[ARC5] 1155

[Geoff]

You must enjoy staring in a mirror

----- 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 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: [ARC5] 1155


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