[ARC5] Tuning Cable Question

[Robert Eleazer]

One of my favorite examples of that situation is that it was well into the 
1980's before General Dynamics quit using wooden parts on Atlas space 
boosters.

Note that with the 274-N receivers, there was a huge increase in the number 
of tuning cables - from one to three compared to an RU installation.  That 
may have been a driver, too.

It's odd, but that tuning cable that is attached to the coil box on that RU 
in the F4F-4 picture I sent actually seems to run aft from the radio, toward 
the tail, and then presumably makes a U-turn and goes back forward to the 
cockpit.  I wonder if the larger cables had less flexibility and so they had 
to make big sweeping loops of that sort.

Wayne
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Hanz" <aaf-radio-1 at aafradio.org>
To: <jfor at quikus.com>
Cc: <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>; <releazer at earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: [ARC5] Tuning Cable Question


> And I would respectfully point out that the dichotomy existed long before 
> the war began.  The "working Bendix standard" was an accepted industry 
> standard *before* Bendix started using it.  I think Gordon White put his 
> finger on the issue.  Managing a group of engineers provided me with an 
> interesting perspective:  when one is surrounded by a large numbers of 
> alligators in the swamp you are trying to drain, then one holds fast to 
> things that, while not exactly optimum for the purpose, at least "ain't 
> entirely broke".  Faced with the rapid development of aircraft radio in 
> the early 1930s, it is no wonder that engineers simply slapped the 
> prevailing wisdom about tuning cables on the BOM for the project of the 
> moment.  Easy and simple, no?  Bendix simply carried on that time honored 
> tradition.
>
> Gordon's point about the ARC Type K was that it was a new "miniaturized" 
> radio, and as we have long since begun to appreciate, Dr. Drake was a 
> superb *systems* engineer.  It seems clear that his company offered him 
> the opportunity to reassess the engineering of each and every component of 
> the system.  That obviously included the drive cable design.  Otherwise he 
> would have stuck with the prevalent choice, and said, "Done!"
>
> So, it would be my conjecture that it was a seminal moment when ARC 
> management provided the spark of "do your best" that led to the change in 
> sheath diameter.  I don't blame Bendix engineers for sticking with the old 
> technology.  Aircraft were becoming more powerful and able to lift heavier 
> weights, so why adopt a new design in the late 1930s?  Why even change 
> well into the 1940s? *That* is where you get the "doncha know there's a 
> war on" attitude.
>
> Anyway, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it...:-)
>
>  - Mike
>
> On 5/30/2014 9:04 PM, J. Forster wrote:
>> I'd put it a bit differently.
>>
>> Since a working Bendix standard EXISTED, there was no pressing need to
>> invent something. Furthermore, any 'improvement' would not be very much
>> better.
>>
>> After all, there was a war on.
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3955/7594 - Release Date: 05/30/14
>