Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lionel Sharp wrote:
I believe it was descended from the RAF TR1143 VHF set which was used very successfully in the early days of WW2 for fighter control. When the Americans saw the successful use of VHF they took a TR1143 back to the USA and "Copied" it and produced it as the SCR522. You make it sound like we (the US) were doing something evil, by lending you our manufacturing capability, and helping you with the war effort. -Chuck |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Chuck Harris wrote:
Lionel Sharp wrote: I believe it was descended from the RAF TR1143 VHF set which was used very successfully in the early days of WW2 for fighter control. When the Americans saw the successful use of VHF they took a TR1143 back to the USA and "Copied" it and produced it as the SCR522. You make it sound like we (the US) were doing something evil, by lending you our manufacturing capability, and helping you with the war effort. -Chuck G'day Chuck No that was not the intention. Perhaps you can suggest another word that is more to your liking Lionel L Sharp, VK4NS |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Chuck Harris wrote:
You make it sound like we (the US) were doing something evil, by lending you our manufacturing capability, and helping you with the war effort. Chuck, I think it might have been more a case of "immitation is the best form of flattery". I wasn't old enough to remember, but us Yanks were probably using all HF radio in our fighters and bombers. But once we got involved in the war effort, the success of the RAF and others with VHF radio must have told us that we needed similiar equipment. We could have certainly started from ground zero with our own designs, but reliable aircraft communications was a vital factor at the time, and VHF, being still a new form of transmission in those days, would have taken months and months on the drawing boards and lab and field testing to come up with a viable, operational unit. I can see where it could have been quite desireable to take a known working design, put our Yankee spin on it and get it into production. We and the Allies had a big job ahead of us over there and time was of essence. And yes,we were lending and loaning supplies, equipment, manufacturing, (and fighting men as well), as a part of a team effort to resolve a terrific world threat. John |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Litzendraht wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote: You make it sound like we (the US) were doing something evil, by lending you our manufacturing capability, and helping you with the war effort. Chuck, I think it might have been more a case of "immitation is the best form of flattery". I wasn't old enough to remember, but us Yanks were probably using all HF radio in our fighters and bombers. But once we got involved in the war effort, the success of the RAF and others with VHF radio must have told us that we needed similiar equipment. We could have certainly started from ground zero with our own designs, but reliable aircraft communications was a vital factor at the time, and VHF, being still a new form of transmission in those days, would have taken months and months on the drawing boards and lab and field testing to come up with a viable, operational unit. I can see where it could have been quite desireable to take a known working design, put our Yankee spin on it and get it into production. We and the Allies had a big job ahead of us over there and time was of essence. And yes,we were lending and loaning supplies, equipment, manufacturing, (and fighting men as well), as a part of a team effort to resolve a terrific world threat. John Hi John, Everything I read says the SCR-522 was a redesign of the British TR-1123, that was done to make it possible to mass produce it with US tooling. Certainly the US used the TR-1123 design as a quick way of getting a working VHF design into the war as quickly as possible. It was several years before the much more capable ARC-1 came out. My only objection was the way the OP stated that it was copy. It had the familiar taste of US bashing. If I read the OP's intentions incorrectly, and it sounds like I probably did, I am sorry. -Chuck |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Chuck Harris wrote:
Litzendraht wrote: Chuck Harris wrote: You make it sound like we (the US) were doing something evil, by lending you our manufacturing capability, and helping you with the war effort. Chuck, I think it might have been more a case of "immitation is the best form of flattery". I wasn't old enough to remember, but us Yanks were probably using all HF radio in our fighters and bombers. But once we got involved in the war effort, the success of the RAF and others with VHF radio must have told us that we needed similiar equipment. We could have certainly started from ground zero with our own designs, but reliable aircraft communications was a vital factor at the time, and VHF, being still a new form of transmission in those days, would have taken months and months on the drawing boards and lab and field testing to come up with a viable, operational unit. I can see where it could have been quite desireable to take a known working design, put our Yankee spin on it and get it into production. We and the Allies had a big job ahead of us over there and time was of essence. And yes,we were lending and loaning supplies, equipment, manufacturing, (and fighting men as well), as a part of a team effort to resolve a terrific world threat. John Hi John, Everything I read says the SCR-522 was a redesign of the British TR-1123, that was done to make it possible to mass produce it with US tooling. Certainly the US used the TR-1123 design as a quick way of getting a working VHF design into the war as quickly as possible. It was several years before the much more capable ARC-1 came out. My only objection was the way the OP stated that it was copy. It had the familiar taste of US bashing. If I read the OP's intentions incorrectly, and it sounds like I probably did, I am sorry. -Chuck G'day Chuck. There was no intention of US bashing or of there being something evil in my story. John (see above) stated the situation better than I and I agree with his sentiments. Lionel L Sharp, VK4NS |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Lionel Sharp wrote: Chuck Harris wrote: