[Milsurplus] Arc-38A as modified by RCA
frledda at att.net
frledda at att.net
Mon Nov 2 17:01:06 EST 2020
Jim,
One more thing, I have seen products go out to mass production prematurely, quite few times.
Reasons were: longer than expected design cycles, suppliers being late, contractual commitments, not well evaluated scope changes and, of course, the most important one “booking revenue”.
Best, Francesco K5URG
From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of frledda at att.net
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 2:28 PM
To: 'Jim Whartenby' <old_radio at aol.com>; Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Arc-38A as modified by RCA
Jim,
On this particular topic, we will agree to disagree.
There is a difference between reliability of a component and its spec variance. I believe that the ARC-21/65 needed “some selected components” and the 5814S is the proof.
The ARC-38 did not suffer from this, as any garden variety component worked in it. When I worked at Collins, we tested new designs with components form different production batches and suppliers to make evaluate the design stability. Critical circuits were validated by exercising the possible variances of each components. We temp tested and exceeded the temp/voltage ranges by 30%. If it did not work, we were going back to drawing board.
As a design manager and later design executive, my approach was to force my designers to use the standard supply chain components, and only in special cases, I allowed to use selected components. A selected component costs multiple times as much as a standard production one, and creates supply chain issues (new PN, new procurement, more cost, more inventory, more taxes and unhappy customers).
Already in the 70s, designers at Collins (HP and others) designers were discouraged from designing products with tuning/adjustments like pots (etc.), as they required extra manufacturing time. This approach required better quality designs.
I think that my feelings about the ARC-21/65 are not very positive, as I think that this product was half-baked when it entered production. Later efforts improved the product.
Again, I enjoyed this conversation, but forgive me for disagreeing with you 😊
Best, Francesco
From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of Jim Whartenby via Milsurplus
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 1:15 PM
To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Arc-38A as modified by RCA
Francesco
The pizza remark was done "tong in cheek" but it does indicate that better components makes for a better product which was what I was aiming for.
"...the need for screened components is a clear indication of a marginal design."
Don't know what to make of this. Clearly, a 5654W is not the same as a 6AK5 even though they may preform the same in most circuits. If the specification calls for a 5654W then one has automatically screened that component. It has already gone through the various tests that have weeded out inferior examples. In the early 1950's, these types of component specifications did not exist. Commercial as opposed to JAN components were all that were then available.
The experience in addressing the shortfalls in the ARC-21 program, among many other programs of that time period, led to the research into failure analysis and the creation of various component specifications needed to increase the quality of components and by extension, the reliability of the electronics system. Clearly, the ARC-21 met all design specifications in the original contract; the total build as of 20 April 1961 was 5,394 sets. The issue was that when the system was first installed in the harsh B-47 environment, the life expectancy fell short. Those issues that caused the low reliability were addressed and corrected.
In today's world, almost all of the high-rel component specifications have been rescinded because commercial components now are of vastly higher quality then those made in the 1950's. That is one of the many pitfalls in looking back 70 odd years from the perspective of the year 2020. The products made back then fall short of today's expectations but at the time, they were marvelous.
"...it is almost and (sic) unfair comparison, but it needs to be made".
If it is an unfair comparison, why not compare the ARC-21 with it's contemporaries?
. ARC-21 618S ARC-38
Freq range: 2-24 mc 2-25 mc 2-25 mc
Channels: 44,000 144 35,250
Ch. spacing: 500 cycles NA 500 / 1000* cycles
Freq. Stability: 0.0015% 0.007% 0.01%
Altitude: 50k feet 50k feet 50k feet (See Note below)
Op. temp: -55C/+85C Unk Unk
RF power: >100 watts >90 watts* >90 watts*
freq setup: direct input crystal code book
Weight** 136 lbs 64 lbs 73 lbs.
*Frequency dependent, high frequency spec shown
**R/T + mount, approximately half of the ARC-21 mount is part of the R/T unit
Note: The 618S or ARC-38 operating at 50,000 feet seems a bit optimistic to me. Air pressure is down to about 11.5% that of sea level. How is the R/T unit cooled at this altitude? Neither the R/T unit nor the mounting rack have fans to move air. What about condensation of water on the modules as the aircraft climbs to operational altitude from a hot and humid airfield?
The issue really is that being the first to do something is much, much harder then when you can benefit from the mistakes made by those who came before you. It is so much easier to play catch-up then to weed through all of the possibilities to find the path to a successful design. Many times it is not possible to get to do a "do-over." I am quite sure that the RCA designers would have preferred a second chance at the ARC-21 design. There is always room for improvement, isn't there?
Regards,
Jim
I wonder why people argue over the 10% of their differences and ignore the 90% they agree on?
-----Original Message-----
From: frledda at att.net <mailto:frledda at att.net>
To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net <mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Mon, Nov 2, 2020 9:04 am
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Arc-38A as modified by RCA
I don’t buy “the better ingredients, better pizza” story.
Having been a design engineer at Collins and other companies, the need for screened components is a clear indication of a marginal design. I can only imagine the supply chain perturbations and cost associated with supplying the 5814S and other screened components.
