[Milsurplus] [MRCG] [MRCA] WTB - Vintage Mil Aircraft Radio Components

Mon Oct 1 18:42:46 EDT 2018

Put this in perspective for me.

What would be the MTBF #'s
be for an AM XCVR in a little
Cessna ? Then compare the
acquisition cost of each.

I know the MIL Radio can take
a beating and keep on ticking,
but at some point it gets kind
of ridiculous.

The R-808/GRC-14 RCVR is
one that sticks in my craw !!

73, Dick, W1KSZ

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:25 PM Francesco Ledda <frledda at att.net> wrote:

> The devil is in the details.
>
>
>
> As Jim said before, MTBF numbers should be provided with the operational
> context in which were obtain.  A 618T on the back of a Jeep in South
> Vietnam will have different MTBF respect to a 618T in the pressurized belly
> of a B-747.
>
>
>
> The ARC-58 was tested by the Air Force and Collins in 1959. If I remember
> correctly, they were installed in a mix of 11 B-52s and KC-135.  The test
> report issued by Collins (with supervision of the Air Force) gave a ~300
> hours MTBF.   This MTBF analysis is valid only for this application, and
> nothing else.
>
>
>
> Few considerations:
>
> -Helping Collins - New radios and best of the best provided by Collins
>
> -Helping Collins – Radios maintained by very knowledgeable Collins
> engineers
>
> -Against Collins – New radios with still few design and manufacturing bugs
>
> -Against Collins – High early mortality (reliability curve -  bathtub
> shape)
>
>
>
> Therefore, the 300h MTBF must be seen as a starting point that can be
> improved with the proper effort. This is exactly what happened to the
> ARC-58 in the B-52; it got better with age, like a good wine.
>
>
>
> The same ARC-58 was used on the AN/TSC-15 Communication Central for the
> USAF, but it was used differently. The TSC-15 was carried to the field on a
> truck or air dropped.  When in full duplex mode, the ARC-58 could be ON and
> radiating (transmitting) 24 hours a day. I am sure that its reliability
> numbers were not as good.
>
>
>
> Jim is 100% right.  The operational context is half of the story when we
> talk about MTBF.
>
>
>
> Best, Frank K5URG
>
>
>
> *From:* milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:
> milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net] *On Behalf Of *Jim Whartenby
> *Sent:* Monday, October 1, 2018 12:21 PM
> *To:* 'West Coast Military Radio Collectors Group'; 'mrca'; 'milsurplus'
> *Subject:* Re: [Milsurplus] [MRCG] [MRCA] WTB - Vintage Mil Aircraft
> Radio Components
>
>
>
> Ray
>
> Don't know about the KC-135, "Standard Aircraft Characteristics" has no
> information on it but some articles in the "Collins Signal" indicate that
> the ARC-58 was originally installed.  Seems logical to me since the KC-135
> refueled the B-52 and world wide comm would be desirable.  But military
> logic is not the same as common sense; it is easy to loose sight of why
> something was done.  It is relatively easy to find B-52 avionics
> designations (again, Standard Aircraft Characteristics to the rescue) but
> little seems to be available on the KC-135, possibly since it is in the
> support role.
>
>
>
> Frank Ledda is the expert, as far as I am concerned, he has access to all
> sorts of information on Collins radios.
>
>
>
> I don't know where you are getting your MTBF information but your numbers
> seem wildly optimistic to me.  DTIC article A061734 from November, 1966 has
> reliability information on the ARC-58 and 618T-2 under the ARC-94
> designation.  AGREE data for the ARC-94 is 154 hours; 79 hours for the
> ARC-58.  This is far from what you reported so I would be interested in
> getting a copy of your MTBF data.
>
>
>
> Now we can quibble about AGREE test data compared to Operational
> Conditions data but it is difficult to factor in the aircraft and it's
> affect on equipment reliability.  Each aircraft is its own unique
> environment.  The aircraft determines where on the airframe the equipment
> is located and what are the environmental conditions that the particular
> radio is exposed too.  So some radios will have high MTBF hours while the
> same radio installed in another aircraft will have lower MTBF hours.  At
> least AGREE test data is arguably the same for all radios tested since it
> is done under laboratory controlled conditions of altitude, humidity,
> temperature and vibration.
>
>
>
> AGREE test chambers are available on eBay so one can do their own tests!
> <grin>  But kidding aside, if anyone has found other reliability data on
> DTIC or any other reliable source, please let me know; always looking for
> *published* reliability data.  It is surprising to me how secretive
> reliability data is.  I see reports all the time that do not even name the
> manufacturer nor equipment designation, it is all so hush-hush.
>
>
>
> To answer the question about how common the ARC-58 mounts are, the ARC-58
> was designed to fit an ARINC standard  ATR-1 mount so any ATR-1 mount will
> accept the ARC-58 receiver-exciter or transmitter-power supply.  They show
> up on eBay often enough, that is where I got the examples I have.  Some
> have tags on them showing what equipment it was made for, other mounts have
> no tags at all.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> *I wonder why people argue over the 10% of their differences and ignore
> the 90% they agree on?*
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>
> *To:* Scott Johnson <scottjohnson1 at cox.net>; 'West Coast Military Radio
> Collectors Group' <mrcg at mailman.qth.net>; 'mrca' <mrca at mailman.qth.net>;
