[ARC5] YG,ZB and Lateral to Another Issue.

[David Stinson]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Morrow" <kk5f at earthlink.net>

> I believe that it is impossible to credibly replicate a 
> *historically*
> accurate RU-*/GF-* without ZB-*, ...

With great respect, Mike, this might be "a bridge too far."
The GF/RU in various itterations was in service
as early as 1933, which pre-dates the "ZB-type"sets by
some years.  Early-Mid-1930s installations had a fixed loop
or a DU.  I've been trying to find installation docs for
Naval Reserve installations in 1939 (forlorne hope),
which used the GF-10/RU-15 (the set I'm building).
I'd be very surprised if "top secret" ZBs
had been installed in these aircraft or any other
non-front-line units during the war years.
It would be too hard to secure them and, other
than training, a waste of units needed at the front.

I know... I'm being picky.
The photos of the Marine Corps Hellcat from Midway
which has the six "kill" marks has GF/RU and ZB installed.
I'd agree that, in this and carrier service during the war
in units at the front, GF/RU without ZB would be
very unlikely.

>  (The only real mystery is why the loop connections returned
> for the R-23 and  R-24/ARC-5.)

This is another issue, but the above is a great....
umm.... what do they call it... "segway?"

Several studies during the war in all services attributed
pilots saying:  "The radios don't work!"  to, not bad
radios, but to pilot impatience and "fiddle-fingers"
on the coffee grinders.  I can tell you first-hand:
the radios don't drift even a fraction as badly as
these boys were saying.  They are remarkably stable
if not subjected to modern sets of "fiddle-fingers."
So, in AN/ARC-5, A.R.C. "fix-tuned" the receivers
and took away the crank.

Now the question:
After knowing all this, why did A.R.C. go back
to crank-tuned receivers and "broad" IFs
to compensate for them in the post-war
ARC-type-1x sets?

73 Dave S.