[MRCA] PRC-74 ... Now CAP
Peter Gottlieb
kb2vtl at gmail.com
Sun Mar 25 21:58:51 EDT 2018
I believe the NTIA standards were set as a purchasing qualification goal to help
modernize the system. This goal is not entirely unreasonable. The problem was
in implementation; did any other group or agency just throw out all the old gear
when the new spec came out? I certainly don't know of any, just CAP! So why
would that happen? Why couldn't CAP members have the tactical waiver for
example? If I go out with a ground search team in the mountains why couldn't I
carry my PRC-104 to be able to communicate to the outside world? I was told the
freq stability was the problem, 1.0 PPM when it had to be 0.6 PPM. But that
isn't in the spec, it actually specifies the carrier must be within 20 Hz.
Sure, at 30 MHz you would need 0.6 PPM but since we NEVER used any freqs over 20
MHz, and most were in the 4 MHz band, that radio was always within 20 Hz (and
yes I had it calibrated dead on).
What happened defies logic. CAP could easily had allowed things to continue,
and it seems someone even thought about doing that with their grandfathering
clause, except that many Wing comms officers took a super strict approach and
that was what put me and my stable of radios off the air.
Whitepeak 3201
On 3/25/2018 9:25 PM, Mkdorney via MRCA wrote:
> Sounds more like the standards in the Red Book are used more to discourage
> those who have the knowledge and will to go out of their way to get the better
> equipment. Minimum standards should be minimum performance standards, not a
> performance goal, and shouldn’t be used to discourage the individual private
> purchase of better equipment that is fully mission capable, not in an
> organization like CAP, anyway. To do so is just plain stupid.
>
> Mark
> WW2RDO
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 25, 2018, at 9:09 PM, Mkdorney via MRCA <mrca at mailman.qth.net
> <mailto:mrca at mailman.qth.net>> wrote:
>
>> What you said demonstrates all the more reason why CAP needs to drop the NTIA
>> standards. The radios that the government supplies are marginal at best, and
>> better quality civilian sets are readily available. Considering that
>> individuals buying their own better equipment cost the government exactly
>> zero money, it’s a no- brainer that private purchase should be encouraged,
>> but that obviously isn’t the case. So CAP is stuck with krap equipment that
>> the USAF basically foisted upon them, and in the process pissed off the very
>> people in CAP that not only had and supplied their own, superior equipment,
>> but had the know-how to maintain that equipment at a much lower.
>>
>> Sure does sound like some self- important Jack-A-Lope in Washington who
>> couldn’t find his own rear end using both hands and a flashlight was/is
>> running the show.
>>
>> Mark
>> WW2RDO
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Mar 25, 2018, at 8:41 PM, jeepp <jeepp at comcast.net
>> <mailto:jeepp at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>
>>> CAP has "matured" in many ways, as you may have gleaned from earlier posts.
>>> But, yes, AM was dropped in the 60's in favor of SSB. With virtually no
>>> surplus available for issue by DOD and the AF, Wings, squadrons, and
>>> individuals bought and paid for Heath HW-18 SSB kits. They were the
>>> mainstay for quite a while. CAP was moved from FCC jurisdiction over to DOD
>>> sometime in the late 70's as I recall. At the time, we had 6 channels in
>>> the 2, 4, and 7 MHz range. The FCC rules specified tx frequency and tx
>>> spectral purity, not much more. But, now CAP has many channels from 2 thru
>>> 25 MHz. With time, and Congress mandating the NTIA create a book of
>>> standards for all Government and military RF emitters, radio, RADAR,
>>> whatever. The specs were/are tight and if all are taken as a religeous
>>> exercise, problems arise. Agencies could and did get relief, if applied for
>>> and did not materially affect the spectrum.. read: freq tolerance,
>>> stability, harmonics... like that. DOD tactical assets were exempt. CAP
>>> chose not to request or consider and relief, whatsoever. MARS, etc. was more
>>> reasonable. CAP's decision, for better or worse, removed arguably 75% of
>>> the available assets at the time. This loss then was used to justfy large
>>> procurements of DOD-funded HF and VHF equipment. These replacements are
>>> operationally marginal. Most current amateur gear beats the pants of this
>>> equipment. Along the way, personal stations, otherwise entirely usable, were
>>> non grata along with their owner-operators, many of whom were hams. I was
>>> there through it all but chose to hang around until recently. Many units
>>> can't change a plug on a coax, anymore.
>>> de K3HVG
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: Robert Nickels <ranickel at comcast.net <mailto:ranickel at comcast.net>>
>>> Date: 3/25/18 18:24 (GMT-05:00)
>>> To: mrca at mailman.qth.net <mailto:mrca at mailman.qth.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [MRCA] PRC-74 ... Now CAP
>>>
>>> On 3/25/2018 3:22 PM, Mike Morrow wrote:
>>> > I was active in CAP, Arkansas Wing (1968-1972). My main interest was
>>> communications because the flying part was too expensive.
>>>
>>> I became aware of CAP a couple of years earlier than that, as a rival in
>>> high school was involved in CAP and I'd just got my ham license, and
>>> we'd each insist their particular hobby was superior ;-) My interest
>>> was mostly on the communications side as well.
>>>
>>> This was in Nebraska where World Radio Labs in Council Bluffs IA was the
>>> only ham store withing driving distance for most of the state and thus
>>> where most hams bought and traded their gear. I remember this kid had
>>> a WRL Globe CB in his car for the 26.620 Mhz CAP frequency with the 8
>>> foot whip and all, which I was highly envious of (both the radio and the
>>> fact that he had his own car!) but the thing I remember clearly is their
>>> base station at the airport. It was the first and only time I'd seen a
>>> WRL Meteor SB-175 transmitter until I found one of my own 30+ years
>>> later. Even though it was one of the two commercial double sideband
>>> transmitters ever sold, the CAP nets were in the AM mode at that time
>>> and that's how the transmitter was used, screen modulated with a crystal
>>> for 4585 KHz. I can't remember what their receiver was, but I
>>> memorized the frequency and would listen to the nightly state net
>>> operations from home.
>>>
>>> If there were standards or approved equipment lists for radio equipment,
>>> it's hard to believe an obscure rig like the WRL Meteor would be on
>>> it! I suspect there weren't and wings were allowed to buy and use
>>> whatever they wanted, which in my area meant they did their radio
>>> shopping in Council Bluffs just like most of the hams did.
>>>
>>> I know the hobby magazines and online sources still show lists of HF
>>> frequencies for various regions - are they still in operation? If so
>>> are they still just using single frequencies or have they gone to ALE?
>>> It would be fun to listen in again if there's anything to listen to.
>>>
>>> 73, Bob W9RAN
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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
More information about the MRCA
mailing list