[Milsurplus] [ARC5] RAT(-1) & RAV: Another Viewpoint.

[Kludge]

-----Original Message-----
From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Mike Morrow
> I don't know the evidence for GE not delivering something on time.  That
> implies that there was some commitment to deliver something by a certain
> date.  Is there evidence that GE was to have delivered the RAX (1940) with
> the GO-4 (1938)?  

This is part of the problem; there's no evidence of anything that indicates
much of anything in any direction.  First off, we have no idea what drove
the Navy to explore the upper end of the HF band in the first place.  Was it
their idea or GE's?  Since they had contracts with GE for transmitters that
went to 26.5 MC, why didn't they have bids out for receivers that went as
high?  After 73 years, the pertinent documentation has been destroyed, lost
or misfiled under Pogo Sticks in a disused locker nobody knows where went.  

It's my belief they did and GE proposed such a receiver but admitted that it
might take a while before it could become real.  This idea of a superhet
wasn't anything new but making something light and compact to cover that
range might have been a bit more of a challenge than GE could manage in a
timely fashion.  

Continuing the thought train, I believe ARC responded to the same bid with
the RAT(-1) which was just an extension of an existing design and could
become real a lot sooner.  The RAV just combined the RAT-1 with the existing
receivers already being proposed for command use and added one to bridge the
9-13.5 MC gap.  And finally I believe that the Navy and ARC both knew that
GE was the preferred vendor and that the receiver that became the RAX would
eventually be delivered so ARC's equipment was a temporary solution to a
longer term problem.  In fact, the RAT(-1) and RAV could be used with the
GO-7, -8 and -9 without the top receiver which reduced the body count by one
in either type installation.

The fact that ARC's equipment was designed to be command equipment came down
to a decision of repurposed command equipment vs. nothing with the former
being the better choice in the short term.  Don't forget the RU started off
in life as a command receiver and the RU-2 was the first one that showed
capability of also filling a liaison role.  (I have a back of the mind idea
that's what drove the massive redesign anyway since the original would have
been able to continue as a command receiver just like the AAC/AAF used the
SCR-A*-183/-283 receivers through several redesigns*.)  It continued through
its service life in a dual role - command and liaison - with the liaison
role being with not only the GO-* but also the GP-*.  

* Somewhere in this mess, I have some photos contributed by one of the list
members of the radio position in the B-15 bomber.  The photos show an
SCR-A*-183 Rx (I don't know which version) combined with a BC-AA-191 Tx in a
liaison role.  The BC-183 BFO is also clearly visible.  There was a small
but interesting discussion regarding this installation on one of these two
lists.

> If so, I think that its nomenclature would have been earlier
> than the nomenclature assigned for the RAT and RAV, if in fact the RAT and
RAV
> came into existence because of delays with GE providing the RAX.

I suspect they came in order of delivery with the ARC equipment coming
first.

> It's important to note that this is the case of A.R.C. providing *liaison*
> receivers to extend receiver coverage beyond the 13.575 MHz limit of the
> A.R.C. RU-* liaison receiver system to cover the 26.5 MHz limit of the
> GE GO-4/5/6.  Thus, there came the 1939 RAT and RAT-1, with coverage
> from 13.5 to 27.0 MHz.

While I have already covered this, I believe this was a choice between
repurposed command Rx vs. no Rx, at least for a stopgap solution.  This is
reflected in the low order quantities for both the RAT(-1) and the RAV  

> Despite the contract date
> differences, it seems that the RAT-1 and RAV were designed at the same
time.

Or at least very close.  ARC probably proposed both systems with the RAT(-1)
for use until they could bring up production of the rest of the receivers.
This was the toehold they needed to produce the ARA equipment and they
definitely weren't going to mess it up now.

> And now A.R.C. finally gets orders for a *command* set based on the Type
K!
> But only three receivers (46104 through 46106) in the RAV system survive
> unchanged to become ARA sets.  The two RAV navigation receivers (46102 and
> 46103) have their loop connections and switch eliminated (becoming 46129
> and 46145) before joining the ARA lineup.

Yes, this was the contract they were looking for all along.  Given
development costs, I have an idea they didn't make a lot of profit - if any
- with the previous receivers but rather pinned everything on what became
the ARA/ATA system.  I also don't believe they cared all that much about the
AAC/AAF contracts although I suspect there was money to be had in them as
well, although I don't know how.  

I thought it odd to have loop antenna connections on liaison receivers and
not the command receivers derived from them however the loop connections
were probably a carry over from the RU which also had them.  

> I agree, but the 1940 Westinghouse GO-7/8/9 transmitters upper limit was
> 18.1 MHz, so these last units of the GO-series would also require receive
> coverage above that provided by the RU-* liaison receivers.

