[ARC5] Pre-ARC-5 rigs.

[AKLDGUY .]

This topic has descended into an argument over semantics and has got right
away from the purpose of my posts, which was to see if anyone could
establish what type of *receiver* Earhart carried.

I have made it clear that radio malfunction or radio misoperation by
Earhart is NOT any part of my theory on her disappearance.

I believe that both her receiver and her transmitter performed as designed.
What I have been trying to establish is what type of receiver she carried
to determine whether it was inherently prone to mis-setting of frequency
due to having a non-direct frequency readout. Meaning that if she had to
look at a chart and then she mis-set the numbers on the dial, that would
explain why she was unable to hear the "Itasca".

If this receiver identification issue had established that the readout was
direct, my theory would be a little more likely, since she would have been
less likely to have made a mistake.

As it turns out, nobody on the group has been able to conclusively identify
the receiver, which does not yet diminish my theory.

73 de Neil ZL1ANM



On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 5:49 PM, WA5CAB--- via ARC5 <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
wrote:

> Oh, come on, Neil.  If AE had a Bendix RA-1 (and if I had to voice an
> opinion I'd say No), it doesn't matter where she acquired it from.  It
> wasn't
> then and isn't now a military radio.  Someone may have bought her a beer in
> some O-club, too, but that would'nt make it a military beer.
>
> Plus, "Other sources allege", when translated into plain English, is just
> "the rumor mill says".  Bottom line is that the woman was just a disaster
> waiting to happen.  And it did.
>
> Robert Downs - Houston
>
>
> In a message dated 08/04/2014 20:13:05 PM Central Daylight Time,
> neilb0627 at gmail.com writes:
> > >Although the RA-1 was used in military aircraft (or at least Canadian
> > ones) it was not per se a military radio.  Anyone
> > > with the money could buy one from Bendix.
> >
> > You are probably correct, but that's not the point, since Mike Everette
> > wrote (and was quoted by me):
> >
> > >Other sources allege that perhaps AE had obtained a Bendix RA-1 receiver
> > via the US Navy.
> >
> > "obtained ... via the US Navy." means (if correct) that it WAS a military
> > radio.
> >
> > 73 de Neil ZL1ANM
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:20 PM, <WA5CAB at cs.com> wrote:
> > >> Although the RA-1 was used in military aircraft (or at least Canadian
> >> ones) it was not per se a military radio.  Anyone with the money could
> buy
> >> one from Bendix.
> >>
> >> Robert Downs - Houston
> >> wa5cab dot com (Web Store)
> >> MVPA 9480
> >>
> >>
> >> In a message dated 08/04/2014 18:55:44 PM Central Daylight Time,
> >> neilb0627 at gmail.com writes:
> >>
> >> >>> >Other sources allege that perhaps AE had obtained a Bendix RA-1
> >>> receiver
> >>> via the US Navy.  The Bendix receiver
> >>> >would have either supplanted or replaced the WE unit; the Bendix was a
> >>> much more capable receiver.  This would have
> >>> >solved the question of her being able to receive at 1300 kc.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That tallies with my recollection that she carried a military radio,
> but
> >>> I
> >>> was unable to remember what type.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The RA-1B has direct frequency readout on the dial, if I'm not
> mistaken,
> >>> so
> >>> she should have been capable of setting to correct frequency, unless
> she
> >>> made an error with the bandswitch. Surely she had enough gumption to be
> >>> aware that that might be a problem after hearing no response from the
> >>> "Itasca"?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 73 de Neil ZL1ANM
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>