[ARC5] 1155

[J. Forster]

Three years is many lifetimes in a World War.

New York or Washington could not be bombed by the Nazis. London could
be...  and was.

-John

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



> 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
>>
>
>