[ARC5] Quote: "ARC-4 was a total piece of garbage"

[Mike Morrow]

> I have been contacted by a friend of the team near Portland, Oregon which is 
> restoring a WWII PT boat...The other piece of equipment they need is an ARC-4.
> I told their intermediary that the ARC-4 was a total piece of garbage, but,
> apparently, they insist that is what they want.

Well, I guess they must be a really silly bunch, just wanting to restore the
equipment that was in place for war-time military use.  Obviously, if they
were smart, they'd want something else that works better, like an AN/ARC-1,
or an AN/ARC-3, or an AN/ARC-73, or an AN/ARC-115, or an AN/ARC-134, or...
maybe even the latest oriental gear...something that is more suitable for ham
fun.

It surprises me to read that a group attempting an authentic restoration
would be discouraged from that effort.  If the unit carried a BC-14-A crystal
set, that's what should be there!

Now...to the AN/ARC-4:

The WE-233A (AN/ARC-4*) filled an essential role in war-time naval
communications years before the AN/ARC-1 or VHF AN/ARC-5 was available. One
can find documentation of its use not only on naval aircraft, but also
on naval craft including submarines and PT boats, as well as in portable
installations such as the MAH and MAM.  It apparently filled its *military*
(not ham!) role without many of its intended users calling it "a total
piece of garbage".  Perhaps those users were not qualified sufficiently
to understand how really poor their equipment was. :-)

So, just what is it that makes the AN/ARC-4 "a total piece of garbage"?
1.  Poor construction quality?  The RT-19/ARC-4 is as beautifully-made as
anything that Western Electric ever built for the USN in WWII. 
2.  Difficulty of operation?  This is the simplest aircraft radio set to
operate that was available in any service at the time of introduction.
4.  Limited operational capability?  This was the first VHF set used by
any service with a *guard* channel, in addition to three other channels.
5.  Complex installation?  The C-51/ARC-4 control contains every
control and audio connection required for full set operation on one
control box the size of a command set transmitter control, including a
limited interphone function.  It connects via one cable to the rack.
Provide 28 vdc (28 or 14 vdc for AN/ARC-4X) power.  Provide an antenna
through PL-239 connection.  That's it.
6.  Complex channel re-alignment?  All were supplied for a standard four
frequencies, but WE-703 crystal units were available for other frequencies.
The RT-19 has the simplest alignment procedures of any VHF aircraft set of
WWII.
7.  Large and heavy?  The AN/ARC-4 is lighter than the later AN/ARC-1.
It is lighter and less bulky than the SCR-522-A (which the USN also used).
It's close to par with the VHF-only version of the AN/ARC-5, but that was
not available when the AN/ARC-4 was.
8.  Too few channels?  It had four...guard (P-P) and three others (P-G).
The SCR-522-A had four only, and no guard.  The AN/ARC-5 had four only,
and no guard.
9.  Too limited frequency coverage?  In the early days of use of VHF,
the RT-19 provided more than enough coverage (140 to 144 MHz) to meet
the service requirements in an environment where four-channel operation
was the norm.

The only serious design defect of the RT-19/ARC-4 is the lack of RF
stage on either of its two receiver front ends.  Regardless of the
inconvenience that would cause post-war hams, the design was adequate
for military/naval service.

Terming the AN/ARC-4 "a total piece of garbage" carries on the post-war
ham tradition of classifying almost anything but a BC-610 as garbage
or in need of radical ham re-design...the philosophy that says the
BC-191-* and BC-375-* and SCR-*-183/283 and RU-*/GF-* sets and countless
others were **all junk**. 

I'm surprised to see that here.

Mike / KK5F