[ARC5] 1155

[Geoff]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J. Forster" <jfor at quikus.com>
To: "Alan Morriss" <mohawk at clara.co.uk>
Cc: <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: [ARC5] 1155


>> hello john , of course you are right.fortunately my set is entirely
>> original , but it was getting to be in a bad way. phil who lives near me
>> is an 1155 enthusiast and asked me if he could rebuild it. the 
>> performance
>> is now what it was in 1950 and all the wiring is new.i run the set up 
>> from
>> the original ground power units which are as big as a small refrigerator.
>
> Yup, and much, much heavier. A single person cannot lift the Transmitter
> supply alone, Olympic weightlifters excepted. I may have the only pair in
> the US.
>
>> the ARC5 is a much more advanced concept and i personally think that the
>> command equipment was inspired by german technology . there are many
>> similarities .
>> the concept is marvellous in it's simplicity , and i am told that failure
>> was rare.having separate receivers and transmitters . cheers alan
>
> They are really different. The ARC-5s have narrow frequency coverage; the
> R.1155 is a genertal coverage receiver with bandswitching.
>
> To be fair, it'd take >5 ARC-5s to cover part of the spectrum an R.1155 
> does.
>
> If the design mission is purely to communicate on a very few frequencies
> to other planes in the flight or home base, the ARC-5 wins.
>
> If the mission includes general signal surveilance, the R.1155 wins.
>
> YMMV,
>
> -John

And a BC-348 was far superior for that and when paired with an ART-13 the 
Brit gear was a Model T in comparison. The RAF was rather known for getting 
lost because of poor radios.