[ARC5] Catching-Up: FT-331

[David Stinson]

"Real Life" has been interferring with radio again, 
so I'm (a) behind.  

Re: the FT-331.  I have a black one, serial number 140. 
Alas, it has no order number.  I traded a NIB unpainted 
one for it and can't now find the photos of the order numbers 
on the box.  

Through the great kindness of Gordon White, I have a copy 
of the contract/order for the first production run of SCR-274N 
from Aircraft Radio Corporation.  Like the BC-696, the FT-331 
was not in the original order.  Since it is unlikely anyone is going 
to spend months of his retirement in the archives in Washington 
digging-out the documentation on why either of these were added, 
and the only retirement I will ever see is the kind 
that comes with 6-feet of dirt, we will never have more than 
speculation on why this (or dozens of other things, 
like T-17/ARC-5 etc.) was done.

However- we do know some things, and we can make some 
very educated guesses which, if not entirely accurate, are
the best we can do for now.  Afterall; Napoleon said: 
"History is a pack of lies we've all agreed to believe"
and another wise sage (ahem.... ;-) said: 
"History belongs to the person who writes it."  
 
For example:  The original order for SCR-274N, 
let in October of 1940, specified transmit from 4-9 MC.   
Army Airways was generally on 4495 KC for "in route" 
communications anywhere there was a significant airbase.  
Most Army towers transmitted on longwave and received 
on HF.   The Army had been on "short rations" since the 
end of WWI.  The eels in charge of the budget in Washingtoon- 
as such creatures always do- dreamed their dreams of
the coming war being just like the last one, with long, 
majestic coluums of battleships blazing-away at each other so, 
as the old saying goes: "The Navy gets the Gravy" 
(true then, true now ;-).
The Signal Corps had to pinch its pennies, so transmit coverage 
down to 3 MC wasn't included at first.   
That was fine as long as you were flying "Peashooters" 
around the local base, but if you were going cross-country-  
it could be a long way between Army Airways stations or 
Army towers, as some unfortunate Air Mail pilots 
could have told you.  There were a great many towers out there
 listening on  3105 KC- an asset the Army, some time between
 the (IIRC) third and forth production runs of SCR-274N, 
decided to use by introducing BC-696.   I'd bet there are some
Air Corps veteran's headstones out there that had something to 
do with the USAAF deciding to add 3 MC.

 "First-runs" of BC-696 are scarce, because most went into 
straight into service.  I've never seen one that didn't show 
significant use wear,  nor one that some doofuss 
had not attacked with a chainsaw and jackhammer.   
You can identify a "first run" 696 thus:  Produced in black paint 
by Western Electric after the 293-PHILA-42 order,
 just as they were changing from the large nomenclature tags 
on the top of the transmitters to the small tags on the side.  
The first 696s have the small nomenclature tags, but they are 
screwed to the top.  The holes for riviting the old, large tags are 
there but the small tag is mounted, centered on them.  
Later production in black had the tag on the side.  
Shortly thereafter, W.E. and other subcontractors switched 
to unpainted sets.

What does this tell us about FT-331?  Alas- only a little.  
We know it was another "afterthought," since its 
nomenclature designation is around 100 past the numbers 
on the original-order 274N racks.  But as to the purpose 
or need for it?  It's a real mystery. 
 We have, at least, some basis for educated speculation on 
the purpose of  the MF AN/ARC-5 transmitters:  the need to 
communication with the aircraft and ships of allied but 
tertiary powers, which were using frequencies below 2 MC.   
But I've no clue why the 274N was originally speced for 
a 4-transmitter configuration, why the Signal Corps decided
 against that as the "standard configuration" (money again?)  
or why they eventually changed their minds in at least 
a limited number of cases.

Given such a situtation, informed and respectful speculation
(meaning no one calls anyone an "idiot," since 
they don't know the real story any better than the next guy), 
is a healthy exercise.

More catching-up later.  "Real Life" has me by the hair again.

73 DE Dave AB5S