[Milsurplus] Bomber Fantasy Camp, ARC-1 in Lady Be Good?
Mike Morrow
kk5f at earthlink.net
Mon Sep 21 17:23:24 EDT 2015
Mike Hanz wrote:
>If you look at the USAAF VHF radio progression, it was basically a path
>from a smattering of WE-233 commercial; to the SCR-522 (primarily for
>the European theater, to be compatible with the huge numbers used by the
>Brits for logistics reasons); to the SCR-274/BC-950/BC-942 VHF set...
I've never seen anything that convinces me that the USAAF's VHF SCR-274-N was ever used beyond the stage of very limited trial. Is there much that shows it to have seen real service? Maintenance and operating manuals or other documentation that would have needed publishing and distribution in support of service deployment of the VHF SCR-274-N seem to be non-existent.
>(mostly for the Pacific...the Navy uncharacteristically began buying
>those too, especially the ARC-5 redesign, because it gave them some
>flexibility in the transition to VHF); to the set they always wanted,
>the AN/ARC-3. This last excellent set began deployment in late 1944,
>mostly to high value aircraft like the B-29 force and others who needed
>the increased capabilities the most.
Bruce Vaughn/NR5Q (SK) was a USAAF radio tech in the ETO. He told me that the SCR-522-A was easily the most important and most used USAAF radio set in the ETO. But Bruce complained of its drift with temperature change, and how much work was required to re-channel all the radios in a flight to new frequencies. He would have loved the electronic automatic tuning of the AN/ARC-3, just plug in the new transmit and receive crystals, and set the receiver crystal harmonic dial to operating frequency. The set electronically retunes itself each time the channel is selected. The USN's AN/ARC-1 can't beat that...but it did implement a guard channel that the AN/ARC-3 never had (in spite of the R-77 mod that added the RF connection to a guard receiver). The AN/ARC-3, -36, -49 was indeed an excellent and long-lived set.
>In the final analysis, the logistics chain ruled the equipment being
>used in the field, rather than expediency of sharing between the
>Services. So what might seem reasonable to us today would have caused a
>Navy or Army procurement manager to shrink in horror at the inhumanity
>of the suggestion... :-)
At least everyone, regardless of service, liked a few common items...such as the AN/APN-1, AN/ARN-6, and AN/ARC-27. Interservice joint like of a common HF set seems to waited for the Collins 618T (AN/ARC-94, -102, etc.).
Mike / KK5F
More information about the Milsurplus
mailing list