[Milsurplus] [ARC5] Was C-48/ARC-5 - Now A.R.C. Prototypes

[Mike Morrow]

I wrote:

> There was never an AN/ARC-5 equivalent to the BC-496-A (two-receiver) or
> BC-450-A (three-receiver) control boxes.

Michael wrote:

>Actually, this isn't quite accurate.  The AN/ARC-5 came into being via
>the redesignated ARA-2 (-3?)/ATA-3 and the original receivers included
>the R-20, R-21, and R-22.  Like their ARA predecessors, these were not
>stabilized receivers and were never intended to be lock tuned.
>Instead, there were BC-496 and BC-450 equivalent control boxes that
>carried forward from previous ARA systems only redesignated as
>AN/ARC-5 equipment.

I should have added a caveat to my statement that excluded prototype
and developmental items.  From my outlook, those are interesting...sometimes
very interesting...engineering stories.  But I consider an item to be a
proper part of a system only if it actually survived to the point that
it was deployed for military mission use.  Thus, I don't consider the
R-20, 21, 22, 112, 113/ARC-5, the T-89, 90/ARC-5, the VHF SCR-274-N,
and similar to be proper parts of the associated systems that should be
included in a list of that system's components.  I really enjoy learning
about developmental equipment, but it is definitely outside the sphere
of equipment that ever saw military mission use.  All bets are off
on what properly constitutes a part of any system, if prototypes and
experiments are to be included, other than as background.  Such items
should be listed outside of any canonical list of a system's components
to avoid any misinterpretation that military end-users ever saw it.

My opinion only, of course.

>As a side note, the NRL design included two separate crystal channels
>plus retained the ability to be tuned which the A.R.C. redesign did
>not. 

There was a control box for such on ebay a year or so ago.  I stay
away from prototypes, so I didn't track the auction to see who got
it for how much.

>It was the latter version that reduced the cockpit controls, not
>the Navy's which, instead, only complicated them more.

Are you referring to the final AN/ARC-5 configuration, using the
C-30A and C-38 controls?  If so, I'd say I don't know how much
simpler a set of controls for three receivers and two (usually)
transmitters (including four channels of VHF) could have been made.
I really like the mature design philosopy that eliminated or
covered controls for CW/MCW mode, individual component power switches,
Morse key, jacks, etc.  No pilot was going to do much Morse operation
with his command set, so why have unused controls for such.

I love the old Aircraft Radio Company gear, but I think A.R.C.
is often credited way too highly.  Their last *major* military
contribution was the ARA/ATA in 1940.  The AN/ARC-5 LF/MF/HF
system is really only a minor enhancement to that rapidly obsolete
ARA/ATA type of MF/HF command set.  The really important portions of
that system, the AN/ARR-2 VHF homing and VHF communications gear,
were Western Electric's.  A.R.C.'s VHF efforts were notable failures.
To my knowledge, A.R.C. did not measurably contribute to any other
area of radio development during the war.  In contrast, Western
Electric's technical and production output was massive in every
sphere of radio technology applied to war.  Very impressive.

Again, just my opinion.

Mike / KK5F