[Milsurplus] ATD

[Mike Hanz]

Mike Morrow wrote:

>Mike responded to my comment about the ATD and ARB being technology matches:
>
>>Could you elaborate a bit on the factors you considered in that
>>assessment?    I suppose that if
>>you approach it from a mediocrity vs mediocrity standpoint, they
>>are indeed appropriate matches.
>>
>That is exactly my view!  IMO, the ATD and ARB represent good solid 1939/40 technology.  The frequency coverage of the ATD as normally supplied closely matches the ARB.  The RF design, even though the ARB was RCA and the ATD was Bendix, seems comparable.  The mode of control (limited remote capability) is comparable.  It all would seem very comfortable and capable in a pre- or early-WWII USN carrier-based aircraft.
>

Okay, I'll buy that, though the ARB/BC-348 comparison is sorta apples 
and oranges.  For example, RCA could have included a crystal filter in 
the ARB - just wasn't in the requirements.  The kludgey remote controls 
were also a Navy requirement.  The ARB was 'announced' in 1942, (see 
bottom of http://aafradio.org/docs/docs.html) so it wasn't exactly a 
1930's legacy set.  Guess it all boils down to the specs in the end, not 
so much on engineering talent.

73,
- Mike