[Milsurplus] throat mike technique
Mike Hanz
[email protected]
Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:00:36 -0500
Hmmm, didn't get a comeback copy on this, so either my settings have
been changed over the past couple of days or it never got to qth.net.
Try #2:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] throat mike technique
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 06:25:31 -0500
From: Mike Hanz <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
As far as I can determine from the docs here, the T-45 wasn't used in
WWII aircraft. Watching Norm Chipps demonstrate one in his excellent
talk at last fall's MRCA meet, I'm just as glad...that contraption
hanging below my nose would drive me nuts. :-) On the other hand, the
reported voice quality doesn't surprise me, since the AAF did use the
T-45 noise canceling mike element (M-6A/UR) in the H-46/UR boom mike
headset I mentioned in a previous post. Unfortunately, the M-6 often
suffers from "granule packing" after long periods of exposure to
moisture. The good news is that the later M-51/UR mike element used in
more common 50's/60's H-63/UR boom mike headsets is a plug and play
replacement, and is indistinguishable from the old M-6A externally. It
also has better voice quality and less tendency to solidify. I see an
occasional H-63 at hamfests - not much desired because of the
uncomfortable hard plastic earmuffs - but the mike element is excellent.
I left the picture up at http://members.cox.net/mymhh/H-46_vs_H-63.JPG
if you missed it.
73,
Mike
[email protected] wrote:
> I have noticed a recent trend among the MV people to begin to have their
> installed radio/interphone equipment work as per originally intended
rather
> than sit there looking pretty or with a Motorola FM unit buried inside.
> I overhauled an SCR-528 for re-installation in an M5A1 Stuart up in
Kansas.
> The owner wanted a full complement of T-30's for some reason but I
didn't
> have that many so I sent half and half T-30's and T-45's.
>
> I've since talked to the Stuart owner. When asked for a comparison
> between the T-30 and T-45 on intelligibility and audio quality, his
comments
> on the T-30 are not quite printable in a family rag like this. I could
> probably print them if they were transmitted by a T-30 as no one
would be
> able to understand them. :-) On the other hand, the T-45's work
quite well
> he said.