[ARC5] Command Sets and Other Rarities

[David Stinson]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Morrow" <kk5f at earthlink.net>

> The following remarks assume that a historically accurate installation of
> a "command set" with a three-receiver rack and a two-transmitter rack is
> being assembled, not just a 80/40 meter ham set.

Mike, you know of my great regard for your insights and posts,
and also you're deep respect for historical accuracy.
You know I share your value of the history of this equipment.
I do feel I must "speak up" for what might be considered 
"only a 80/40 meter ham set."
Please forgive this long ramble; there is a point- honest.

There are people reading this who will still be shuffling about 
this mortal coil when our gear turns 100 years old.
Every day, more and more of it disappears because
some foolish horder was "going to get around to it" 
until his surviving kids threw it all in the dump.  
It gets harder and ever more expensive to build-out
any kind of  set, much less an "historically complete" one.

We are limited creatures.  We are limited in money and more 
important- limited in TIME.  If one is going to be a serious 
collector of this gear, he must make a decision about what he
wants to accomplish- what is the "goal" of his collecting?
Else we waste both our money and our time floundering,
never satisfied, with little accomplished.

If one's goal is to recreate a Novice ham station of 1954,
that's the easiest and least expensive goal and has 
a reasonable chance of quick success, but does nothing to
preserve the *military* history of the equipment.

If the goal is a "complete, historical 1943 carrier aircraft installation"
and thus give a full and accurate picture of exactly how 
the entire set worked "in situ,"
one must accept that he is far more likely to see The Almighty
on Judgement Day ( or the bankruptcy or divorce lawyer)
before he ever finds that very last piece.
And if he does finish it, few will know or appreciate 
because it's too unwieldy to take anywhere for display.
Nevertheless- if one's target is to fully-build out for 
his own satisfaction, that is a valid goal.

My personal goal for collecting is not just to enjoy the equipment
for the history and for the technical challenge of restoration and 
operation,  but also the hope of sparking enough interest in others 
to assure the sets continue in the care of informed, thoughtful stewards.  
To do so, I judge the equipment needs to be "alive,"
since "museum mummy" radios get only a moment's interest
from the average "collector candidate."
I also judge that, to meet my goal, sets must be portable, 
presentable, demonstrable and historically "correct" 
*within the limits* otherwise compatable with my other goals.  
Now- I'd dearly love to have every nut and bolt,
and I'll keep looking out for them, 
but I set the "finish line" for a set according to my goals.
Everything else (like the ZB set I'm building, LOL) is a "bonus."

For example:  my ATA/ARA is a "single/single" 
and every part in it, save IIRC two connectors, 
is "correct" ARA / ATA, including the very scarce 
(maybe rare) single-set mounts and shocks.   
I don't know if any aircraft in WWII was ever equipped 
with a "single-single" ATA/ARA (I think it likely), 
but I do know this set is portable, is presentable, 
works and accurately demonstrates the early version 
of the famous HF Command Set in a way that is interesting
to the viewers.
It is easy to display and compare to 
my similarly-built-out late MF-HF AN/ARC-5.
And if I'm going to demonstrate the sets, 
I can't spend the next 10 years and another pile of cash
trying to find just one good T-17 mike; 
I'm going to have to "cross my fingers" and substitute 
an "unauthentic" element that will actually work.  
It's a small price to reach my goals.

If I decided to wait until I had every single part for
an "historically complete carrier installation," 
it is unlikely I will live long enough or have enough 
money to complete it before "the Old Man with the 
Boney Fingers" taps on my sholder.  In that case,
I will not have accomplished what I claimed to value-
to engender interest for potential future stewards of
the equipment I've worked to preserve.
Moreover- I'd have a very hard time displaying and
demonstrating such a set; it's too darn big!
My full 2x3 VHF/HF SCR-274N takes up 
a whopping chunk of table space and is H*E*A*V*Y. 

So I guess my point in this old-foggy ramble is:
"historical accuracy" isn't a rigid concept.
I call mine "historically accurate" even if it doesn't 
have some of the ancillary functions of a carrier install.
We can be true to the spirit of history without having every 
single piece exactly right (though that would be sweet).
If we're going to do anything useful, we have to 
set and respect goals that are attainable.
My 1x1 ATA/ARA may not be exactly what was
in a Wildcat, but it's close enough to get a really
interested person involved.  That's all I ask for.

GL OM ES 73 DE Dave AB5S