[ARC5] [Milsurplus] Article in Nov. QST

[Kenneth G. Gordon]

On 15 Oct 2011 at 18:10, Bill Cromwell wrote:

> Hey!
> 
> I have a BC-221 and an LM. I regard them as being the same thing. I
> also use them. Sometimes both of them at the same time as Ken does. I
> know one guy who keyed the output into an antenna and logged into the
> traffic nets when his pretty radio broke. They are pretty useful
> tools.

Yes. I've read that too.

> I have heard how wonderful the tuning mechanisms are and good golly
> miss Molly that's right. I keep looking for one or two that are
> "beyond repair" so I can use some of those fine parts for one of my
> projects. I haven't found any that can't be made to work! I'm sure
> there must be one or two somewhere.

Well, I have bought a total of 3 BC-221s, one of those VHF versions, 
and 2 LMs, ALL so I could use some of them for parts, and have not 
yet got one that won't work.

Rats!

> 
> I am much less about preserving museum pieces than I am about keeping
> gear in service. LMs want to be heterodyne frequency meters and they
> want to help us net and align our radios. I appreciate that so I help
> them keep on doing it. The same for other gear. The SW-3 (1930s regen)
> can get me wall to wall signals on 160 meters with a five foot piece
> of wire for an antenna!! Why would I want to change THAT? My pretty
> radios can't do it. My digital frequency counter cannot do the LM
> tricks either.

Well, **I** only switched to a Kenwood TS-940 about a year ago: 
before that, I was still using Heathkit transceivers, when not doing 
military. 

> Climbing in behind that asbestos shield with Meir...

Not me. Let 'em fire away. I've got my asbestos underwear on.

Ken W7EKB