[ARC5] 1155

[Geoff]

Neither was the US involved then except to ferry food, etc. The BC-375/ARC-5 
TX/BC-348 was aboard when our bombers arrived in mid to late 1942..
The ATC was available before that and the ART-13 in 1943 in later B-17's 
when we got serious about production after working the bugs out. .

The ocean had nothing to do with it, the Brits lost contact shortly after 
feet dry across their drainage ditch.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J. Forster" <jfor at quikus.com>
To: "Geoff" <geoffrey at jeremy.mv.com>
Cc: "Alan Morriss" <mohawk at clara.co.uk>; <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [ARC5] 1155


> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2437/5116 - Release Date: 07/07/12
>