[Milsurplus] Milsurplus Digest, Vol 86, Issue 16

Fri Jun 10 01:42:54 EDT 2011

Phil - ZL2HF,

Are you going to visit Copenhagen soon?
If so, please bring the APN/1 with you.

73
Henry, Cph.
OZ3O  N2NR

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net>
To: <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 7:35 AM
Subject: Milsurplus Digest, Vol 86, Issue 16

> Send Milsurplus mailing list submissions to
> milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> milsurplus-owner at mailman.qth.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Milsurplus digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. RT-7/APN-1  give away (Phil Lewton)
>   2. Re: [ARC5] RU/RAT/RAV/RAX vs. GO, 1939 and Later (Mike Morrow)
>   3. ARRL National Convention Mil Radio Display (David Stinson)
>   4. Re: RU, GO, RAX (Kludge)
>   5. Re: RU/RAT/RAV/RAX vs. GO, 1939 and Later (Kludge)
>   6. Re: [ARC5] RU/RAT/RAV/RAX vs. GO, 1939 and Later (Kludge)
>   7. RAX (Hue Miller)
>   8. Re: [ARC5] RU/RAT/RAV/RAX vs. GO, 1939 and Later (Kludge)
>   9. Re: ARRL National Convention Mil Radio Display (Kludge)
>  10. Re: [ARC5] RAT(-1) & RAV: Another Viewpoint. (Kludge)
>  11. Re: [ARC5] RU/RAT/RAV/RAX vs. GO, 1939 and Later (WA5CAB at cs.com)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:35:51 +1200
> From: Phil Lewton <lewton_eng at clear.net.nz>
> Subject: [Milsurplus] RT-7/APN-1  give away
> To: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID: <FCA9D32DE753429BB3A4375D97C8D14D at lewton>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi the
>
> The RT-7/APN-1 has become available the previous proposed recipient 
> decided
> not to proceed
>
> The cost to post to the US is $ 140 USD otherwise the item is no cost FEE.
>
> Phil ZL2HF.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 18:46:40 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
> From: Mike Morrow <kk5f at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] RU/RAT/RAV/RAX vs. GO, 1939 and Later
> To: arc5 at mailman.qth.net, milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID:
> <901335.1307663201172.JavaMail.root at elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I wrote:
>
>> It appears that by the time the RAV and RAX-1 appeared in 1940, the USN
>> had dropped any requirement for 12-vdc liaison receiver sets.
>
> I ignored the 1941 RU-18 liaison receiver set.  I guess there must have 
> been some
> call for a 12-vdc installation somewhere as late as 1941.  They must have 
> used a
> GO-9 or a GP-7 with it.
>
> Mike / KK5F
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 22:38:51 -0500
> From: "David Stinson" <arc5 at ix.netcom.com>
> Subject: [Milsurplus] ARRL National Convention Mil Radio Display
> To: <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>, <boatanchors at theporch.com>, "ARC-5
> List" <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
> Message-ID: <2B669691B3D24622918F9BF14A2CF699 at DaddyPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> The ARRL National Convention is being held tomorrow and Saturday
> at the Plano, Texas "HamCom" hamfest.
> With the help of Mike Hanz and others, I've been working for
> months on a WWII Aircraft Radio display of complete, working sets.
> It's called "The Voice of Eagles."
> There's only so much room on the one allowed table (the place
> is jam-packed with vendors), so I've included five sets:
> SCR-287, SCR-274N, ARB/ATB, SCR-183 and ARC-type-17.
> Why ARC-type-17?  Well, it's a 1946 set and WWII did not
> *officially* end until December of 1946 (betcha didn't know that!)
> and, if I can get some power to the table tomorrow, it will allow
> the lookers to use the set to talk to their plastic radios,
> which should pique their interest.
>
> I just got back from setting-up for tomorrow's opening.
> Here are some photos:
>
> http://home.netcom.com/~arc5/HamCom/display1.JPG
> http://home.netcom.com/~arc5/HamCom/display2.JPG
> http://home.netcom.com/~arc5/HamCom/display3.JPG
>
> There were only a few people in the room setting up,
> but the display was a big hit with them.  Hope it goes
> over well tomorrow.
>
> While there are guards in the area overnight, I removed the
> tuning knobs from the 274N receivers, just in case ;-).
>
> Hope some of you will be here.
>
> 73 Dave AB5S
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 17:57:58 -1000
> From: "Kludge" <wh7hg.hi at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] RU, GO, RAX
> To: <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Message-ID: <029FA4B4348141849BADECDD40C5CDD6 at Kongo>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of J. Forster
>> I believe "stuff" was in short supply in WW II. If you had something
>> functional, you used it and were (rightly, IMO) low down on the list to
>> get newer stuff.
>
> This is pretty much how it was.  "Run whatcha brung", to put it in drag