People may say that being the ARC-21 very complex (84 tubes and a large number of relays), this kind of instability and reliability is normal. I beg to differ, based on my experience. I was a system engineer for NATO on the Nike Hercules missile system, and the systems had thousands of tubes and relays, and never had to select components to make it work.
Being the ARC-58 much more modern than the ARC-21/65, it is almost and unfair comparison, but it needs to be made.
ARC-65 vs ARC-58
Weight 245lb vs 175lbs
Volume 9.5ft^3 vs 5.85ft^3
Frequency range 2-24 MHz vs 2-29.999 MHz
Frequency Stability 150Hz @10MHz vs 10Hz @10MHz
Transmitter power 230W PEP SSB vs 900 MHz PEP SSB
MTBF 120h vs 290h
The Univac antenna coupler was a good coupler but inferior in reliability to the 180R-6, due to the integration of the servo amps into the coupler itself. The servo amps used magamps that suffered from temperature extremes, Collins’s choice to keep the controller in the pressurized vessel was key for their better reliability. Also, the Collins 180R-6 used a low pass filter architecture that further reduced higher harmonics. The Univac used high pass filter architecture
Best, Francesco K5URG
From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> > On Behalf Of Jim Whartenby via Milsurplus
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 1:44 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Arc-38A as modified by RCA
Mike
I do not agree with you that the ARC-21 had a history of unreliability. It certainly was not much different then any other system found in the B-47 bomber other then the K Bombing and Navigation System. This system weighed in at over a thousand pounds and used 370 vacuum tubes and an even higher number of relays. MTBF for the BNS was so low that spare modules were carried in the B-47 Navigator's compartment.
It is rarely mentioned that the AN/ARC-21 was designed for use in the B-47 where it was mounted in the rear of the aircraft, aft of the rear landing gear, along with the ARC-27 UHF transceiver. This location is where vibration and temperature extremes work it's magic. Any HF transceivers used in place of the ARC-21 were installed in support aircraft such as the KC-97 or KC-135, not in a B-47. No other HF transceiver available at this time was able to operate under the extreme conditions found in the B-47.
The ARC-21 did have initial teething problems not unlike many other "state of the art" systems found in the B-47 or other aircraft. But these problems were addressed and corrected as the source of the problems were determined and the failure mechanisms understood. This was verified in the final report of "Project Big Eva" An Accelerated Service Test of Radio Set AN/ARC-21 in March, 1955.
There were two U.S. Congressional investigations concerning the ARC-21 of which I am aware. The first was titled "Air Force Development and Procurement of the AN/ARC-21 Airborne Radio Transceivers," March 29, 1954. The second was titled "Examination of the Pricing of the AN/ARC-21 Receiver-Transmitters," June 30, 1961.
The first investigation was about the Air Force procuring the ARC-21 before sufficient testing had been done on the prototype to verify performance. The Air Force was in a panic with the build up of forces to fight the Korean War. Congress was not critical of the problems facing the Air Force concerning the build up but they were concerned with the contracts let by the Air Force to RCA for an initial 3,900 sets and a follow on order for another 1,843 sets all before the delivery of the ARC-21 prototype for acceptance testing!
The second investigation on pricing concerned the heat exchanger / pressure vessel which formed the outer case of the ARC-21. This was the single costliest component of the ARC-21. There was a $300 discrepancy between what RCA initially told the Air Force what it would cost and what RCA actually paid the contractor who made the heat exchanger. Oh, well!
By the time of this first Congressional investigation, about 700 or so sets of the AN/ARC-21 had been delivered to the Air Force. The problem with reliability was mainly due to vacuum tube and relay failures due to infant mortality and a lack of sufficient process control in the manufacturing of subminiature tubes and relays. This is all well documented. It should also be mentioned that there are approximately 100 relays used in the ARC-21. The same number of relays are also used in the ARC-65.
There were also issues with other components such as resistors, capacitors and such but the main issue was with vacuum tubes and relays. While the component manufacturers worked on improving their designs, overall reliability of the ARC-21 was improved with 100% component testing before module assembly. This weeded out infant mortality failures of vacuum tubes and relays. Completed ARC-21 sets then went through a 200 continuous hour operational test which included shake, rattle and roll while operating at elevated temperature. Any failure found during the test returned the repaired ARC-21 to the beginning of the 200 hour test. This forced the early failures and brought the reliability up to the point where the "Project Big Eva" testing program had verified that reliability was on par with other electronic systems used in the B-47.
With respect to your comments about the Navy choosing the ARC-38; perhaps you are not aware that the Navy had let a contract to Collins to develop the ARC-38 in 1952? The Navy had also previously funded Collins for the development of the AN/ARC-26 AM transceiver The Navy issued this contract, worth a million dollars, in 1947. It was cancelled when the prototype was evaluated in 1952. The ARC-26 was the Navy's answer to the ARC-21 but evidently Collins had less luck with this design then RCA had had with the ARC-21. The first Congressional investigation report also noted that Collins had commercialized much of the ARC-38, minus the SMO, in the form of the 618S-1. What is common knowledge about the ARC-38 and the 618S-1 is not verified in the official record.
