[Milsurplus] Re: GP-x Transmitter, RAX Rcvr?

[Hue Miller]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William Donzelli" <wdonzelli at gmail.com>

> Perhaps it was not an issue. For that matter, was it an issue for any
> set? 

Right, you build the receiver as small as practicable ( we're talking 
mobile equipment here, not AR-88s ), then you build the transmitter.

>None of the receivers or transmitters in sets from World War 2
> are nice matching units. 

Actually, the TCS is remarkable in this respect. Another WW2 set,
altho you don't see it too often, is the Navy CMS. 
Germany had one set, the RS20/ R3, which had identical cabinet 
sizes. But mainly, yes, the equipment was not closely matched in
size.

>The ARA/ATA sets were different sizes,  as
> were the parts of AN/ARC-3, various SCR-s, and so forth. You can not
> really fault RCA for that.

Hmmm.....the (classic) command sets were not THAT different in size
and architecture. Ditto the RUGF.
> 
> At least ARB/ATB, like most RCA sets, are pretty good ergonomically.
> About the only thing iffy with the ATB in this area are the dial
> locks, and maybe the PA tuning knob (too much stuff happening there).
> Will

The thing about the ATB that i don't like is, no onboard meter. A REAL 
transmitter has to have meters! -Hue