> racing terms, was how we went into the war and continued through the 
> greater
> part of it.
>
> 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 N?!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 18:50:36 -1000
> From: "Kludge" <wh7hg.hi at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] RU/RAT/RAV/RAX vs. GO, 1939 and Later
> To: <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>, <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Message-ID: <56BC43F87FC944669BD4BF4D13B54A1D at Kongo>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Mike Morrow
>>> Assuming the GO-4, -5 & -6 plus the RAT(-1) & RAV were considered
> complete
>>> systems, this would cover the latter case.
>> I don't think the RAT/RAT-1 can be considered a "complete" system.
>
> Mike, Mike, Mike, what am I ever gonna do with you?  :-)
>
> Let me quote from my message: "This will be way simplistic so don't shoot 
> me
> if I gloss over details and stuff.  It's a quick scene-setting sketch not 
> an
> in depth review and, worse, the history part is from memory and we all 
> know
> what shape my mind's in.  :-D"
>
> It's pretty well assumed that the RAT and RAT-1 weren't stand alone 
> systems.
> The implication was the GO-4, -5 and -6 with the *RU plus the RAT(-1)* or
> with the RAV as being complete liaison systems.
>
>> It could be postulated that some RAT/RAT-1 sets may have been used
> stand-alone,
>> but AFAIK there's never been a reason discovered why that would have
> happened.
>
> That's kind of why I left it at speculation rather than anything more
> concrete.  :-)
>
>> It is hard to imagine a role for a stand-alone RAT/RAT-1
>> if a stand-alone CG-46117 were available (unless the RAT's 12-vdc supply
> made a
>> difference).
>
> Ah, you hit an interesting word, "if."  First off, I won't argue the point
> that the RAX was a far better liaison receiver.  It was, hands down.
> However, we went into the war with a fair number of 12v aircraft and it
> wasn't until 1942 that they started being produced with 24v systems.  By
> that time, the RAX was in full production and, not counting the SCR-274-N
> and ARA/ATA, no additional 24v ARC equipment (RAT-1, RAV) was needed. 
> It's
> interesting to note that the contracts for the RAT-1, RAV and RAX all
> predate that so plans were probably already afoot to move in that 
> direction.
>
>
> However, as I recall, British aircraft were 12v through the war and the 
> RAT
> would work nicely with them.  Just sayin', y'know?  :-)
>
> 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 N?!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 18:52:28 -1000
> From: "Kludge" <wh7hg.hi at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] RU/RAT/RAV/RAX vs. GO, 1939 and Later
> To: <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>, <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Message-ID: <8ECF5CB8923243499959036EE290CB87 at Kongo>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arc5-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:arc5-bounces at mailman.qth.net] 
> On
> Behalf Of Gordon White
>> I found reference in the papers to the RAV sets being used on long-range
>> search craft, both lighter than air and fixed-wing.
>
> Were they stand alone or in conjunction with a GO-* transmitter?
>
> 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 N?!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 22:03:12 -0700
> From: "Hue Miller" <kargo_cult at msn.com>
> Subject: [Milsurplus] RAX
> To: <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Message-ID: <SNT109-DS495B9F08DAD36D3A23F31E4640 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> German comms in the 25-44 MHz range were tactical and not large power, so 
> I
> doubt the U.K. would
> find it worthwhile to spend a lot of time listening for skip propagation
> signals there. For example,
> the strongest tank radios were 20 watts, and pack radios commonly a couple
> watts.
>
> I think the HF RAXs and GOs were kind of an alternating mistake. Using a 
> GO
> for position reports
> on the squirrely 20-26 MHz freqs strikes me as ludicrous. Not to mention, 
> I
> wonder how stable
> the PA stage in the GO would be at such frequencies. When the RAX 
> appeared,
> it seems the mistake
> had already been rectified by limiting the high freq end on the new GO-9. 
> It
> does seem there are quite
> a few RAXs around tho, which I cannot explain; tho not nearly as many as
> BC-348s, which the Navy
> to some extent used to replace the RAX, and which wrote off any freqs 
> above
> 18 MHz.
>
> One thing that amazes me, is how thoroughly and quickly technologies and
> specialized knowledge
> could disappear from the face of the earth, in pre-internet times.
> -Hue Miller
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 19:11:42 -1000
