[Milsurplus] [ARC5] GP with ARB?

[Michael Hanz]

I was referring to the procedure that was required to tune to any given 
signal, Jim.  Both the RU and ARB were primarily designed as remote 
control radios (though it was certainly possible to use a spinner wheel 
on one of the two cable ports).  The remote location required a 
different procedure for tuning to a signal because of the different 
cable lengths in different aircraft.  With longer splined cables, there 
was more torsional flex and less "precise" control than one experienced 
with a radio like the BC-348 or the RAX-1, for example.  For all the 
improvements on the ARB, it wasn't perfect by a long shot.  The direct 
reading dial with all the frequencies printed on it (while certainly an 
improvement over the RU's 0-100), was never dead-nuts on and required 
some operator intuition.  At least that has been my experience with it.  
But the roots of its moment-by-moment operation were formed by the RU.  
Radio operators were required to use either set and do so without 
blinking an eye.

I guess I don't look at the ARB or any other WWII radio with quite the 
same lens as many others use (the ham radio/SWL perspective). Engineers 
are forced to keep looking toward the requirements that the customers 
stipulate...it's always about the requirements.  From that perspective, 
the designers of the time seem to have done a fairly decent job.

Happy Hallow-e'en,
- Mike  KC4TOS

On 10/29/2022 1:40 AM, Jim Whartenby via Milsurplus wrote:
> Mike
> What do you mean by "procedural roots"?
> Jim
> Logic: Method used to arrive at the wrong conclusion, with 
> confidence.  Murphy
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Hanz <aaf-radio-1 at aafradio.org>
> To: Hubert Miller <Kargo_cult at msn.com>; milsurplus at mailman.qth.net 
> <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>; ARC-5 List <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Fri, Oct 28, 2022 9:29 pm
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] GP with ARB?
>
> Well, Hue is right in a sense.  But the ARB was intended to replace 
> the RU as the wholeMegillah of the moment - liaison _and/or_  command 
> receiver.  Of course, that was in the time when the specialization 
> movement began in earnest.  By the end of the war, you had specialized 
> liaison, command, automatic compass, landing, and what-all receivers 
> going into aircraft. The ARB was certainly the equal of the BC-348 
> performance-wise, but for hams it is a lot clumsier to use from the 
> user-friendly perspective, and as a general search receiver, its RU 
> procedural roots are less than stellar.  I think that is why is rates 
> lower on the scale these days.
>
> Contrasting opinions are encouraged.
>
> - Mike  KC4TOS
>
> On 10/28/2022 8:44 PM, Hubert Miller wrote:
>> You're thinking of the ARB + ATB, which was the pilot's Command radio.
>> The radioman for CW position reports and so on, was GO + RU.
>> I do not know for sure what Command sets were used when some of the PBYs were given instead BC-348 and ATC for liaison radio.
>> -Hue Miller
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

-- 
Michael Hanz - KC4TOS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20221029/9f51d137/attachment-0001.html>