[ARC5] ARC-27

[scottjohnson1 at cox.net]

The KC-135 Has the pilot, co-pilot, and navigator up front, with a jump seat between and behind the pilots, and a forward seat for the boom operator behind the crew entry chute.  The KC-135 also got a VHF (Wilcox 807) when the guard and reserve started operating them, later all -135s got VHF.  There are a few interesting features on tankers that many people are not aware of, one of the more unique is the through the boom interphone.  Once in contact, the Boom can talk to the receiver aircraft via audio impressed on the boom contact signal coil.  By the way, the KC-135 is older than the remaining B-52s, and is projected to outlast its first replacement, the KC-10.  Most tankers still flying were built between 1957 and 1962, the are a few of the special mission airframes that were built later, and other derivative are based on the 707.  Both the B-52 and 707 may well see close to 100 years of service.  Hard to fathom.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: arc5-bounces at mailman.qth.net <arc5-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of zakariya.abu at yandex.com
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 15:15
To: arc5 at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [ARC5] ARC-27

Scott,

Interesting info on the ARC-33. I've just checked in the F-86 Sabre jet manual, and it says that the F-86A, E, and F used initially the ARC-3, then it was replaced with the ARC-33, and eventually the ARC-27 was used on these jets.

I am attaching an excerpt from the KC-135A manual, which lists two UHF and two HF liaison sets within the avionics package. I think that four men altogether sat in the cockpit to man that gear, incl. nav and radar equipment.

73,

Jan SP5XZG

W dniu 25.03.2024 o 19:27, scottjohnson1 at cox.net pisze:
> Heck, the ARC-33 ISN’T pressurized, and it is 50 % larger, and heavier! 
> (96 lbs, if memory serves)
> 
> -And it was installed in underpowered early jet fighters.  Maybe they 
> have weight and balance issues!
> 
> That being said, the ARC-33 is a heck of a lot easier to work on!
> 
> As for the ARC-116, which was part of the LHR program, you probably 
> needed two, until it got the PA revision, it was a true POS.
> 
> I have working ARC-114, 115, and 116, they are quite compact for the day.
> 
> A common load out these days for a heavy aircraft is 2 ARC-210s, plus 
> an ARC-164, so in effect you have dual VHF and Triple UHF.
> 
> One thing that has always confounded me is why SAC opted for only 1 HF 
> on bombers and tankers, when they were so dependent upon them for 
> command and control, and
> 
> MAC/AMC aircraft all had dual HF installations.  We ha one orphan 
> KC-135D that had two ARC-190s, but it was at one time a special 
> mission aircraft.  The KC-135s that had longwire antennas
> 
> Had the coupler installed above the galley, and when you were doing 
> pattern work, that speed range caused a sympathetic vibration that 
> could vibrate your fillings out!
> 
> Sorry for the ramble, stream of semi-consciousness!
> 
> Scott W7SVJ
> 
> *From:*arc5-bounces at mailman.qth.net <arc5-bounces at mailman.qth.net> *On 
> Behalf Of *Doran Platt
> *Sent:* Monday, March 25, 2024 11:00
> *To:* arc5 at mailman.qth.net
> *Subject:* Re: [ARC5] ARC-27
> 
> The ARC-27 is pressurized for high altitude use.  But, yes they are heavy.
> 
> K3HVG
> 
>     On 03/25/2024 9:22 AM EDT releazer at earthlink.net
>     <mailto:releazer at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>     Quote: "Yet in the 1980s the presence of two ARC-159s for redundancy
>     on a fighter jet was not unusual."
> 
>     I have an ARC-27, purchased for $10 at an aviation swap meet 25
>     years ago; it weighs about 80 pounds. I also have an ARC-116, which
>     is similar in size and weight to the ARC-159; it weighs no more than
>     10 lbs. I find it amusing that the ARC-116 is just about the same
>     size and weight as the control boxes I have for the ARC-27. I think
>     that may have influenced the decision to include two UHF sets.
> 
>     Wayne
> 
>     WB5WSV