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: [email protected] <[email protected]>
On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 11:51 AM
To: 'W2HX' <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [MRCA] TCS production numbers
Looking at the modules, you will note they borrowed architecture from the ARC-38.
Scott W7SVJ
From: W2HX <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 09:46
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
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?
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 11:44 AM
To: W2HX <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [MRCA] TCS production numbers
Nope. I mis-babbled, it is the URC-8!!!
From: W2HX <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 09:34
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [MRCA] TCS production numbers
This unit?
https://collinsaerospacemuseum.org/collins_brochures/brochure_urc-9.php
maybe something else?
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 11:32 AM
To: 'Ray Fantini' <[email protected]>;
[email protected];
[email protected]; 'List Milsurplus' <[email protected]>
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: [email protected] <[email protected]>
On Behalf Of Ray Fantini via MRCA
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 7:28 AM
To: [email protected];
[email protected]; List Milsurplus <[email protected]>
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