Yep.  Knock one receiver off the RAT(-1) and the RAV and it still works.  

> I suspect that most of the 46 RAT and 46 RAT-1 and 50 RAV systems found
> themselves paired up with GO-4 through GO-9 liaison transmitters in long
> range patrol aircraft well before the start of WWII.  

That's my belief as well.  At the same time, I would have no doubt that they
got phased out as the RAX became more available to be swapped in to replace
them.  

> One could reasonably
> theorize that A.R.C. hoped that their 1940 RAV would be competitive with
> GE's 1940 RAX for general liaison service, but it would not take long to
> recognize superior design of the RAX over the RAV.  Based on staging
> (two RF, three IF stages) and bandspread alone, the RAX CG-46117 receiver
> must have easily outclassed the RAV CBY-46106 through -46109 receivers
> (one RF, two IF stages) covering the same frequency range.

It would have been a neat outcome but during the bid opening for the
receivers if not before, it was no secret to the parties involved what GE
was proposing and that ARC didn't have a rabbit to pull out of its hat to
match it.  They probably could have produced something to compete directly
but that wasn't their long suit and they knew it.  It's better to stick with
what you do best and let others have other parts of a very large pie.

> The A.R.C. star would shine only in the sky of the MF/HF command set.

That was their strong suit and I believe everyone knew it.  The fact that
the RU did so well in liaison service was a happy accident for ARC since it
was originally intended only to be a command receiver.  As I said before, I
have a thought that liaison service was part of what drove the improved
design but even if it was just to be a solid companion to the equally
upgraded GF, the upgrades put it in good stead with the Navy for service
beyond the original intent.  

Part of what I've been trying to do is put myself in the mindset of the
concerned folks given the era and the fact that politics and things like
military contracts were a bit more freewheeling than they are now*.  (Gordon
White's pointed this out a few times.)  One of the things I have yet to
learn is what caused the reshuffling of the food chain in 1934 that put ARC
at the top rather than RFL.  (I also have yet to figure out what plants
built what and who the subcontractors were for the small stuff.)  That major
upheaval marked the start of a whole new era for ARC that also set the
relationships between them, the Army, the Navy and WE.  

* Something I keep saying is that history isn't a line but a tapestry made
up of intersecting threads.  Those threads help determine the whys and
wherefores behind events along the thread of primary interest.  In
situations like this, the tapestry has become unraveled in a great many
places leaving only speculation and semi-educated guesses to fill in the
gaps.  This is another place the "Absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence" rule applies which can lead to lively but educational discussions.

>> I don't know the production quantities for the various models of the
>> GO-series.
> One wonders if such information survives anywhere.  

The National Archives maybe but there's no way I can get there.  I have a
road trip itinerary laid out if I can ever manage it but time, finances and
psychiatric issues stand in the way.  

> I'd imagine that the
> various GO transmitters such as the rare versions before GO-9 were
> themselves not manufactured in quantities greater than the RAT and RAV.

The GO through GO-3 were supported by the RU alone but, like you, I don't
believe the quantities amounted to much.  How many airplanes did the Navy
have that could support the GO series transmitters through its lifetime?
How many had older models swapped out for newer versions?  How many received
the ATC instead or in place of the GO-type transmitters?  And, just to add
to the fun, was the RAX retrofit into aircraft having the RU+RAT(-1) or the
RAV or was it only used in new installations?  

So many questions, so few bones to cast.

> There's a GO at the Naval Aviation Museum in Florida in a PBY cut-away
> display.  It's identified as a GO-9, but it obviously isn't.  I believe
> it is a GE GO-6.  I hope to get down there this summer to take a look.

Coolness.  I wonder what it has for receivers.

> Welcome back to the list.

Thank you.  I've run into a few problems with the Noelle AV Project, mostly
in the 3D apps, and wound up with snags in the book, one of them being
trying to organize the GF/RU equipment.  Since I'm already certified out of
my gourd, I have no fear of losing my mind in the process although being
driven sane does loom large on the horizon.  And I'm still short a junker
SCR-A*-183/-283 or GF/RU or two to help with the 1930s radio projects.  I'm
actually short other pieces as well including those for the 1920s and
immediate postwar period but they're slowly coming home to papa.  I wanna
melt solder and I'm getting frustrated!  :-D

Best regards,
 
Michael, WH7HG ex-K3MXO, ex-KN3MXO, WPE3ARS, BL01xh ex-Mensa A&P PP BGI 
Share and Enjoy!
http://www.nationalmssociety.org/chapters/NTH/index.aspx
http://wh7hg.blogspot.com/
http://kludges-other-blog.blogspot.com
Hiki Nô!