> 'milsurplus' <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 1, 2018 7:45 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Milsurplus] [MRCG] [MRCA] WTB - Vintage Mil Aircraft
> Radio Components
>
>
>
> Still beings up the question what would you be using it for. I thought
> most KC-135 had been refitted with 618T transceivers as soon as they became
> available being the ARC-58 was hardly the most reliable radio. The MTBF of
> the ARC-58 was around 400 hours and the MTBF of the 618T was 4,000 hours.
>
> But imagine that if you had a large aircraft that came with an ARC-58 only
> an ARC-58 will do.
>
> Going to assume that this is just for static display or Ham use being that
> none of this stuff would meet type acceptance these days.
>
>
>
> Sorry for all the questions but this is a fascinating subject.
>
>
>
> And if you decide that a 618T/ARC-94 would work may be able to help.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Scott Johnson [mailto:scottjohnson1 at cox.net]
>
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 9:45 PM
>
> To: 'West Coast Military Radio Collectors Group' <mrcg at mailman.qth.net>;
> Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>; 'mrca' <mrca at mailman.qth.net>;
> 'milsurplus' <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
>
> Subject: RE: [MRCG] [MRCA] WTB - Vintage Mil Aircraft Radio Components
>
>
>
> -And the civil version, the 18Z3/4 was used in the early 747
>
>
>
> Scott V. Johnson W7SVJ
>
> 5111 E. Sharon Dr.
>
> Scottsdale, AZ 85254-3636
>
> H (602) 953-5779
>
> C (480) 550-2358
>
> scottjohnson1 at cox.net
>
> scott.johnson at ieee.org
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: mrcg-bounces at mailman.qth.net <mrcg-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On
> Behalf Of Scott Johnson
>
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 6:38 PM
>
> To: 'Ray Fantini' <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>; 'MRCG' <mrcg at mailman.qth.net>;
> 'mrca' <mrca at mailman.qth.net>; 'milsurplus' <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
>
> Subject: Re: [MRCG] [MRCA] WTB - Vintage Mil Aircraft Radio Components
>
>
>
> They were also used on the KC-135.
>
>
>
> Scott V. Johnson W7SVJ
>
> 5111 E. Sharon Dr.
>
> Scottsdale, AZ 85254-3636
>
> H (602) 953-5779
>
> C (480) 550-2358
>
> scottjohnson1 at cox.net
>
> scott.johnson at ieee.org
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net <mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On
> Behalf Of Ray Fantini
>
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 10:07 AM
>
> To: MRCG <mrcg at mailman.qth.net>; mrca <mrca at mailman.qth.net>; milsurplus <
> milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
>
> Subject: Re: [MRCA] WTB - Vintage Mil Aircraft Radio Components
>
>
>
> Just curious, what are you restoring that's big enough to accommodate an
> AN/ARC-58? I thought they were only used on the B-52
>
>
>
> Ray F/KA3EKH
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
> On Behalf Of boatanchor at martasystems.com
>
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 12:54 PM
>
> To: MRCG <mrcg at mailman.qth.net>; mrca <mrca at mailman.qth.net>; milsurplus <
> milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>; arc5 at mailman.qth.net
>
> Subject: [MRCA] WTB - Vintage Mil Aircraft Radio Components
>
>
>
> All -
>
>
>
> I'm working on the restoration of several aircraft and need the following
> components. If you can help, please tell me what you have and how much $$
> you require for it.
>
>
>
> Thanks !
>
> John WB6AZP
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Big Black Avionics Boxes --
>
>
>
> UHF Transmitter/Receiver "RT-178 / ARC-27"
>
> Transmitter "T-605 / ARC-58"
>
> Receiver/Exciter "R-761 / ARC-58"
>
> Receiver  "R-540 / ARN-14C"
>
> Receiver "R-322 / ARN-18"
>
> Dynamotor "DY-66 / ARN-14"
>
> Vertical Gyro "332D-6"
>
> Antenna Coupler "C-1940 / ARC-58"
>
> Antenna Coupler "CU-523 / ARC-58"
>
> HF Power Supply "416W-1"
>
> Altimeter Indicator "I-152C"
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Mounting Trays --
>
>
>
> ARC-73 Tray "MT-2699"
>
> Shockmount for HF Power Supply "350T-1"
>
> Mount for AN/APS13 "MT-149"
>
> Mounting Plate "MT-80 / ARC-5"
>
> Mounting Plate "MT-78 / ARC-5"
>
> Mounting Plate "MT-109 / APX-1"
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Control Boxes --
>
>
>
> UHF Control "C-1904 / ARC-27"
>
> TACAN Control "C-1763 / ARN-21A"
>
> Receiver Control "C-1939 / ARC-58"
>
> ARC-5 Control "C-38 / ARC-5" - can be rough, just need the backing plate
> Control "C-54 / APX-1"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Instruments & Other --
>
>
>
> Jack Box "J-22A / ARC-5"
>
> Frequency Meter "AW59"
>
> Navigator's Radar Scope Shield "801410"
>
> Visor for Altitude Indicator "M387"
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> MRCA mailing list
>
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mrca
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>
> Post: mailto:MRCA at mailman.qth.net
>
>
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> MRCA mailing list
>
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mrca
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>
> Post: mailto:MRCA at mailman.qth.net
>
>
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> MRCG mailing list
>
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mrcg
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>
> Post: mailto:MRCG at mailman.qth.net
>
>
>
> Website: http://www.mrcgwest.org
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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/b62701e9/attachment-0001.html>