[Milsurplus] Vintage Mil Aircraft Radio Components

Mon Oct 1 16:23:28 EDT 2018

KenThe AGREE MTBF numbers are the worst case average hours to failure with a certain set of test conditions of pressure, humidity, temperature and vibration.  Remove any or all of these conditions and the set will operate, failure free, for much longer periods of time.  
I like the AGREE data simply because it levels the playing field and removes the aircraft from the test data.  This is assuming that all AGREE tests are to the same standard for a particular class of equipment.  I believe that they were.
With the high standards of reliability now in use for consumer electronics, most Mil Specs seem to have been rescinded.  We forget, or never knew, of the panic the military was in during the Korean Conflict and the start of the Cold War.  What was the use of having a nuclear weapon designed to be delivered by a jet bomber if critical bomber systems failed before the weapon could be delivered?
These radios weren't crap, they were the best available at the time for the mission at hand.  Times have changed, reliability is now through the roof compared to 1960.  Look around, how many TV repair shops are in your town now?  When I was growing up, there were two TV repair shops within a few minutes walking distance from my parents house.  That is where I would be on a Saturday, trying to learn the magic that made these things work.
We now replace smart phones because the battery won't hold a charge or because we lost it.  That one smart phone has more computer power then the entire DOD did in 1960!  How times have changed,Jim I wonder why people argue over the 10% of their differences and ignore the 90% they agree on?

      From: Bruce Gentry <ka2ivy at verizon.net>
 To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net 
 Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 1:57 PM
 Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Vintage Mil Aircraft Radio Components

 As a side but real part of history, by 1970 someone in the Air Force could obtain an ARC-58 for a case of Chevis Regal if they were patient and knew the right people. The manuals were unclassified and easy to get, especially if you would accept a dirty or tattered one from the shop.ï¿½ The rig's reliability was hotly debated, and bench warmers and others that slipped through the cracks were definately to be had. I was offered one, but the 400 cycle power needed was a hinderance at the time and I declined. I now have one, as well as a URC-32. They work well, but I doubt they would meet the standards required at the time. Were the failures cited total ones that rendered the rig unusable, or failure to meet the specs perfectly and dot every "I" and cross every "T"?ï¿½ The Strategic Air Command was extremely finicky, with good reason. There were so many 1950s vintage rigs that had to be carressed, cursed, and blessed to squeak by the standards in 1970, but worked perfectly in the practical sense day in and day out for months with very little attention. ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Bruce Gentry, KA2IVY

 On 10/1/18 2:28 PM, Kenneth G. Gordon wrote:

 On 1 Oct 2018 at 17:21, Jim Whartenby wrote:

 AGREE data for the ARC-94 is 154 hours; 79 hours for the ARC-58.ï¿½

 Are you saying that AGREE says that MTBF data for these two pieces of equipment is 154 
hours and 79 hours? 6.5 days for the 618T and 3.3 days for the ARC-58 !?!?!?!

If so, this is truly amazingly, horribly, bad!!!!

Why would anyone want to use such crap?

If I had to rely on such pieces of apparent junk for my life, I wouldn't have either one 
anywhere near me!!!!

Frank Ledda says that the (average?) MTBF for the ARC-58 was 1000 hours! That's almost 
42 days. Why the HUGE discrepancy?

Ken W7EKB 
______________________________________________________________
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 

 ______________________________________________________________
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/20181001/9ebf2e23/attachment.html>