[MRCA] MRCA Digest, Vol 245, Issue 15
Paul Nell
jmnpcn1 at gmail.com
Thu Sep 12 13:29:29 EDT 2024
Some WW2 Era (?) VHF sets. The label is from a tube in one of the sets.
Paul N3YHO
On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 1:16 PM <mrca-request at mailman.qth.net> wrote:
> Send MRCA mailing list submissions to
> mrca at mailman.qth.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mrca
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> mrca-request at mailman.qth.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> mrca-owner at mailman.qth.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of MRCA digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Best thing about Ham Radio (Christopher Bowne)
> 2. Re: Best thing about Ham Radio (W2HX)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 12:55:53 -0400
> From: Christopher Bowne <aj1g at sbcglobal.net>
> To: scottjohnson1 at cox.net
> Cc: Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>, mrca at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [MRCA] Best thing about Ham Radio
> Message-ID: <3F70D594-15B3-464A-9576-E0C6EB086B4A at sbcglobal.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Ray, AFAIK, good old dual side band full carrier is absolutely NOT
> obsolete in VHF aviation comms. Unless something new is in the
> offing/mandated, commercial and I think military aviation VHF/UHF voice
> comms are still standard A3a, FM never was adopted due to capture effect
> and Doppler related pocket fencing effects. I?m sure there are likely new
> digital data modes, but not working in or being a user of modern aviation
> comms I?m not dialed in on that tech. Wasn?t/isn?t NASA voice comms to
> spacecraft still AM?
>
> Chris AJ1G Stonington CT
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Sep 11, 2024, at 19:12, scottjohnson1 at cox.net wrote:
> >
> > ?The problem with doing that is ergonomics and safety of flight. As
> much as I like being a purist, twelve years of owning an FAA avionics
> repair station specializing in ancient avionics, warbirds, and air tankers,
> I found that it was nearly impossible to make a safe airplane in that
> manner. Presumably, that's what all the static displays and museums are
> for. The fliers need to be as safe as possible and be able to navigate in
> today's airspace. That means modern comms, preferably commercial rather
> than GA, modern lighting (cockpit and external), and ADS-B in/out, and of
> course GPS. Many post-war warbirds still have viable avionics that can be
> used if maintained properly (VOR/ILS, TACAN, ADF, search/weather radar).
> It is probably not economically feasible, however to so. (it was 20 years
> ago). Anyway, before I wax nostalgic, I will let it go at that!
> >
> > Scott W7SVJ
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net <mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On
> Behalf Of Ray Fantini via MRCA
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 13:36
> > To: MARK DORNEY <mkdorney at aol.com>; Doran Platt <jeepp at comcast.net>;
> mrca at mailman.qth.net
> > Subject: [MRCA] Best thing about Ham Radio
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Only larger vintage aircraft can really easily accommodate the new
> equipment the FAA requires in addition to the older stuff. This new
> equipment can be hidden in plain sight and be made to look like it belongs
> there. Even a simple metal box will do the trick in many cases. The small
> space needed for modern electronics makes this possible.
> >
> > 73
> > Mark D.
> > WW2RDO
> >
> > ?In matters of style, float with the current. In matters of Principle,
> stand like a rock. ?. - Thomas Jefferson
> >
> > At times like this I realize what a benefit we have with Ham radio, just
> about everything else in electronics, web and aviation has evolved into a
> world of you have to dump that old technology and go with the latest
> version of what ever. Hear at the university we have dumped tons of
> hardware that still functions due to not accommodating the latest operating
> system, software patches or security audits. If we can get six or seven
> years out of a platform we are doing exceptionally well. Years ago I
> played around with aviation and back then it was $47.50 per hour for a
> little Cessna 152 and today cannot see it being less then $175 per hour and
> the rules and regulations make me think it's almost impossible for a
> individual to get into aviation today.
> > But in Ham radio you don?t have to comply with type acceptance, you can
> still build your own or operate vintage equipment that?s easily eighty
> years old on the bands. Still may have to deal with people who will
> complain about you running transmitters that may chirp, or using obsolete
> modes like AM or my favorite all the people who will bitch both on and off
> air about me using USB on forty meters but its still legal to do it. Just
> look at what the FCC did with the LMRS service, it killed off analog radio
> and forced the remaining radio users to just forget all the handheld and
> vehicle radios and move to cell phones.
> >
> > Like I said before think if you wanted to do a operational vintage VHF
> radio on a aircraft 144.250 would be the way to go and also be legal.
> >
> > Ray F/KA3EKH
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sep 11, 2024, at 10:49 AM, Doran Platt via MRCA <mrca at mailman.qth.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > ?If I may adjunct what good data Mark has provided, let me add that,
> short of operations under a special ferry permit or such, any civil
> aircraft operating in controlled US airspace (just about everywhere these
> days) aircraft must be equipped with operational VHF communications capable
> of operating on appropriate ATC frequencies (typ. 118.000 mHz to 135.975
> mHz)). Aircraft must also have a functioning Mode C transponder with
> altitude reporting. Recently, the FAA has added the requirement for ADS-B
> equipment for additional ATC and informational data transfer. All this
> equipment must be "Type Accepted" (not to be confused with TSO
> certification)). Practically speaking, equipment built, with some limited
> exception, before about 1980 or so will not be found on the list. The
> military can, and has, waivers or exceptions for equipment on the UHF band
> (225-399.0 mHz). The incremental increase in specifications for VHF comms
> were precipitated by the implementation of, first 90 chan
> nels, then 180, 360, and now 720 channels with 25 kHz spacing. Europe is
> even tighter. It also used to be that operating below FL180 (18,000 ft),
> one did not need channels above 126 mHz. All that has long passed. Again,
> one can apply for a ferry permit for maintenance or other one-time reason,
> if ATC can accommodate.
> > As far as MF-HF SSB, operations are fairly limited to oceanic and OCONUS
> operations. The FAA and ARINC control this.
> > Been there and "suffered" financially for all the above..... well,
> generally for good reason.. in the end!
> > Jeep K3HVG
> >
> >> On 09/11/2024 9:36 AM EDT MARK DORNEY via MRCA <mrca at mailman.qth.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> There has been some discussion of the use of vintage radios in historic
> military aircraft. There are some basic things to be taken into
> consideration when doing this. :
> >>
> >> 1) Modern aviation communicates in the VHF frequency range. MOST
> military aircraft radios in use prior to 1945 operated in the MF and HF
> frequency range - and won?t be of much use for aviation communication. The
> FAA requires VHF transceivers.
> >>
> >> 2). Most historic aircraft are simply not that big. Vintage aircraft
> radios and their associated accessories tend to be bigger and much heavier
> than modern radios. It really only makes sense to install vintage radios in
> operational larger fighter, bomber and transport aircraft where limited
> tours of the inside of the aircraft can be offered to the public ( of
> course, for a small fee ). It makes NO sense to put vintage radios in a
> small, single seat aircraft where the radio is mounted hidden in the
> fuselage, where nobody will ever see it. And maintenance is hard enough to
> do on these radios, both physically and logistically. It becomes more of a
> pain in the butt if you have to jerk around in the confined space of the
> fuselage of, say, something like a P-51 Mustang.
> >>
> >> 3) The few common military VHF sets I?ve some across are very limited
> in how many frequencies they can actually operate on. For instance, the
> T-23/ARC-5 is crystal controlled, and can operate on 1 of 4 preset
> frequencies. And that frequency is set pre-flight, and cannot be normally
> changed in flight. The AN/ARC-1 has 10 crystal controlled frequencies it
> can operate on, and there is a remote that does allow for a frequency
> change to 1 of the 10 frequencies of the crystals installed in the set, in
> flight. Other aircraft VHF sets of the pre-1945 era operate in a similar
> fashion. VFO?s of the time period were prone to float, and certainly a
> pilot of a single seat fighter had neither the time nor the room to be
> constantly screwing around with a radio while flying their aircraft.
> >>
> >> 4) Some ATC equipment will only be of any use as a decoration in the
> aircraft. For instance, WW2 transponders were what is now referred to as a
> Type 1 transponder. When triggered by a specific radio signal, they tell an
> ATC operator who you are and where you are. Modern aviation requires an
> aircraft to use a Type 3 transponder. A type 3 transponder tells an ATC
> operator who you are, where you are, what altitude you?re flying at and
> what heading you?re on. Another instance of equipment with only a
> decorative use is in C-47A. That aircraft had a navigation system called
> the ?GEE?. Similar to LORAN-A, it went out of use in 1960. So restoring a
> GEE receiver to operational use is really just a labor of love, since you?d
> only be able to listen to a whole lot of nothing on the set. In these two
> instances, a mock up or using the equipment shell to hide modem equipment
> might be a better, cheaper and more practical solution ( Camouflage is more
> than just painting something green
> ). The beacon radios on the ARC-5 and SCR-274-N are also of limited use,
> since a lot, but not all, of the radio navigational beacons have gone out
> of use. The exception would be the broadcast band receivers. If the radio
> tower transmitting the signal of a commercial AM station antenna is at a
> known, fixed location, using a directional antenna would allow for an
> aircraft to home in on that signal ( ie, like in the movie
> ?Tora,Tora,Tora!? ). Of course, a modern GPS system is so much smaller and
> easier to use. VOR was in extremely limited use in 1944 -45, but certainly
> was not common until after WW2. TACAN came in post WW2.
> >>
> >> 73
> >> Mark D.
> >> WW2RDO
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 17:16:17 +0000
> From: W2HX <w2hx at w2hx.com>
> To: Christopher Bowne <aj1g at sbcglobal.net>, "scottjohnson1 at cox.net"
> <scottjohnson1 at cox.net>
> Cc: Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>, MRCA Reflector
> <mrca at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [MRCA] Best thing about Ham Radio
> Message-ID: <b863b2ba-3084-42c6-ac8e-88173d6ac815 at w2hx.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> The issue is probably bandwidth related and stability related not
> modulation type.
>
> Sent from Nine<http://www.9folders.com/>
> ________________________________
> From: Christopher Bowne <aj1g at sbcglobal.net>
> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 12:56 PM
> To: scottjohnson1 at cox.net
> Cc: Ray Fantini; mrca at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [MRCA] Best thing about Ham Radio
>
> Ray, AFAIK, good old dual side band full carrier is absolutely NOT
> obsolete in VHF aviation comms. Unless something new is in the
> offing/mandated, commercial and I think military aviation VHF/UHF voice
> comms are still standard A3a, FM never was adopted due to capture effect
> and Doppler related pocket fencing effects. I?m sure there are likely new
> digital data modes, but not working in or being a user of modern aviation
> comms I?m not dialed in on that tech. Wasn?t/isn?t NASA voice comms to
> spacecraft still AM?
>
> Chris AJ1G Stonington CT
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Sep 11, 2024, at 19:12, scottjohnson1 at cox.net wrote:
> >
> > ?The problem with doing that is ergonomics and safety of flight. As
> much as I like being a purist, twelve years of owning an FAA avionics
> repair station specializing in ancient avionics, warbirds, and air tankers,
> I found that it was nearly impossible to make a safe airplane in that
> manner. Presumably, that's what all the static displays and museums are
> for. The fliers need to be as safe as possible and be able to navigate in
> today's airspace. That means modern comms, preferably commercial rather
> than GA, modern lighting (cockpit and external), and ADS-B in/out, and of
> course GPS. Many post-war warbirds still have viable avionics that can be
> used if maintained properly (VOR/ILS, TACAN, ADF, search/weather radar).
> It is probably not economically feasible, however to so. (it was 20 years
> ago). Anyway, before I wax nostalgic, I will let it go at that!
