[Milsurplus] Re: ARC-2 Questions

[Mike Morrow]

Meir wrote:

>I got mine with the same modification, and eventually I got a junk
>RT-91/ARC-2 and got the original antenna insulator/post off it to restore
>the complete set. I even managed to find the connectors (alas, no mounting
>tray...) for both the ARC-2 and the ARR-15 receiver.

I got my first RT-91/ARC-2 from Fair Radio 32 years ago.  I got my first AN/ARR-15 from Navy MARS 38 years ago.  I've still got them both!  Their design and construction are absolutely beautiful...the very best in extreme late- and post-WWII aircraft radio engineering.  IMHO the RT-91/ARC-2 is of a little higher construction quality than the follow-on RT-298/ARC-2A (which compares to the RT-91 in the same way that the cost-limited BC-348-Q compares to the traditional BC-348-R).  But a RT-298 is well worth owning too.  The AN/ARC-2 or -2A is my favorite USN HF aircraft set from any era.

The MT-421(*)/ARC-2 mounting shows up rarely on ebay, as do control boxes like the C-245/ARC-2.  But AN/ARR-15 racks and control boxes seem to be some of the greatest rarities *NOT* out there.  I've never seen even one in the past ten years on ebay, nor any at hamfests.  I was lucky to get my AN/ARR-15 accessories from a list member several years ago with a receiver purchase.  Given that there were likely several tens of thousands of these components made, the scarcity of AN/ARR-15 accessories puzzles me, almost as much as does the scarcity of those really hard to find AN/ARC-5 12- and 18-pin connectors.

>... I was thinking about setting
>them up side by side and use the ARC-2 just for transmit, and receive with
>the ARR-15. The preset frequencies can be coordinated between them so with
>one control switch they both can be pretuned to the frequencies of
>interest...

One capability that the AN/ARR-15 lacks is the ability to remotely change mode between MCW and CW.  The local switch on the front panel must be used.  It also lacks beacon band coverage, such as that found on the USAF's BC-348, or even the USN's later AN/ARR-41 auxiliary receiver for the AN/ARC-38.  If an O-16/ART-13 LF/MF oscillator were in a T-47/ART-13, I wonder what receiver was intended to provide coverage of the 200 to 1500 kc O-16 range.  I've never seen any evidence of, say, an ADF unit covering that range being tied into the aircraft's AN/ARC-25 communications gear (for netting, antenna switching, muting, etc.).

>In fact, my plan is to set up one ART-13 with the ARR-15...

That combo is the USN's AN/ARC-25.  "Correctness" requires a T-47 (not T-47A), DY-12 (not DY-17), O-16 (not O-17), C-740 transmitter control (not C-87), and C-733A/ARR-15A receiver control.  At least by the time the AN/ARR-15 was available the USN had adopted the USAAF's improved MT-283 and MT-284/ART-13 mounting hardware, so there is no need to find one of the rare and inferior original USN MT-161/ART-13 rail-type mounts for the T-47.

>another will work with the BC-348.

That's the USAAF's AN/ARC-8, my favorite aircraft HF set (from any service, any era)!  The correct USAAF T-47A is an improvement over the USN ATC or T-47, and the BC-348 (-C and later) frequency coverage very closely matches that of a T-47A with O-17.  I read somewhere years ago that the AN/ARR-11 receiver that goes with the AN/ART-13A to create the AN/ARC-8 was always either an BC-348-Q or -R.  Can anyone confirm that?

If the AN/ARR-15 had been designed with LF/MF coverage, I would be tempted to pair one up with a USAF T-47A and CU-32 and DY-17, and USN O-16, to create the best of all such combos in terms of capability and performance, though one that doesn't reflect actual service usage of these items.

Mike / KK5F