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

[J. Forster]

Mike,

With all due respect, the "Enola Gay" should be fitted with GPS.

-John

==================




>
>> 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
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>