[ARC5] Inspired hack job

[Mike Morrow]

> You know it occurs to me that you would have considerable difficulty in finding
> a receiver that would do a better job over the 190 -550 KHZ range as compared to
> an ATA, BC-453, R-11A, or others of that series.  

I assume you refer to the ARA...the ATA is a transmitter system only.  And drop
the post-WWII R-11A...it has no BFO, so it is worthless for CW.

I would not have any trouble at all coming up with better *surplus* sets.

> I very much doubt the ADF sets, either WWII vintage or more modern, would do as
> well as a BC-453 or its LF brethren.

LF breathren???  The ADF sets like the MN-26*, BC-433-*, R-5/ARN-7, and R-101*/ARN-6
have pretty decent performance.  So also the AN/ARN-59 (A.R.C. Type 21).  However,
the BC-433-* and R-5/ARN-7 do lack *real* BFOs. 

> After all, the 453 was designed for com use on the control tower frequencies,
> not driving an indicator.

The ARA/CBY-46129 and descendants were very good receivers for the Adcock *directional*
A-N beacons that comprised such an important part of the US airways navigation network
before VOR replaced just about all of the Adcock beacons in the 1950s.  The control
tower-to-aircraft function was somewhat incidental...until VHF replaced that.

In 1943 the USAAF did experiment with a set called the AN/ARA-1 that adapted the
BC-453-* and BC-946-B for course deviation indication.

> I have not done a comparison, but I doubt a BC-348 can hold a candle to a BC-453.

OK, let's see.  The BC-348-* has two RF stages and three IF stages, panel-tunable BFO
and crystal filter, plus real AVC.  A Type K navigation set has one RF stage and two
IF stages, and no AVC on the CBY/CCT-46129 and the BC-453-*.  In truth, the only edge
that the Type K receivers have is that they are much smaller and, on the old surplus
market, much cheaper than the BC-348-*.  The last is the only reason I didn't listen
to the MF Morse band on a BC-348-* rather than a BC-453-A, in the mid-1960s.

> Unless you are talking something like an R-389, I doubt that even today you could
> do better than a BC-453 for 190 - 550 KHZ, and mostly not as well.

If you've tried several of the many surplus sets that cover the beacon band,
I'm surprised that you haven't found anything better than the BC-453-*.

Any number of US Navy surplus units will do much better: RAK, RBA, RBM/CAY-46076A,
RAX-1/CG-46115, ARB, Bendix RA-10*, AN/SRR-11, AN/WRR-3...others as well.  In the
US Army area, the LF/MF BC-314-* and BC-344-* will blow away an Army BC-453-*.

The AN/WRR-3B is my favorite.

The Type K-derived beacon band sets are good sets, but their essential avaiation
functions could be carried out as well by very simple and inexpensive sets like the
BC-1206-series and the AN/ARR-13.

They were good, but there are much better surplus sets that cover the old LF/MF
beacon band and much more.

Mike / KK5F