> >
> > Scott W7SVJ
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net <mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On
> Behalf Of Ray Fantini via MRCA
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 13:36
> > To: MARK DORNEY <mkdorney at aol.com>; Doran Platt <jeepp at comcast.net>;
> mrca at mailman.qth.net
> > Subject: [MRCA] Best thing about Ham Radio
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Only larger vintage aircraft can really easily accommodate the new
> equipment the FAA requires in addition to the older stuff. This new
> equipment can be hidden in plain sight and be made to look like it belongs
> there. Even a simple metal box will do the trick in many cases. The small
> space needed for modern electronics makes this possible.
> >
> > 73
> > Mark D.
> > WW2RDO
> >
> > ?In matters of style, float with the current. In matters of Principle,
> stand like a rock. ?. - Thomas Jefferson
> >
> > At times like this I realize what a benefit we have with Ham radio, just
> about everything else in electronics, web and aviation has evolved into a
> world of you have to dump that old technology and go with the latest
> version of what ever. Hear at the university we have dumped tons of
> hardware that still functions due to not accommodating the latest operating
> system, software patches or security audits. If we can get six or seven
> years out of a platform we are doing exceptionally well. Years ago I
> played around with aviation and back then it was $47.50 per hour for a
> little Cessna 152 and today cannot see it being less then $175 per hour and
> the rules and regulations make me think it's almost impossible for a
> individual to get into aviation today.
> > But in Ham radio you don?t have to comply with type acceptance, you can
> still build your own or operate vintage equipment that?s easily eighty
> years old on the bands. Still may have to deal with people who will
> complain about you running transmitters that may chirp, or using obsolete
> modes like AM or my favorite all the people who will bitch both on and off
> air about me using USB on forty meters but its still legal to do it. Just
> look at what the FCC did with the LMRS service, it killed off analog radio
> and forced the remaining radio users to just forget all the handheld and
> vehicle radios and move to cell phones.
> >
> > Like I said before think if you wanted to do a operational vintage VHF
> radio on a aircraft 144.250 would be the way to go and also be legal.
> >
> > Ray F/KA3EKH
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sep 11, 2024, at 10:49 AM, Doran Platt via MRCA <mrca at mailman.qth.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > ?If I may adjunct what good data Mark has provided, let me add that,
> short of operations under a special ferry permit or such, any civil
> aircraft operating in controlled US airspace (just about everywhere these
> days) aircraft must be equipped with operational VHF communications capable
> of operating on appropriate ATC frequencies (typ. 118.000 mHz to 135.975
> mHz)). Aircraft must also have a functioning Mode C transponder with
> altitude reporting. Recently, the FAA has added the requirement for ADS-B
> equipment for additional ATC and informational data transfer. All this
> equipment must be "Type Accepted" (not to be confused with TSO
> certification)). Practically speaking, equipment built, with some limited
> exception, before about 1980 or so will not be found on the list. The
> military can, and has, waivers or exceptions for equipment on the UHF band
> (225-399.0 mHz). The incremental increase in specifications for VHF comms
> were precipitated by the implementation of, first 90 chan
> nels, then 180, 360, and now 720 channels with 25 kHz spacing. Europe is
> even tighter. It also used to be that operating below FL180 (18,000 ft),
> one did not need channels above 126 mHz. All that has long passed. Again,
> one can apply for a ferry permit for maintenance or other one-time reason,
> if ATC can accommodate.
> > As far as MF-HF SSB, operations are fairly limited to oceanic and OCONUS
> operations. The FAA and ARINC control this.
> > Been there and "suffered" financially for all the above..... well,
> generally for good reason.. in the end!
> > Jeep K3HVG
> >
> >> On 09/11/2024 9:36 AM EDT MARK DORNEY via MRCA <mrca at mailman.qth.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> There has been some discussion of the use of vintage radios in historic
> military aircraft. There are some basic things to be taken into
> consideration when doing this. :
> >>
> >> 1) Modern aviation communicates in the VHF frequency range. MOST
> military aircraft radios in use prior to 1945 operated in the MF and HF
> frequency range - and won?t be of much use for aviation communication. The
> FAA requires VHF transceivers.
