[Milsurplus] TBY on Saipan '44 ?

[WA5CAB at cs.com]

Hugh,

Although I would agree that I'd stop short of calling the TBX junk, it's main 
drawback compared to the SCR-284 and SCR-694-C was that you couldn't run the 
receiver from either the hand-crank or gasoline powered generators.  You had 
to have batteries for the receiver.  Or AC power.

And the vibrator supply that did finally run both receiver and transmitter 
from one common power supply was a TBX-7/8 thingy.

The main drawback to the GN-45 was that it had a noisy gearbox.

But, you're right about trying to float a BC-654.  :-)

In a message dated 10/27/2005 4:58:38 PM Central Daylight Time, 
kargo_cult at msn.com writes: 
> >From: Mike Morrow <kk5f at earthlink.net>
> >That would lead one to think that maybe the USMC eventually began using 
> >sets like the SCR-300 (BC-1000), SCR-536 (BC-611), or SCR-284 (BC-654).  
> >These army sets were far superior to the TBY, MAB/DAV, or TBX junk that the 
> 
> >USN/USMC had as their equivalent native designs.
> >Mike / KK5F
> >ex-SSBN-629
> 
> Now, wait up just a minit. The TBX was used all thru WW2, so the Navy must 
> have had some
> reason to keep it. After all, they picked up the SCR-300 and BC-348, 
> preferring them over
> their own gear.
> Unlike the six-five-four radio, the TBX #1 has a generator that can be 
> cranked by a human
> being; #2 is packaged so that it can actually wash ashore, be opened, and 
> used. And it
> had a lot more PS choices available: hand gen + batteries, vibrator supply, 
> dynamotor +
> batt, or gas-engine generator.  -Hue Miller
> 

Robert & Susan Downs - Houston
<http://www.wa5cab.com> (Web Store)
MVPA 9480
<wa5cab at cs.com> (Primary email)
<wa5cab at houston.rr.com> (Backup email)