[Milsurplus] USN: ARB receiver used with GP-7 transmitter?

[Mike Hanz]

Mike Morrow wrote:

>Jack wrote:
>
>>One example, concerning the SCR-269 and its dual controls.
>>Mostly I see pictures showing the installation of the dual
>>controls at the navigators and pilots position. But one account
>>I read of a newbie 8th AF navigator,  related how the radio operator
>>took the bearings on the beacons. 
>>    
>>
>I think that this was normal in the smaller two engine USAAF bombers .  I
>have a B-26 flight manual that shows the second BC-434 ADF control box and
>the large I-82 bearing indicator mounted at the radio operator's position.
>That is official documentation which fully agrees with your report.
>  
>

My data agrees with Mike's observations.  The only other large aircraft 
I know of that had the control and indicator at the Radio Op's position 
was the B-29.  The E&I manual for the twin engine B-25 shows the same 
configuration as the B-17 and B-24.

>The problem with the GP is providing the 800 Hz AC power that it uses.
>It's a lot nicer to have everything running off of 28 vdc.  
>

Yup.  The Bendix alternators for that frequency are few and far between 
these days.  It's probably best - the blower on the end is pretty noisy 
- closely resembles a siren in basic construction.

>The USN never did have a receiver that matched the capability of the ART-13
>until the ARR-15 came along post war.  I wonder if there was ever a USN
>1940-era design proposal for a receiver (pre-ARR-15) that matched the
>frequency range and remote control features of the ART-13 that was being
>developed at that time.  
>

Not a perfect match (only six channels), but the C-131/AR Yardney Spot 
Tuner installed on an ARC-5 receiver provided at least an approximation, 
and could be wired in to coordinate channel selection with the ATC 
remote channel selector switch.

>The best airborne HF set of the war, IMO, was the USAAF's AN/ARC-8 which
>matched the best transmitter (the USAAF's slightly improved ART-13A) with
>the best receiver (BC-348) fielded by anyboby anywhere (as long as remote
>receiver control wasn't needed).
>

No argument from me, although a separate radio operator with the space 
for a receiver in front of him wasn't common on Navy aircraft.  Besides, 
how would it look to have a tainted AAF radio in a Navy airframe?  :-)

73,
Mike