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

[Bill Cromwell]

On 06/28/2013 11:08 AM, Mike Morrow wrote:
>> 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
>


Hi Mike,

Now you've totally ruinated your whip on that guy. Somebody else will 
have to flog the next guy while you repair your whip (evil grin). Mine 
has some wear on it now from another list so all I have is a temporary 
wet noodle.

Yeah, I dunno why anybody would rail against putting in authentic gear 
in a *restoration*. Maybe not thinking things through. I am not really a 
restorer but I use my old surplus stuff pretty much as-designed. No big 
pieces of junk so far.

73,

Bill  KU8H