Hopedale, Labrador

7-PB1-200
October 1962

Commander,
Goose Air Defence Sector,
Goose Bay, Labrador.

Dear Sirs:

We are pleased to supply you with Mr. Gradwell’s report in connection with the above mentioned subject.

This report is furnished as agreed to in discussion with Mr. Gradwell on 30 August 1962 concerning the reduced capability of this radar during the period July – August 1962.

Yours truly,

/S/ W.M. Thomson,
Controller General

Cc: ADE St. Johns, Nfld.

Installation and Maintenance Division
Inspection Report
Period 20 – 30 August 1962

Subject: Reduced Capability of Prime Radar

Equipment: AN/FPS-3C

Location: 923 AC&W Squadron Hopedale (C-28)

Contracts: AF30(635)-25226 Serial 7-PE-1-200

Contractor: Canadian Marconi Co. SSD (Pinetree)

This inspector was advised by GADS message GSELM 4465 dated 17 August, 1962, from Major J. Jefferies, that the site Maintenance personnel at 923^rd, Squadron, were experiencing considerable difficulty to maintain the AN/FPS-3C equipment operational, and Depot technical assistance was required immediately. It was also requested at this time by Major J Jefferies, that DND Inspection Services inspector, accompany the Depot furnished assistance, to evaluate the adequacy of the last DLM afforded this equipment by the contractor, Canadian Marconi Co. (Pinetree) in May 1962.

This inspector departed 20 August for 923^rd Squadron., Hopedale, in the company of CMC Senior Engineer, Mr. M. Schmidt, and arrived site 22 August 1962.

On arrival at the site this inspector made known to the Commanding Officer, Major MacMonagle, Capt. FG Zuzolo and the Radar Officer, Lt. R. Thompson, the purpose of the visit.

The site Maintenance logs were checked and the following noted:

1. Last DLM on Equipment performed by CMC completed May 62.
2. CMC Inspector Records confirmed that satisfactory operation of all equipment was achieved at completion of overhaul.
3. By mid July 62, constant drop off of sensitivity experienced every 4 to 6 hours.
4. Constant loss of crystal current, with replacement of 2C4C tube in the Stalos the only remedy.
5. Antenna level found out of tolerance and adjusted.
6. After tilting antenna through 2.5 degrees and returning to 1.5 degrees as requested by operations, considerable unstable operation.
7. Lower beam magnation decreased in frequency by maintenance personnel for 1290 MC (Centre frequency) to 1284 MC.

The following is a summary of tests adjustments and replacements made, by site personnel and Mr. Schmidt, CMC Engineer to return equipment to full operational capability, and to further allow this inspector to evaluate the cause of this equipment failure.

1. Completed replacement of both upper and lower beam RF pluming system.
2. Replacement of both Magnetrons.
3. RF Power output check.
4. VSWR test
5. Geuss Magnet check.
6. Magnetron true frequency check.
7. Horn alignment and reflector check
8. Receiver Recovery test.
9. Magnetron output pulse check.
10. Trigger driver test.
11. Modulator pulse output test.
12. Antenna tilt alignment.
13. Focal length and Focal point check.
14. Magnetron spectrum test.
15. Receiver sensitivity test.
16. Pre Amp and bandwidth test.
17. Antenna pedestal levelling check.
18. Slip ring inspection and cleaning.
19. Minimum Dersennable signal test.

Observations of equipment performance operationally indicated sparatic skin paints of aircraft, only with inversion propation, with no discernable pattern to indicate equipment failure.

On evidence available to this inspector, my conclusions are as follows:

1. The DLM accomplished by CMC to the equipment in May of this year, was not completely to the standard of thoroughness furnished to AC&W Squadrons. Faults were found as follows:
1. Duplexers corroded and not replaced.
2. Slip ring loose in mount.
3. Upper beam Thyratron tube clamp missing.
4. Lower beam waveguide dented and burnt.
5. No noise test accomplished.

The above is being brought to the attention of the contractor’s Management for positive corrective action, and will be closely monitored by this office.

2. The level of familiarization with this equipment is below normal, at this particular station.
3. Insufficient down time on older equipment to locate and correct failures.

It was recommended by this inspector that Radar Maintenance keep as much information and statistics on the performance of equipment in order that localizing failures could be accomplished utilizing Quality Control Methods.

Further recommendations were to affect as much OJT on equipment and test instruments as possible.

It is further felt by this inspector that consideration should be given to schedule more maintenance on older equipment used with the command, and every endeavor made to increase the working areas of the Radar Maintenance facility at this Squadron.

This inspector would like to express grateful acknowledgement of all the assistance afforded this inspector by Major J. Jefferies of Maintenance Control Centre in effecting aircraft utilization, to adequately access the performance of the radar equipment, and Major J. Winter in determining true performance figures allowable to the aircraft in use.

This inspector would further like to commend the personnel at the 923 Squadron. In their conscientious efforts to obtain good performance from the equipment, and the assistance afforded this inspector in evaluating the equipment failure.

RW Gradwell
ADC – NEW

A TRUE EXTRACT COPY:

JOHN C. TILLEY
Captain, USAF