[Milsurplus] R-648

[Mike Morrow]

Scott wrote:

>...it is one of my favorite receivers (next to the ARR-15), which ,
>interestingly enough share design features with the ARC-2 receiver
> section, and the 18S- receiver section.

Yes, technologically the R-105/ARR-15 and the RT-91/ARC-2 are kindred
spirits, certainly much more so than the R-105/ARR-15 and its normal
companion the T-47/ART-13 are.  The RT-91/ARC-2 is my favorite milsurplus
rig of all time, even over the later "improved" but cheaper-constructed
RT-298/ARC-2A.


It's too bad the AN/ARR-15 lacked coverage of the LF/MF beacon band, and
lacked remote selection of AM/CW modes.  It would have then more closely
matched the capability of the T-47/ART-13 with LF oscillator, though likely
not through the full range of the O-16/ART-13.  Except for the important
capability of remote selection of 10 HF channels in the R-105/ARR-15, I
think the BC-348 (a.k.a. AN/ARR-11) in the USAAF/USAF's AN/ARC-8 is a better
match for the AN/ART-13, providing frequency coverage that almost exactly
matches that of the T-47A/ART-13 with O-17/ART-13A LF/MF VFO.  The USAF's
T-47A/ART-13 is also an improvement over the USN's T-47/ART-13 with respect
to HF VFO frequency setting precision and little stuff like a cover safety
interlock.

I suspect that if there were any two-way communications requirements on
frequencies below 520 KC on USN aircraft where the AN/ARC-25 (ART-13 and
ARR-15) was installed, the R-23/ARC-5 or R-101/ARN-6 must have been the only
airborne receivers normally available.

The only USN aircraft in which I've flown that had an AN/ARC-2 (which also
lacks LF/MF beacon band coverage) had a R-23/ARC-5 next to it.

Mike / KK5F