[ARC5] 1155

[J. Forster]

Neither the BC-348 nor the ART-13 was available at the start of WW II.

Apples and oranges. The UK did not have the advantage of a 3000 mile moat
either.

-John

================


>
> ----- 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.
>
>