My understanding of the ARC-4 is that it was originally a Western Electric-designed commercial rig before WWII and was then picked up and used by the military before any subsequent better rigs were designed and put in service.

And I agree with you: 10 uV sensitivity isn't all that bad for a rig with no RF amp.

Although I have never yet had an opportunity to use one, I suspect it has unnecessarily bad "publicity" associated with it by some inexperienced hams.

I would respect K4CHE's ideas on this matter, and would like to hear what he has to say about it.

Ken W7EKB



Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: Jim Whartenby via Milsurplus <[email protected]>
Date: 7/20/25 11:12 (GMT-08:00)
To: milsurplus <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] ARC-4

10uV input for 50mW audio output doesn't seem all that bad for a receiver with no RF amplification.  Was this a civilian aviation VHF transceiver drafted into the military early in WW2?  I seem to remember that the ARC-4 was in service before either the ARC-1 or ARC-3, but you know how memory can confuse things!
Jim

Logic: Method used to arrive at the wrong conclusion, with confidence.  Murphy


On Sunday, July 20, 2025 at 06:16:59 AM CDT, Rob Flory <[email protected]> wrote:


Hi,

I am an ARC-4/WE 233 person in recovery.

I pursued it because they were installed on USS Massachusetts, and because they work on the 2m Amateur band.

I used to take mine around to shows and talk between it and my ARC-1.

Read the description of the exercise K4CHE and I did, which revealed the relative  deafness of the ARC-4.  


RF
______________________________________________________________
Milsurplus mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[email protected]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html