[Milsurplus] Big/Heavy is Over

[Bruce Gentry]

I am definately one who is interested in the ARC-21.  So far, all I have 
been able to find and get is a control box, some modules, and the 
incomplete companion receiver. I  think it was produced in far smaller 
numbers  than  the later HF rigs, and it's supposedly  poor reliability 
probably caused many people to reject and/or scrap it.  I  fear there 
are units sitting in barns and garages, and if someone expresses 
interest, the owner wants to get thousands of dollars for them, and when 
they can't,  would rather let their heirs throw them into a dumpster.  
There are many aspects of this hobby, I am a techie and want to preserve 
the history and share it with  others.  The business aspect is a very 
negative  side of the hobby for me,  but I have no choice except to 
endure and survive it  to obtain the things I want. I agree this group 
and most others tend to emphasize the WW2 gear and give "cold war"  
equipment from 1945-70 less interest.  The late 1940s was an interesting 
time,  hurried and often unwise and over optimistic use of recently 
gained knowledge lead to a lot of interesting innovations, as well as 
plenty failures.

         Bruce Gentry, KA2IVY



On 9/17/18 12:08 PM, Jim Whartenby wrote:
>
> I myself have a soft spot for the ARC-21.  Everyone knows that it is a 
> poor design that is highly unreliable.  Yet no-one can find any data 
> to back up the assertion.  When data is found to back up claims, it is 
> found to be either an error or an opinion that is accepted as fact.  
> Yes, there were problems when it was first rolled out but they were 
> corrected early on.  I am not aware of any new electronics system that 
> did not have initial problems.  Then there was the change over to SSB 
> and the conversion of the ARC-21 to the ARC-65 but the early rumors of 
> poor reliability followed on.
>
>
> I am well aware that I am deep in the weeds on this topic and that few 
> (perhaps five members of this wonderful list) have any interest in 
> this particular radio.  That is part of the issue.  Military radio is 
> a pretty vast topic and most of the posts on this list seem to be 
> centered on WW2 equipment which still covers a lot of radios.
>
>
> I wonder why people argue over the 10% of their differences and ignore 
> the 90% they agree on?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> **
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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 
> <mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net <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/20180917/c0f88c73/attachment.html>