[Milsurplus] R-648/ARR-41 vs. R-224/ARR-36

[antqradio at sbcglobal.net]

Hard to compare the above other then they both seem to be afterthoughts as system requirements were expanded.  Not to mention that each were used by competing branches of the military; were designed by competing companies which both seem to have loyal followers.  Might as well compare dogs to cats.  ;-))
That said, if anyone has an ARR-36 in original and unmodified condition and would like to trade for the smaller, lighter and easier to use ARR-41 "band cruiser," which is also in original and unmodified condition, give me a shout.Regards,Jim

      From: Mike Morrow <kk5f at earthlink.net>
 To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net 
 Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 1:55 AM
 Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] R-648/ARR-41
   
> ... i am looking at the ARR-41 with changed feeling now. This was
> the final “NO” vote.

That would be a decision without sound basis, IMHO.

The R-648/ARR-41 represents the ultimate level of development for military LF/MF/HF aircraft receivers of the vacuum tube era.  snipThe USAF also used their contemporary RT-128A/ARC-21 (and RT-400/ARC-65) aircraft HF set with a R-224/ARR-36 auxilary receiver.  It uses the same model control box as the RT-128A, which requires frequency entry by setting pins on a drum.  I have an R-224, but it could serve little real purpose to try to get running.  The AN/ARR-41 has this closest competitor beat.

Mike / KK5F

  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20160321/4e37f04d/attachment.html>