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

[Jack Antonio]

On 6/28/2013 11:08 AM, Mike Morrow wrote:


> So, just what is it that makes the AN/ARC-4 "a total piece of garbage"?


I have read that there was some frustration in the Navy that AN/ARC-4
had low receiver sensitivity, which tended to limit operational range.

I did a very quick and dirty path loss calculation, assuming 10uV 
sensitivity, 5 Watts power output, 144 mc, and 0 db gain antennas on 
both ends, and came up with 21 miles. Changing the sensitivity to
1 uV increased range to 209 miles, which tends to agree with what
I've read about in SCR-522 operations.

I used P.L.=36.6+20log(d)+20log(f)

So I tend to believe the Navy simply tried to use the set at ranges
it simply couldn't handle.

Either Morgan or Sandretto described a radio which sounded pretty much
like the WE-233. He went on to say that VHF communications were very
close to being implemented for the airlines, this being in 1941, but
obviously world events altered those plans.

Marty Reynolds used to say the WE-233 was designed at the request of 
Douglas, for use in the DC-3.  I would really like to see written
verification of that, just to have it in the history files.

Jack Antonio WA7DIA/4