[Milsurplus] [ARC5] ATD Project: "Correct Receiver?"

[WF2U]

I also gathered that the ARB would be the likely receiver to be paired with the ATD, so that's how I'm set up. Luckily, my ARB is completely original and unhacked (I even have the original NOS canvas cover for it).  In addition, I have an LM-13 plugged in to the ARB. I fing the ARB dynamotor extremely quiet, barely perceptible when operating.  The only thing that is a bit bothersome operating the setup is that I have to ride the receiver gain control in transmit, as there is no muting in the receiver. I can monitor the transmitted  CW signal on the LM.  I power the ATD with the original dynamotor, that I found unused. This dynamotor is relatively quiet and not bothersome at all, especially since I use the ARB with headphones.
The ATD is stable, in operation, and always gets good audio reports with the Navy RS-38 microphone; it also sounds good on CW. Incidentally, I think  it is one of the heaviest transmitters watt per pound, with its 40 W output.


73, Meir WF2U
Landrum, SC

⁣Sent from BlueMail ​

On Jul 30, 2017, 6:37 PM, at 6:37 PM, Mike Morrow <kk5f at earthlink.net> wrote:
>Dave wrote:
>
>> ...can someone tell me if there is a "correct" receiver for use
>> with the ATD transmitter? 
>
>The ARB is the only contemporary receiver that both exactly matches the
>ATD's frequency range (minus the essentially non-existent tuning unit
>for frequencies 9 to 15 MHz) and the ATD's limited remote control
>features,
>
>I doubt that the limited-use ATD was ever paired with the RAX-1, which
>has greater than required frequency coverage and provides no remote
>control capability.
>
>The ATD is listed for several aircraft in a 1943 USN radio operator
>training book, parts of which are excepted on Mike Hanz's site at:
>
>  http://aafradio.org/docs/Navy-radio-gear-1943.pdf
>
>I have assembled all the components for an installation consisting of:
>
>- ATD including 200 to 500 kHz TU and associated Antenna Coil
>- ARB with ZB-3 Homing Adapter
>- LM-7 CFI
>
>Obviuosly, the LM CFI would have been absolutely essential.
>
>Even though the ATD is Bendix and the ARB is RCA, these two units
>almost appear to have been made for each other, even though they were
>not.
>
>In other installations, the Collins ATC was an incedible technological
>advance compared to the poor RCA ARB that the USN often paired with
>it...but not so the unfortunate ATD.
>
>Mike / KK5F
>______________________________________________________________
>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20170730/d0fa9280/attachment.html>