[ARC5] GO-9, ATC, ATD, RAX-1, ARB Remarks

[Mike Everette]

More than likely the first aircraft available in quantity with the ATC installed was the Grumman TBF/General Motors TBM Avenger torpedo bomber which was fielded in large numbers by late 1942 or early 1943.  The SB2C Helldiver dive bomber had the ATC as well, and entered combat in either late 1943 or early-mid 1944 (and wasn't a particularly well-liked aircraft!).  The TBF/TBM used the ARB receiver, but I'm not sure about what was in the Helldiver; more than likely the same.

The B-29 was what initially brought the ATC/ART-13 to the USAAF.  And even the B-29 was first designed to have the BC-375 as the liaison transmitter.

Production considerations kept much older gear like the GO-9 transmitter and the RU receiver in use up through the end of the war, and long after.  (I have an RU-18 receiver with a 1950 (!!!) overhaul date stamp.)  Older designs like the PBY Catalina kept getting these radios at the factory, right up till the end of production.  They might have gotten newer gear at modification centers before being deployed, but most of them came off the line with the obsolete designs.

Everything I have ever read about the ATD suggests that it wasn't procured in large numbers... that the ATC beat out both the ATB and ATD in "fly-off" competitions.  The ATB was an RCA design intended to be paired with the ARB which was also RCA; not sure whether Bendix intended for a particular receiver to be paired with the ATD.  The ATC was a far superior design, more flexible and versatile, and with superior frequency agility.  Whatever ATB and ATD were bought was probably a "contingency" issue, "just in case."

73

Mike
W4DSE



--- On Thu, 9/6/12, Mike Morrow <kk5f at earthlink.net> wrote:

> From: Mike Morrow <kk5f at earthlink.net>
> Subject: [ARC5] GO-9, ATC, ATD, RAX-1, ARB Remarks
> To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net, arc5 at mailman.qth.net
> Date: Thursday, September 6, 2012, 10:19 PM
> Gene wrote:
> 
> > My ATD has the following tuning units...
> > 200-540 KC
> > 540-1,500 KC
> > 1,500-3,000 KC
> > 3,000-9,050 KC
> >
> > I think this was a very standard config from what I
> have gathered...
> 
> In contrast to your list, the ATD was supplied from Bendix
> with *no* 
> CRR-47207 200-540 kHz tuning unit and with *two* CRR-47210
> 3000-9050
> tuning units.  The ATD manual of 4 AUG 43 ( http://aafradio.org/docs/ATD.pdf )
> says that the ATD is provided with those four, but states
> that one for 
> 200-540 kHz and one for 9050-15800 kHz are available. 
> Later the manual
> states that information on these last two units is provided
> "in the event
> that these units are made available to the service at some
> subsequent date."
> Definitely, the 200-540 kHz unit was.
> 
> What doesn't make a lot of sense was providing the CRR-47206
> antenna tuning
> unit for 200-540 kHz, but no CRR-47207 transmitter tuning
> unit for that range.
> The CRR-47208 540-1500 kHz tuning unit was provided
> instead.  I suspect
> that some delay in production was responsible for the lack
> of the CRR-47207.
> The inclusion of two CRR-47210 units make perfect sense
> since that allows two
> channels to be preset in that range.  That's still
> pretty limited, but it's
> a lot better than having only one preset channel in that
> most important
> 3000-9050 kHz range. 
> 
> Dave wrote:
> 
> > I have an ATD in the winter project que.
> > Probably going to pair it with RAX.
> 
> There's a mid-WWII USN training manual that has a section in
> the back that
> lists the radio equipment on most USN aircraft.  In
> every instance, the ATD
> has the ARB is its companion.  Mike Hanz has a copy of
> this section at 
>  http://aafradio.org/docs/Navy-radio-gear-1943.pdf
> .  The RAX-1 seems 
> associated only with the GO-9.  The ARB/ATD/ZB-*/LM-*
> combo is a perfect 
> contemporary radio technology match-up!
> 
> Which brings up another remarkable item.  In this 1943
> training document
> there is *no* listing for the Collins ATC.  The ATD
> shows up in four places
> and the ATC in none. I've always doubted that the ATC was
> available until
> the late-1943 to early-1944 era.  Its omission in this
> 1943 listing lends
> some evidence for that.  I don't believe there's any
> likelihood that the
> ATC was deployed in 1942, or even by mid-1943.
> 
> It's likely that the listed aircraft actually wound up with
> the ATC instead
> of the ATD, once it was finally available.  The ATC
> replaced the GO-9 in
> many places as well.
> 
> 73,
> Mike / KK5F
> ______________________________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>