[Milsurplus] ARC 65 vs ARC 58

[B Smith]

Everyone must  understand the urgency for reliable communications in 
the 1950's and 60's. There were too many missions that had to have
constant "Command and Control". That's why all the different sets and 
companies. We took what we could get and the fastest supplier was  was 
usually the choice. Adapt, modify, what ever it took. The days of 
going over the "pond" and not talking to anyone for hours were over, 
not to mention over the ice cap - - -    for a while even the B-47 has 
Collins 18S-4's installed.

z

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Boeing377" <boeing377 at aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:03 PM
To: <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] ARC 65 vs ARC 58

Bruce gentry wrote:


I wonder if
nyone besides Collins took SSB seriously, the conversion of the RCA
RC-21 to the ARC-65 was really awful compared to the Collins ARC-58.


No doubt the ARC 58 was the more reliable rig (by a LOT according to 
retired USAF and ANG radio techs I have spoken with). The ARC 65, when 
running, was actually a pretty good radio. This isnt just folklore, 
the 58 and 65 participated in a USAF sponsored test. The 65 won.

In a USAF sponsored round the world flight test of airborne RTTY 
conducted by Hughes Aircraft Co. the ARC 65 consistently outperformed 
the ARC 58. Both sets were flown aboard a T 29, (mil version of 
Convair 340?). Many times in marginal conditions the ARC 65 got 
through when the 58 couldn't. The best the 58 could do was match the 
65. It never beat it in this test.

73,
Mark
AF6IM




______________________________________________________________
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

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html