[ARC5] 1155

[J. Forster]

You cannot deploy what you don't have. That should be obvious to even an
idiot.

Apparently not.

-John

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


> 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
>>
>
>