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

Sun, 7 Mar 2004 09:29:32 -0600

Robert wrote:

>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.

Thanks, Robert.  That's exactly the info I was needing.

>Personally, I think that the C-30 was the better design.

I'd be interested in your thoughts about why you like the C-30 design.  I
was thinking just the opposite.

The C-30A by comparison is smaller, lighter, and much less mechanically
complex inside.  It doesn't require the T-23 to be in the number 1 rack
position.  It has the capability of selecting VHF channels on the R-28
receiver without the need to turn on the transmitter set, while on the C-30
depressing a VHF channel select button aways energizes the transmitter
heaters.  I've just got to think that the C-30A was a lot less expesive to
build to boot.

73,
Mike / KK5F

>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,
>[email protected] 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)
><[email protected]> (Primary email)
><[email protected]> (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  ---
>_______________________________________________
>Milsurplus mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus