[MRCA] TCS production numbers

Tue Nov 5 15:25:42 EST 2024

AN/URC-8 - there were only four prototype receivers (I have #4) and maybe
1-2 transmitters.
I haven't heard of any other than mine, which K4OZY acquired at a western
NC hamfest - how it got there is a mystery.
I have photos, some development reports, and a copy of the 1956 manual at
https://www.navy-radio.com/xmtrs/urc8.htm

It is indeed an interesting radio, but the SSB handwriting was on the wall.
In 1956 the Navy acquired modified 75A-4 and KWS-1 for sea trials and after
that success bought some RCA SSB-1 transceivers until the URC-32 was ready.
https://www.navy-radio.com/xmtrs/ssb1.htm

A January 1957 BuShips article says the Navy will produce SSB adapters for
existing AM equipment, evidently the WRA-1 to add SSB transceiver
capability to TBL, SRT-14, etc. It seems this was a Long Beach Shipyard
project and I don't know if many were built. The only piece I have seen has
s/n 26.
https://www.navy-radio.com/xmtrs/wra1/wra1-1909-02.jpg

In 1959 Stromberg-Carlson introduced the SC-900A transceiver that became
the URC-35 intended as the TCS replacement.
https://www.navy-radio.com/xmtrs/sc-radio.htm

Nick England K4NYW
www.navy-radio.com

On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 1:56 PM Ray Fantini via MRCA <mrca at mailman.qth.net>
wrote:

> Its antidotal, and not hard evidence but I have been doing the military
> radio thing for a couple years now and have to say that I have never seen a
> URC-8, and based on that  suspect not many were fielded. Saw several URC-7
> sets, the USCG loved that set,  and I have seen huge numbers of TCS sets.
> Perhaps on paper there was a need to replace all the short range TCS assets
> in the field in the fifties but it’s a testament to the quality of the TCS
> that this never took place on any large scale and the old TCS stayed around
> until the SSB and VHF-FM radios replaced them.
>
> I would propose that many of the ships built it the fifties had a
> requirement for short range low powered stuff like the TCS but being it was
> out of production Collins proposed something like the URC-8 Keeping in mind
> that the radios were used for short range  Ship to Ship or harbor
> communications the huge ugly URC-7 was a better choice being crystal
> control and easy to operate. The URC-8 has too many controls for its own
> good.
>
>
>
> Fun Fact! I have built several TCS set ups for other people over the
> years, mostly just the transmitters. You can use the power supply from a GE
> Master as a great source for the +12,250 and 450 volt source and it works
> real well for running the transmitter on AM, but I have never had a
> successful QSO on AM with a TCS. Its just to low powered. I know people
> will come back and tell me that it’s because I don’t know what I am doing
> or what ever and how they worked the world on one watt and the like but
> that’s my experience. Have had lots of successful QSO on AM with ART-13,
> ARC-38 and the like but never with a TCS. Reminds me of a couple years back
> when I had an old AM Broadcast transmitter on one sixty and did AM with
> that, would call CQ on 1885 and often would have stations come back running
> there Yaesu – Icom stuff doing like twenty watts into a low antenna and
> have to struggle to hear them above the noise but at 1 kW I would be
> booming in.
>
> Running the TCS is something like that to me, the wide bandwidth receiver
> and low power transmitter are good for close in communications but were
> never intended for long range. But like I said, that’s just me and am
> certain others worked the world on the stock TCS set up.
>
>
>
> Ray F/KA3EKH
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net <mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net> *On
> Behalf Of *scottjohnson1 at cox.net
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 5, 2024 11:51 AM
> *To:* 'W2HX' <w2hx at w2hx.com>
> *Cc:* mrca at mailman.qth.net
> *Subject:* Re: [MRCA] TCS production numbers
>
>
>
>
>
> Looking at the modules, you will note they borrowed architecture from the
> ARC-38.
>
>
>
> Scott W7SVJ
>
>
>
> *From:* W2HX <w2hx at w2hx.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 5, 2024 09:46
> *To:* scottjohnson1 at cox.net
> *Cc:* mrca at mailman.qth.net
> *Subject:* RE: [MRCA] TCS production numbers
>
>
>
> Aah! The URC-8! A thing of great beauty. Would LOVE to own one! Are there
> any in private hands?
>
>
>
>
>
> 73 Eugene W2HX
> My Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@w2hx/videos
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* scottjohnson1 at cox.net <scottjohnson1 at cox.net>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 5, 2024 11:44 AM
> *To:* W2HX <w2hx at w2hx.com>
> *Cc:* mrca at mailman.qth.net
> *Subject:* RE: [MRCA] TCS production numbers
>
>
>
> Nope.  I mis-babbled, it is the URC-8!!!
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* W2HX <w2hx at w2hx.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 5, 2024 09:34
> *To:* scottjohnson1 at cox.net
> *Subject:* RE: [MRCA] TCS production numbers
>
>
>
> This unit?
>
> https://collinsaerospacemuseum.org/collins_brochures/brochure_urc-9.php
>
>
>
> maybe something else?
>
>
>
>
>
> 73 Eugene W2HX
> My Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@w2hx/videos
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net <mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net> *On
> Behalf Of *scottjohnson1 at cox.net
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 5, 2024 11:32 AM
> *To:* 'Ray Fantini' <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>; MMRCG at groups.io;
> mrca at mailman.qth.net; 'List Milsurplus' <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [MRCA] TCS production numbers
>
>
>
> I don’t know total numbers for TCS sets.  The Collins production is
> available on the CCA website.  I assume would assume the total is over
> twice the Collins production.  As for command sets, given the numbers of
> aircraft produced over the period of 1940-1945, and assuming the vast over
> production of sets, I would say closer to 100K.  It is interesting that in
> 1955, Collins introduced the URC-9, which was an updated TCS in essence
> (More power, bigger frequency range, modern design, similar form).  I don’t
> think it was actually produced in any more than prototype numbers.  It
> might just be the coolest AM/CW rig ever!
>
>
>
> Scott W7SVJ
>
>
>
> *From:* mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net <mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net> *On
> Behalf Of *Ray Fantini via MRCA
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 5, 2024 7:28 AM
> *To:* MMRCG at groups.io; mrca at mailman.qth.net; List Milsurplus <
> milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> *Subject:* [MRCA] TCS production numbers
>
>
>
> Ok, so here is a question for all the smart people out there: From the
> first contract on 12/41 (NOS-LL-95008) for the TCS-2 to the last production
> run in 7/45 (N5SR-10539) for the TCS-15 How many TCS sets were produced?
>
> Appears to be a simple question but cannot see any answer, considering the
> numbers that I have seen and that it was used in almost every surface
> vessel in the US Navy for decades I will speculate that it’s no less than
> ten thousand and may be higher.
>
> They were produced by Collins, Stewart-Warner, Hazeltine Electronics and
> Air King and for just a four year production run may be one of the radio
> platforms that the government got their money’s worth and then some.
>
>
>
> Speculation and opinion beyond this point, if easily offended do not read!
>
> Always amazed by radios that served well beyond their service life. The
> TCS sets were in service well into the sixties and some survived beyond
> that and were only driven out of use by the advent of SSB and VHF FM
> radios, in addition to this they were one of the many radios that were used
> and favored by Hams. Other radios that were just as successful like the
> BC-348 and ART-13 were also in service long after WW2 and prized by Hams.
> Other high production lines like the ARC-3 and the ARC-27 served for
> decades but never had the Ham popularity. High production numbers often are
> indicative of a successful product line but not always. Consider things
> like the command sets that were way popular (at one time) with Hams but
> were basically useless by military standards at the end of WW2 Think of the
> huge quantity of command sets that were produced during WW2, maybe over
> twenty thousand? Verses the in service life of those sets compared to
> something like the TCS assuming value is a function of cost compared to
> length of service.
>
>
>
> Ray F/KA3EKH
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/mrca/attachments/20241105/943b51c4/attachment-0001.html>