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

[Scott Johnson]

The arc-65 used three 4-65's for about 200W PEP, the ARC-58 used three 
4-CX250's for 1KW PEP, and there were both dynamotor and three phase power 
supplies built, depending on the installation. I suppose that power could 
come from inverters, but by the fifties, most large aircraft had AC 
generators.  I think RCA did the SSB upgrades to both the ARC-38A and the 
ARC-65, BTW, I remember building a flip top trashcan out of an old ARC-65 
case when I was on an extended TDY to Andersen AFB in GUAM.  I wonder if 
it's still there?

Scott
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <antqradio at juno.com>
To: <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Re:ARC 65 and ARC 21 control heads, a rare 
exception


> Don't quote me but I'm under the impression that ARC-21 operates without
> 400 cycle power, the auto tune servos are DC powered.  The TRC-75 needs
> an inverter to provide the required 3 phase 400 cycle power, which kind
> of levels the weight issue a bit.  And then, the case of the ARC-21 kind
> of makes it bullet proof!
>
> What I like most about the ARC-21 is that I believe it is the first
> military radio to use a mechanical filter.  I would like one just for
> that reason, heavy beast or not. 8^)  Likewise, the first receiver to use
> a mechanical filter is, I believe, the SRR-11, 12, 13 family.  Go RCA!
>
> The updating of the AM only ARC-21 to the USB ARC-65 is still a
> modification while the ARC-58 / TRC-75 and all of the other systems that
> used the same circuit topology like the KWT-6, 50E-6 URC-32 (and I am
> sure there are others) were both AM and ISB compatible units.  That is
> most likely the reason the ARC-21 / ARC-65 lost out to the ARC-58.
>
> And then there is the Collins contemporary to the ARC-21, the ARC-38.
> Didn't RCA do the upgrade to ARC-38A?
>
> Regards,
> Jim
>
> snip
>> The AN/ARC-58 has higher rated PEP output than the
>> AN/ARC-65, and required no separate external power units.  The
>> performance difference must have been in the receivers, as you
>> state.  But the AN/ARC-58 must have been a good enough system
>> overall, since the USMC adapted the design as the AN/TRC-75.
>>
>> I'm fascinated most by the RT-128A/ARC-21, but I'll never own one
>> just due to the great weight of the RT unit.
>>
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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