[Milsurplus] throat mike technique

[Mike Hanz]

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

WA5CAB@cs.com 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.