[Milsurplus] Re:ARC 65 and ARC 21 control heads, a rare exception

[D C Macdonald]

I don't remember any particular reliability
problems with the ARC-65s we used in
our B-52Fs at Carswell AFB, TX and then
out of Guam.  I can't remember ever
writing one up in over three years of
crew duty (EWO).

Mac, K2GKK/5



----Original Message Follows----
From: aGEnuine Ham <gl4d21a at juno.com>
To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
CC: BOEING377 at aol.com
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Re:ARC 65 and ARC 21 control heads, a rare 
exception
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:31:07 -0600

In a message dated 11/18/2004 7:16:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net writes:

<snip>
As an interesting ARC 65 sidelight, Hughes
Aircraft conducted worldwide HF RTTY tests for the USAF in the 60s using
a C
131 (Convair 340) and both an ARC 65 and an ARC 58 onboard. The ARC 65
consistently outperformed the ARC 58 in every test, thought to be because
of a superior
receiver. I saw one of the last KC 97L flights into Travis AFB and asked
the
crew chief what HF radio they had. He replied ARC 65. He said most 97s
had ARC
58s. He said the ARC 65 was a noticeably better radio when it worked, but
not
as reliable as the ARC 58.
*********************************
And there you have the perennial dilemma:  Works better, or works
sometimes.

How do you decide which is better?

73,
George
W5VPQ

________________________________________________________________
Juno Platinum $9.95. Juno SpeedBand $14.95.
Sign up for Juno Today at http://www.juno.com!
Look for special offers at Best Buy stores.
______________________________________________________________
Milsurplus mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net