[Milsurplus] C-30 vs C-30A/ARC-5 and other small details

[WA5CAB@cs.com]

Mike,

The base date of AN 16-30ARC5-2 is 23 February 1944.  The 15 June 1945 
revision adds among other things the C-30A/ARC-5.  So it is WW-II.  For some reason, 
when they last revised the manual in 1954, they took out all of the revision 
history, leaving only the note that the base date shown on the 1953 revision 
was incorrect (it was actually the date of the first revision, not the basic).  
Personally, I think that the C-30 was the better design.

Can't help you on the C-38A.

Boy, I wish art13a would have someone bidding against him when he bids on my 
stuff!  :-(

In a message dated 3/6/2004 5:27:26 PM Central Standard Time, 
kk5f@earthlink.net writes: 
> I'm curious about when the improved VHF frequency selector/transmitter 
> control box for the above system, C-30A/ARC-5, appeared on the scene.  My VHF 
> ARC-5 manual dated 10APR45 mentions only the C-30, while my MF/HF manual dated 
> 15DEC54 states that the C-30A replaced the C-30.
> 
> Would I be more correct using a C-30 for a WWII set, on the assumption that 
> the C-30A appeared well after the war?
> 
> It's really just academic right now.  I've only seen pictures of two C-30A 
> boxes, one in Mike Hanz's fantastic collection, the other on ebay a short 
> while ago that went for $217 (to art13a).  It appears to be pretty rare, but if 
> it wasn't WWII era, I think I'll stick to the common C-30 that I know was of 
> the WWII era, even if I had a C-30A too.
> 

73
Robert Downs - Houston
<http://www.wa5cab.com> (Web Store)
<wa5cab@cs.com> (Primary email)
<wa5cab@houston.rr.com> (Backup email)


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
or had an attachment.  Attachments are not allowed.  To learn how
to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html  ---