[ARC5] Broadcast band Transmitters

[John Hutchins]

BCB freq  worked because in the air it is almost line of sight 
communications.


On 11/6/2015 9:38 PM, David Stinson wrote:
> I think the use of Liaison transmitters on MF and BCB as
> "homing beacon" transmitters was almost certainly one of
> their missions, given Liaison power levels and access to
> a large, trailing antenna.
>
> However- using Command Set transmitters in that role
> makes no sense.  I'm holding in my hand a 1250-1500 KC
> coil for the BC-230 transmitter, which is speced at
> 4 watts out when it's on HF.  No telling what it got on
> 1250 KC but I'd bet it wasn't much.   There isn't even
> an antenna tuning tap on the coil as with the HF sets.
>
> Alas, all we have for now is speculation.  I still lean to
> the "Tertiary Power's Navy" hypothesis.  The 1920s,
> international maritime and naval accords assigned both
> ships and aircraft to frequencies, most of which were
> between 400 and 2000 KC.  Allied aircraft patrolled
> coastlines and intercepted targets all over the globe,
> including places like Latin America and the Middle East.
> The maritime and naval assets of these "tertiary powers"
> were still equipped with radios that conformed to
> the 1920s standards.   If an American patrol flight of
> fighter aircraft were assigned to "check out" a surface
> contact off the coast of, say, Costa Rica, they may
> only be able to communicate with that vessel on 600 mtrs,
> since that was likely to be the only equipment on maritime
> or small military craft. "Capital ships" that some powers
> might have- larger military cruisers etc,
> would be equipped with radios that would work frequencies
> in what we now consider BCB.  Indeed; American and British
> ships were capable of using these freqs and often did.
> If the U.S. Navy aircraft needed to communicate with, say,
> a flight of biplanes from Iran, they might need to do that
> on something like 1440 KC.
> Low power "Command Set" radios could do these jobs
> as they were accomplished over short ranges.
>
> This is, as I've said, just speculation.  But I think it's a good one.
>
> 73 DE Dave AB5S
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>