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

[Kenneth G. Gordon]

On 28 Jun 2013 at 11:08, 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

Ha ha! Thank you, Mike. This is just the information I need to give to the PT boat gang. I 
figured (correctly, of course) that if I provided enough incentive, someone, mostly likely you, 
would come forth with the necessary information. And it worked! :-)

Thank you.

Oh. One more thing: if you wonder why I didn't just ask you, the reason is that I have asked 
before and you weren't as forthcoming. Hee hee! :-)

Ken Gordon W7EKB