[Milsurplus] ARR 15 question

[Mike Morrow]

>...but for ham use the BC 348 is a FAR FAR better mate for the ART 13.

The USAAF/USAF paired the T-47A/ART-13 with the BC-348 (a.k.a. the AN/ARR-11)
to make what IMHO was the finest airborne HF set of WWII...the AN/ARC-8.
In my opinion, the main fault of the BC-348 is no onboard calibrator.  At
least the AN/ART-13A could be accurately set to within 1 kc, then the BC-348
netted to the T-47A using the system "MONITOR-NORMAL" switch. 

>The ARR 15 was never designed for band cruising. It was designed to go
>immediately and accurately to one of ten pre-tuned HF channels. 

It goes with the T-47/ART-13 (not T-47A) to make the USN's post-WWII
AN/ARC-25 system.

In my opinion, the main fault in the AN/ARR-15 is the lack of beacon band
coverage (such as the BC-348 usually provided).  The AN/ART-13 had LF/MF
transmitter coverage, but the AN/ARR-15 provided no receiver capability
to match.

>...I have the shock mount which is really hard to find. 

Yes, the MT-461/ARR-15 is very hard to find, matched by the difficulty of 
finding the remote control box C-733A/ARR-15A.  I've only come across one 
of each in the 41 years that have elapsed since getting my first R-105.

Mike / KK5F