[Milsurplus] BC-348Q, R

[Mike Hanz]

Mike Morrow wrote:

>The receivers that some of the WWII USAAF vets make be confusing with the
>AN/ARR-15 for use in WWII ELINT B-29s are with little uncertainty the
>similarly sized AN/ARR-5 and AN/ARR-7 VHF and HF receivers that were
>definitely part of WWII USAF B-29 gear.
>

That's a good point- hadn't considered that possibility but it makes a 
lot of sense...same form factor, very similar in appearance.  Of course 
they were in a completely different part of the aircraft, but memories 
do tend to get tricky.

>I don't believe that the USAAF ever used an AN/ARR-15 anywhere in regular
>service.  Also, I have owned four AN/ARR-15s over the years and I have never
>seen any contract numbers on the name plates indicating WWII-era contracts,
>so  I seriously doubt that any were even around to be deployed for any
>regular service during WWII.
>

Unfortunately the record is fuzzy for the Navy stuff because of the 
great records dump a few years ago, but there is pretty good evidence 
that both the ARC-2 and ARR-15 were production items before the end of 
the war.  One source here is the Confidential (essentially today's 
"secret" classification) CO-NAVAER 08-5Q-227 - Nomenclature List for 
Bureau of Aeronautics Aircraft Electronic Equipment, dated 15 Sept 1945, 
replacing the 1 Apr 1945 issue.  It clearly labels unfielded equipment 
as "under development" whenever that's the status.  The APR-9 
countermeasures receiver system has that caveat, for example.  The 
descriptions of the ARC-2 and ARR-15 have no such qualification.  Given 
the status of the war in the summer of 1945, the production numbers were 
probably not great by August 1945, but I'm not sure we can say with any 
assurance that they weren't out there in operational aircraft.  
Interestingly enough, the document identifies several nomenclatures as 
"being procured for Army", including the AXR-1 and AXR-4 airborne TV 
systems...

>  I think the AN/ARR-15 is somewhat akin to the
>AN/ARC-2 as a late WWII USN design that just didn't make it in any numbers
>to have actually been used in WWII.
>

We can speculate a great deal about the numbers, but without more 
documentation it's tough to make hard and fast assessments.  Both the 
original contract numbers and their relative position among other 
contracts of the period suggest there was plenty of time to begin 
fielding these radios before the end of the war.  That's about all we 
can say for sure.
 

>Now, I have an oddball question for which someone may information.  An
>authentic re-creation of a late WWII-era USN liason set using the AN/ART-13
>should not use the USAAF T-47A/ART-13, but rather USN T-47/ART-13 or ATC
>marked units.  Originally, these mounted using MT-161/ART-13 mounting rails
>similar to those used on the old GP-7 and ATD sets, but by the late 1940s it
>appears that this mounting system was replaced by the MT-263/ART-13
>permanently mounted on the transmitter and the MT-264/ART-13 permanently
>attached to the aircraft.  Has anyone run across surviving examples of the
>earlier MT-161 system?  
>

I've had a couple of them in the past, including a shipboard version 
called a TCZ (-2, IIRC).  I don't know of any with that mounting method 
being produced under the joint nomenclature designation, though.  Its 
disadvantage was that you were essentially forced into providing shock 
mounting for the shelf the transmitters were installed on if you wanted 
the tubes to survive the usual vicissitudes of carrier landings, 
eggbeater airframe vibration, etc.  Since the procurement specs for the 
ART-13 were jointly developed, I suspect the Signal Corps balked at that 
extra effort to design special shelves for AAF aircraft.  I seem to 
recall that there was parallel production for a fair period of time, so 
the Navy wasn't particularly concerned about rapid transition.

I have a Navy contract T-47(non-A) in the basement without the usual 
modification plates hung over the tag, but it has the MT-283/284 system 
installed on it.  No signs of retrofit from the rail system, which I 
think would have left two lines of holes in the frame of the bottom.  
That's no guarantee none were made with the MT161, but at least it 
provides one data point.

73,
Mike