Talk:Aircraft Radio Corporation

Importance of subject: "Aircraft Radio Corporation"

Aircraft Radio Corporation (ARC) is one of the principal pioneers in avionics, and for the first several decades, was one of the foremost forces in that industry, along with:

• Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC)
• Lear Developments (later Lear Siegler);
• Collins Radio (later Rockwell Collins;
• RCA;
• Sperry Corporation (later absorbed by Honeywell);

...and...

• Bendix Corporation (avionics division)

--and--

• King Radio

(later the joined as the Bendix/King brand of Honeywell),

Among the company's achievements was their partnership with aviator Jimmy Doolittle in the famed 1929 first "blind" flight of an aircraft, solely by reference to instruments -- one of the principal milestones in the development of modern aviation.

Following ARC's acquisition, in 1959, by Cessna Aircraft Company, Cessna -- the world's highest-volume producer of aircraft -- began routinely installing ARC radios (relabeled "Cessna") as standard equipment in their aircraft.

However, during those years, ARC's reputation was severely tarnished by a string of poor-quality products, becoming the least-respected name in general aviation avionics -- which became a topic of exceptional concern, controversy and litigation in the general aviation industry. (A standard line in many discussions of used aircraft acquisition, for instance, was "first, get rid of the ARC radios.")

For these three basic reasons --

• early avionics pioneering and leadership, and
• subsequent widespread, standard use in the world's most popular light aircraft,
• later decline and major controversy,

-- this company is a subject of exceptional importance in the aviation industry, and particularly in avionics and general aviation.

~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 07:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Zxtxtxz: Please see MOS:BOLD for guidance on use of boldface in articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

ARC Avionics Corporation Section

There is nothing on the "Aircraft Radio & Avionics LLC" website that would substantiate the writeup in this section. Not sure how the author connected the two. But given there is no documentation or references that tie them to ARC, shouldn't this section be eliminated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.152.175 (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

They have advertised themselves as successors to ARC -- rightly or wrongly -- and therefore are a topic very relevant to ARC. Often in corporate mergers and acquisitions, elements of an entity are broken apart, and various pieces and/or people wind up in different entities. This has happened quite often in the general aviation industry, and in the electronics industry, and this may be the case here.

As there is too little online evidence to refute the ARC Avionics Corporation's claim to "successor" status, it would be inappropriate to completely ignore their claim -- which i have carefully labeled as no more than that. ~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)