[ARC5] T-15, T-16, and T-17

[David Stinson]

As Mike H. said: we have only apocryphal stories and 
speculation about why the T-15, -16 and -17 were built.
Given that finding the answers would require a lot of time
digging in the Archives in Washingtoon and no one is 
going to do that, speculation and stories are all we'll
likely ever have.  I had a Navy vet tell me many years ago
that they had outfitted single-seat aircraft to fly over 
"leap-frogged" Japanese-held islands and broadcast
"give up" messages using wire recorders.
Seems like quite a tale but I'm not going to call 
the man a "liar."  Just filed it away until I know better.
 
I do know this:  With several high-power sets available 
for the Liaison role at MF, I don't think employing a 
Command Set with a fractional-watt of ERP 
on 500 KC makes any sense.
Moreover- many years ago, Mike Hanz sent me
 a coil set for a very early version of GF 
(need to talk to you about that coil, Mike).
That early GF coil covers 1200-1520 KC.  
There's no way this GF set would be used in 
any long-range role like battleship scout planes.  
It was only 1.5 watts out.

However- there was a role for Command Set-style radios
on MF during the war.  The U.S. Navy had the "latest
and greatest," but that was not so for many other countries.
Remember it was a global war.   A great many 3rd-world
nations were still on the 1927 Naval Radio Accords and their
old equipment conformed to those lower frequency assignments.
If a flight of three Hellcats were patrolling the Canal Zone 
and wanted an I.D. signal from, say, 
a Panamanian Coast Guard vessel or a Nicaraguan fishing 
trawler, they raised them on 500 KC or 1400 KC.
If they wanted to talk to a Costa Rican patrol aircraft, 
he might be using SCR-134 on 800 KC.

IMHO, of all the role speculation I've heard, 
this one makes most sense.
But "speculation" it remains.

GL OM ES 73 DE Dave AB5S