[ARC5] 1155

[Geoff]

What does that have to do with the deployment of various radios?


----- 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 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [ARC5] 1155


> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> -----
> 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
>