[Milsurplus] Re: ATD canvas

[Mike Hanz]

Hue Miller wrote:

>  I am thinking i MAY pursue a "Fantasy
>  Configuration" of ARB + GF. Blame Mike Hanz for me thinking along
>  those lines when he pointed out that the ARB was designed as a same-
>  footprint replacment for the RU.

Sure, blame me - I get blamed for everything else...heh, heh...

Actually, that should be a very nice combination, Hue.  The GF is a 
sweet little transmitter.  You'll need to retain the dynamotor, junction 
box, control box, and antenna switch from the RU/GF combo, but nothing 
else that I can think of offhand. 

Mike Morrow wrote:

>  I guess don't understand this. The ARB is considerably longer (and
>  heavier) than the RU (or the GF), and is 28 vdc only.

Not sure of the definition of 'considerably' employed here.  The author 
responsible for the ARB and ATB 'introductory' article in the Radio and 
Sound Bulletin of 1 Oct 1942 that "The ARB will mock up into 
approximately the same space as the RU."   That's likely what Hue was 
referring to.  In fairness, he did say "fantasy configuration", one that 
is easily moved without backbreaking labor and doesn't require all the 
'care and feeding' of the ATD system.  It's such an obvious combo that 
it may even have been actually implemented in some Navy wings for a 
period of time, depending on availability of the ARB.  I just measured 
my sets and the ARB is only 1/4" wider (considering an RU dual band 
tuning drawer in place) and it's the same length as my RU in terms of 
footprint.  Weight differences are something you worry about throughout 
the life of the aircraft as things go in and out - through means of the 
aircraft weights and balance calculations.  :-)

73,
Mike