[Milsurplus] Fwd: PBY-5A ATD/ARB photo?

[Michael Hanz]

That's an astute question, Hue.  I need to add some illuminating notes 
to that pdf on my web page, because if you look at the four aircraft 
that the ATD was specifically intended to support, you will find some 
interesting histories.

Here's the lineup, from the chart:

TBF-1 - Of the four aircraft showing an ATD destined for them, the 
Avenger torpedo bomber was the only one used throughout the war, 
replacing the obsolete Douglas TBD Devastator.  However, after the 
destruction of five TBFs at Midway, it seems that using the slow moving 
aircraft as a torpedo bomber was at the bottom of the list for targets 
with a highly accurate and determined air defense.  On the other hand, 
as a carrier combat aircraft they rated the best of radio equipment, and 
they quickly received the ATC/ART-13, along with the ARB as their 
primary comms capability.  If you'll peruse 
http://www.navalaviationmuseum.org/nnam/virtualtour/?s=pano728 you will 
see the control heads for those two components on the right side of the 
cockpit.

SB2D-1 - Two-seat dive/torpedo bomber intended to replace the Douglas 
SBD and Curtiss SB2C.  It was the proposed production version of the 
XSB2D-1.  A total of 358 were ordered, but the order was heroically 
converted to the /single seat/ BTD-1 Destroyer before any were completed.

SO3C-3 - Reduced weight variant of the Curtiss SO3C-2 floatplane scout 
with detailed improvements and catapult operation ability removed.  Only 
39 were built with a further 659 cancelled.  This is the only aircraft 
that in my simple mind _might_ have initially received the ATD...all 39 
of them...:-)

SOR-1   - Intended as a Ryan produced alternative to the Curtiss SO3C-1, 
both contracts were cut due to continuing developments in the Pacific.  
Ryan had spent an entire year feverishly converting the Curtiss-Wright 
design and adapting it to a new engine, but no aircraft were actually 
produced...just components for later assembly.

So, that snapshot in time that is at 
http://aafradio.org/docs/1943-Navy-radio-gear.html is only that - a 
snapshot of _intentions_ early in the war.  Three of the intended 
aircraft either never got built or only had a few built. That doesn't 
suggest a bright future for the ATD...

Over the past twenty years, there have been many a discussion on this 
and other fora about the ATD, and I can vaguely remember only one person 
who mentioned recalling an ATD which had a "Placed in Service on_______" 
Navy stamp on a plate.  All the rest seemed to be new in the box, as was 
mine.  They have a Placed in Service plate but it is blank.  That 
doesn't prove it never saw service /somewhere/...men in every Service 
are remarkably ingenious when the need arises.

Notice that there is no reference in the chart to an ATD for any of the 
many PBY patrol aircraft types.

I rest my case, pending discovery of data that clarifies/modifies this 
evidence in some way.  I am nothing if not flexible...

           73,
  - Mike  KC4TOS

On 8/5/2017 2:33 AM, Hubert Miller wrote:
> Mike, am I misunderstanding your post ? I thought one of those Navy instructional texts with lists of aircraft to radios actually called out a few aircraft
> with such a matchup.
> -Hue
>
>> Given the apparent dearth of actual ATD installations in the face of the ATC rollout, I am wondering where any data actually supports such a combination?
>   - Mike  KC4TOS

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20170805/ac699e10/attachment.html>