded posts and replies on
> these lists.  One of the reason I do that is to try to get a discussion
> going, and to encourage anyone to contest *anything* that I've written.
> I love it when someone notices something amiss and points it out.  I love
> finding out that I was wrong, because I've learned something new about
> gear that I enjoy studying.
> 
> This little correction really makes my day.  Jay, Robert, Todd, and 
> Mike...
> thanks for your replies!
> 
> Mike / KK5F
> 

Robert & Susan Downs - Houston
wa5cab dot com (Web Store)
MVPA 9480