> From: "Kludge" <wh7hg.hi at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] RU/RAT/RAV/RAX vs. GO, 1939 and Later
> To: <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>, <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Message-ID: <3BEEE58E99564021B1D336B1258E4365 at Kongo>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arc5-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:arc5-bounces at mailman.qth.net] 
> On
> Behalf Of Mike Morrow
>> I ignored the 1941 RU-18 liaison receiver set.  I guess there must have
> been some
>> call for a 12-vdc installation somewhere as late as 1941.  They must have
> used a
>> GO-9 or a GP-7 with it.
>
> This may have been for replacement purposes much like ARC produced some 
> ATA
> transmitters after the AN/ARC-5 equipment was in production.  (I have 
> one.)
> This may also be why ARC handed that off to WE; they had shut down
> production of the Model D based equipment to concentrate on the Type K 
> based
> equipment.
>
> 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 N?!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 19:25:16 -1000
> From: "Kludge" <wh7hg.hi at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] ARRL National Convention Mil Radio Display
> To: <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>, "'ARC-5 List'"
> <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
> Message-ID: <B489D77BEDC547D1A758E3704F49A429 at Kongo>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of David Stinson
>> Why ARC-type-17?  Well, it's a 1946 set and WWII did not
>> *officially* end until December of 1946 (betcha didn't know that!)
>
> Depends on what date you use.  The Instrument of Surrender with Japan was
> signed in 1945 but the final Peace Treaty with Japan wasn't signed &
> ratified until Spring 1951 and went into effect in 1952, just in time for
> the Korean War.  Until that time, we were technically at war with Japan 
> even
> though hostilities had ceased.
>
> Anyway, this means the Type 11, Type 15 and a few other systems qualify as
> well.
>
> Doncha just love when I mess with stuff?  :-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 N?!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 19:29:05 -1000
> From: "Kludge" <wh7hg.hi at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] RAT(-1) & RAV: Another Viewpoint.
> To: <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>, <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Message-ID: <4211FA5C45954B3A8AB3ABE8FFFCF69A at Kongo>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Stinson [mailto:arc5 at ix.netcom.com]
>> Wright-Patterson's WWII "archives" and warehouses of equipment-
>> at least, several large warehouses adjacent to the base and full of
>> what you'd expect from their "archives"-  were disposed-of
>> about ten years ago-
>
> *grumble* ... *sigh* ... *grumble again because I can* ... Why couldn't 
> they
> have waited?  Or put more effort into preserving that stuff?  No, don't
> answer that; it will just make me upsetter.
>
> 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 N?!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 01:35:01 EDT
> From: WA5CAB at cs.com
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] RU/RAT/RAV/RAX vs. GO, 1939 and Later
> To: wh7hg.hi at gmail.com, arc5 at mailman.qth.net,
> milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID: <5a15.449d002.3b230705 at cs.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Quite a few pre-war and early war sets were ordered pretty much throughout
> the War.  Several SCR-178 components have 1943 Order dates.  BC-224's were
> ordered into 1944.  Etc.
>
> In a message dated 6/10/2011 12:11:52 AM Central Daylight Time,
> wh7hg.hi at gmail.com writes:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arc5-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:arc5-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
>> On
>> Behalf Of Mike Morrow
>> >I ignored the 1941 RU-18 liaison receiver set.  I guess there must have
>> been some
>> >call for a 12-vdc installation somewhere as late as 1941.  They must 
>> >have
>> used a
>> >GO-9 or a GP-7 with it.
>>
>> This may have been for replacement purposes much like ARC produced some
>> ATA
>> transmitters after the AN/ARC-5 equipment was in production.  (I have
>> one.)
>> This may also be why ARC handed that off to WE; they had shut down
>> production of the Model D based equipment to concentrate on the Type K
>> based
>> equipment.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Michael, WH7HG ex-K3MXO, ex-KN3MXO, WPE3ARS, BL01xh ex-Mensa A&P PP BGI
>>
>
> Robert & Susan Downs - Houston
> wa5cab dot com (Web Store)
> MVPA 9480
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>
>
> End of Milsurplus Digest, Vol 86, Issue 16
> ****************************************** 