> >>
> >> 2). Most historic aircraft are simply not that big. Vintage aircraft
> radios and their associated accessories tend to be bigger and much heavier
> than modern radios. It really only makes sense to install vintage radios in
> operational larger fighter, bomber and transport aircraft where limited
> tours of the inside of the aircraft can be offered to the public ( of
> course, for a small fee ). It makes NO sense to put vintage radios in a
> small, single seat aircraft where the radio is mounted hidden in the
> fuselage, where nobody will ever see it. And maintenance is hard enough to
> do on these radios, both physically and logistically. It becomes more of a
> pain in the butt if you have to jerk around in the confined space of the
> fuselage of, say, something like a P-51 Mustang.
> >>
> >> 3) The few common military VHF sets I?ve some across are very limited
> in how many frequencies they can actually operate on. For instance, the
> T-23/ARC-5 is crystal controlled, and can operate on 1 of 4 preset
> frequencies. And that frequency is set pre-flight, and cannot be normally
> changed in flight. The AN/ARC-1 has 10 crystal controlled frequencies it
> can operate on, and there is a remote that does allow for a frequency
> change to 1 of the 10 frequencies of the crystals installed in the set, in
> flight. Other aircraft VHF sets of the pre-1945 era operate in a similar
> fashion. VFO?s of the time period were prone to float, and certainly a
> pilot of a single seat fighter had neither the time nor the room to be
> constantly screwing around with a radio while flying their aircraft.
> >>
> >> 4) Some ATC equipment will only be of any use as a decoration in the
> aircraft. For instance, WW2 transponders were what is now referred to as a
> Type 1 transponder. When triggered by a specific radio signal, they tell an
> ATC operator who you are and where you are. Modern aviation requires an
> aircraft to use a Type 3 transponder. A type 3 transponder tells an ATC
> operator who you are, where you are, what altitude you?re flying at and
> what heading you?re on. Another instance of equipment with only a
> decorative use is in C-47A. That aircraft had a navigation system called
> the ?GEE?. Similar to LORAN-A, it went out of use in 1960. So restoring a
> GEE receiver to operational use is really just a labor of love, since you?d
> only be able to listen to a whole lot of nothing on the set. In these two
> instances, a mock up or using the equipment shell to hide modem equipment
> might be a better, cheaper and more practical solution ( Camouflage is more
> than just painting something green
> ). The beacon radios on the ARC-5 and SCR-274-N are also of limited use,
> since a lot, but not all, of the radio navigational beacons have gone out
> of use. The exception would be the broadcast band receivers. If the radio
> tower transmitting the signal of a commercial AM station antenna is at a
> known, fixed location, using a directional antenna would allow for an
> aircraft to home in on that signal ( ie, like in the movie
> ?Tora,Tora,Tora!? ). Of course, a modern GPS system is so much smaller and
> easier to use. VOR was in extremely limited use in 1944 -45, but certainly
> was not common until after WW2. TACAN came in post WW2.
> >>
> >> 73
> >> Mark D.
> >> WW2RDO
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > 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
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/mrca/attachments/20240912/a8f2c6d9/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> MRCA mailing list
> MRCA at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mrca
>
>
> End of MRCA Digest, Vol 245, Issue 15
> *************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/mrca/attachments/20240912/8b1bb80d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IMG_6511[1].JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1112233 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/mrca/attachments/20240912/8b1bb80d/attachment-0007.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IMG_6512[1].JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1924159 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/mrca/attachments/20240912/8b1bb80d/attachment-0008.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IMG_6513[1].JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1915140 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/mrca/attachments/20240912/8b1bb80d/attachment-0009.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IMG_6518[1].JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1191910 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/mrca/attachments/20240912/8b1bb80d/attachment-0010.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IMG_6517[1].JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1865036 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/mrca/attachments/20240912/8b1bb80d/attachment-0011.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IMG_6516[1].JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1964609 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/mrca/attachments/20240912/8b1bb80d/attachment-0012.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IMG_6519[1].JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2620206 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/mrca/attachments/20240912/8b1bb80d/attachment-0013.jpe>
More information about the MRCA
mailing list