Litzendraht wrote: Chuck Harris wrote: You make it sound like we (the US) were doing something evil, by lending you our manufacturing capability, and helping you with the war effort. Chuck, I think it might have been more a case of "immitation is the best form of flattery". I wasn't old enough to remember, but us Yanks were probably using all HF radio in our fighters and bombers. But once we got involved in the war effort, the success of the RAF and others with VHF radio must have told us that we needed similiar equipment. We could have certainly started from ground zero with our own designs, but reliable aircraft communications was a vital factor at the time, and VHF, being still a new form of transmission in those days, would have taken months and months on the drawing boards and lab and field testing to come up with a viable, operational unit. I can see where it could have been quite desireable to take a known working design, put our Yankee spin on it and get it into production. We and the Allies had a big job ahead of us over there and time was of essence. And yes,we were lending and loaning supplies, equipment, manufacturing, (and fighting men as well), as a part of a team effort to resolve a terrific world threat. John Hi John, Everything I read says the SCR-522 was a redesign of the British TR-1123, that was done to make it possible to mass produce it with US tooling. Certainly the US used the TR-1123 design as a quick way of getting a working VHF design into the war as quickly as possible. It was several years before the much more capable ARC-1 came out. My only objection was the way the OP stated that it was copy. It had the familiar taste of US bashing. If I read the OP's intentions incorrectly, and it sounds like I probably did, I am sorry. -Chuck G'day Chuck. There was no intention of US bashing or of there being something evil in my story. John (see above) stated the situation better than I and I agree with his sentiments. Lionel L Sharp, VK4NS For more details, check out www.aafradio.org - the Americans could not communicate with t-he British who were using VHF in their aircraft, so the SCR522 was a "copy" of the British design until the Americans could do the necessary R & D. No slight on our American friends intended - stop being so paranoid! - when we do want to insult you, you will be left in no doubt hi hi Andrew VK3BFA. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Well,
Chuck, Andrew, and Lionel, I'm glad we got this topic resolved. And further discussion of the BC 624 and 625 can now begin. My first two meter rig was a home brewed transceiver using a design from the old 112mc. WERS (war emergency radio service) band. I used a 6C4 triode as a super-regen detector which reverted to an ultra audion oscillator on transmit using a multi-section rotary switch. 6AT6 1st audio/mic amplifier and 6V6 audio output/modulator. I had a buddy across town that shared interest in two meters and he had a similiar rig, but with a single 3A5 dual triode tube and it used batteries. My rig ran on a 150 volt supply and would just light a #47 pilot lamp as a dummy load. My friends rig on "B" batteries showed no output with a lamp load. But it worked! We were about 3 or 4 miles apart and made a solid QSO. My first real two meter rig was a T23/ARC-5 transmitter that I bought at a surplus dealer for $12. That prompted me to build a crystal controlled converter using two 6AK5's and two 6J6's and used that ahead of a Hammarlund HQ-129X receiver. Built a home made 5 element Yagi made from old TV antenna hardware. I was on the air on two meter AM in fine style. The 522 came along a bit later when someone gave me a bunch old stuff. I spent many hours replacing all those Micamold paper condensers in the receiver. I had a lot of fun with the 522 and the T23 and learned a whole lot about VHF. My present day knowledge has not advanced anything beyond those days prior to 1960. Ha! For you chaps down under, talking about old times motivated me to pull an early log book. My first QSO with VK land was VK2EG on 14.065 mc. in 1957. I was running 100 watts input to a pair of push-pull 807's and a ground plane antenna. And the HQ-129X receiver, of course. Been a long day, I'm gonna grab a cold 807. Hi! 73, John |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
All,
In the late 50's, all of us who wanted to get on 2-meters used the '522 transmitter. I also seem to recall that we could, and did, trade the finals either the 832A for an 829B, or vice versa, to get a bit more power. I think there was a mechanical consideration, too.. but that was a long time ago! That transmitter, plus a Tapetone or Tecraft receiver converter, and you were on your way. de K3HVG |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Andrew VK3BFA wrote:
G'day Chuck. There was no intention of US bashing or of there being something evil in my story. John (see above) stated the situation better than I and I agree with his sentiments. Lionel L Sharp, VK4NS For more details, check out www.aafradio.org - the Americans could not communicate with t-he British who were using VHF in their aircraft, so the SCR522 was a "copy" of the British design until the Americans could do the necessary R & D. No slight on our American friends intended - stop being so paranoid! - when we do want to insult you, you will be left in no doubt hi hi Andrew VK3BFA. Hi Lionel, Andrew, etal, I am sorry for over reacting. My first 2M rig was a decidedly breadboard contraption that used a 6J6 as a push-pull oscillator, and had a modified phonograph audio output stage as the modulator. It had no xtal, and drifted so badly that I could never be sure where I would end up. I ditched that mess, and used a borrowed ARC-1 in its original 28V dynamotor condition. The ARC-1 was pure pleasure to operate. It sounded nice (inspite of its carbon microphone), and could change channels at a whim. A lot of folks swapped 829's in for 832's in some of the vhf rigs, but the ARC-1 was too compact for that treatment. The 829 was a fair bit taller, and would run into the top of the bakelite socket assembly the ARC-1 used. -Chuck |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Still have an ARC-1. It one of those that Eastern Airlines (?)
converted to 50 channels. While working for Page Airways at DCA in the mid-60's, I managed to get the unit and an original book with the ComCo airline mod included. |