What caused the demise of the ARC-21 was the changeover from AM to SSB in the late 1950's and early 1960's. As for the lack of reliability of the ARC-21 and the longevity of the ARC-65, it should be mentioned that they are practically the same radio. Yes one is DSB and the other SSB but the change was accomplished without much of a redesign. Both share better then 90% of the DNA of subminiature tubes and relays. At least two modules are directly exchangeable between the two transceivers. See the tube data below. Bold type numbers are exclusive to that particular transceiver, all other tube types are also found in the other set.
ARC-21
Type Totals Description:
0A2 1 ea 150v VRT
0B2 1 ea 108v VRT
2E26 2 ea 10Watt pentode
3B22 1 ea Full Wave rectifier
3B28 4 ea HV diode
4-65A 4 ea 65Watt tetrode
5636A 16 ea Dual Cont pentode
5643A 1 ea thyratron
5670 1 ea Twin diode
5687 2 ea Double triode
5718 3 ea Medium MU triode
5719A 2 ea triode
5840A 14 ea Sharp Cutoff pentode
5896A 8 ea Twin diode
5899A 5 ea Semi-Remote pentode
5902A 3 ea Beam pentode
6021A 15 ea Twin triode
991 1 ea 58v VRT
Grand total: 84 Tubes
76 / 84 x 100 = 90.5% of ARC-21 tube types are also used in the ARC-65
ARC-65
Type Totals Description:
0B2 1 ea 108v VRT
3B28 4 ea HV diode
4X250F 2 ea Power Tetrode
6CL6 2 ea Power Pentode
5636S 14 ea Dual Cont pentode
5636AS 2 ea Dual Cont pentode
5643S 1 ea thyratron
5670WA 1 ea Twin diode
5687 2 ea Double triode
5718S 3 ea Medium MU triode
5719S 1 ea triode
5840S 19 ea Sharp Cutoff pentode
5896A 3 ea Twin diode
5896S 4 ea Twin diode
5899AS 6 ea Semi-Remote pentode
5902AS 2 ea Beam pentode
6021A 7 ea Twin triode
6021S 12 ea Twin triode
6021AS 1 ea Twin triode
991 1 ea 58v VRT
Grand total: 88 Tubes
84 / 88 x 100 = 95.5% of the ARC-65 tube types are also used in the ARC-21
The only difference beyond circuit changes for a balanced modulator, a linear PA, a narrow bandwidth mechanical filter, a product detector, and a higher accuracy Reference Oscillator is the type number suffix of tubes used in both sets. As an example, the RCA preliminary ARC-21 manual called for a JAN 5840, the ARC-21 military manual, which covered the improved ARC-21, called for a 5840A and the ARC-65 manual calls for a 5840S. The only real difference between these three vacuum tubes is the level of testing done after the tube was manufactured. Like Papa John says: Better ingredients, better pizza!
Regards,
Jim
From: <mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net < <mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of Mike Morrow
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 6:59 AM
To: <mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Arc-38A as modified by RCA
It's interesting that the principle post-WWII aircraft HF-AM set selected by the USAF was the RT-128A/ARC-21 along with the R-224/ARR-36 aux receiver. This RCA-made equipment had a very troubled history of of unreliability and extreme procurement costs that prompted U.S. Congressional investigation. The extended delays for introduction of this equipment caused the WWII-vintage AN/ARC-8 (T-47A/ART-13 and BC-348-*) to be continued in service and for USAF purchases of many Collins 618S-1 sets to fill in for the missing AN/ARC-21.
During the same period, the USN chose the Collins RT-311/ARC-38 and R-648/ARR-41 aux receiver to replace its AN/ARC-25 (T-47/ART-13 and R-105A/ARR-15). From its introduction this Collins equipment was far more reliable and cost a small fraction of the USAF's RCA gear.
When SSB became the desired mode, RCA developed a USB conversion of the RT-128A/ARC-21 into the RT-400/ARC-65. It appears RCA saw a similar opportunity and developed the USB conversion of the RT-311/ARC-38 into the RT-594/ARC-38A. Although very complex, apparently the RT-594 was successful enough to remain flying for another decade and more. Older USN aircraft with the AN/ARC-38A often retained it after an RT-648/ARC-94 (Collins 618T-2) was installed.
It would be interesting to know if RCA used the same team to develop both the RT-400 and RT-594. All things considered, I'd say they were very successful in military service.
Mike / KK5F
-----Original Message-----
From: Ulrich N Fierz via Milsurplus
Sent: Oct 29, 2020 3:53 AM
Good morning Ray
here I have a 618S-1 (no original control head) and a long time considered the ARC-38A, but I think I can easily confirm: the A is a nightmare...
Good luck with your many radios
Ulrich hb9aik - vk2ani
Ulrich Fierz
8044 Zurich/Switzerland
______________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20201102/d10a8724/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Milsurplus
mailing list