[ARC5] ARC5 Digest, Vol 99, Issue 13

Thu Apr 12 07:26:10 EDT 2012

Yeah..BC-312M here..much heavier than the 348..mine has the shock mount 
which makes is even heavier..much better receiver than the 348 ( I have a 
few 348s  here including a commericially modified one for SSB for the German 
coastguard which works really well but no info on the mods..it has a heavy 
grey aluminium front panel for rack mounting)..the 312 is a far better rx 
than the 348..

73 de Pat/EI7CN
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <arc5-request at mailman.qth.net>
To: <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 8:34 PM
Subject: ARC5 Digest, Vol 99, Issue 13

> Send ARC5 mailing list submissions to
> arc5 at mailman.qth.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arc5-request at mailman.qth.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arc5-owner at mailman.qth.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARC5 digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: BC-312-D by RCA (Kenneth G. Gordon)
>   2. Re: BC-312-D by RCA (Kenneth G. Gordon)
>   3. Re: BC-312-D by RCA (David Stinson)
>   4. Re: BC-312-D by RCA (Kenneth G. Gordon)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:30:14 -0700
> From: "Kenneth G. Gordon" <kgordon2006 at frontier.com>
> Subject: Re: [ARC5] BC-312-D by RCA
> To: D C *Mac* Macdonald <k2gkk at hotmail.com>
> Cc: Arc5 at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID: <4F85B196.10337.3458F38 at kgordon2006.frontier.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On 11 Apr 2012 at 9:18, D C *Mac* Macdonald wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/130678937703
>>
>> Might be of interest to some.
>>
>> Doesn't appear to be horribly hacked
>> but I'm not familiar with what it is
>> supposed to look like.
>
> I have two BC-342s, both bought off eBay, and both missing the wire dial-
> indicator, but otherwise complete.
>
> That one has had an added switch (lower left) and dual-crystal socket, and
> the spare fuse holder is missing, so it has been hacked in some ways.
>
> Yes. Seeing interior photos would be a good thing.
>
> Ken W7EKB
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:47:14 -0700
> From: "Kenneth G. Gordon" <kgordon2006 at frontier.com>
> Subject: Re: [ARC5] BC-312-D by RCA
> To: Roy Morgan <k1lky at earthlink.net>
> Cc: Arc5 at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID: <4F85C3A2.5323.38C0DF9 at kgordon2006.frontier.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On 11 Apr 2012 at 12:49, Roy Morgan wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 11, 2012, at 12:30 PM, Kenneth G. Gordon wrote:
>> > I have two BC-342s, both bought off eBay, and both missing the wire
>> > dial- indicator, but otherwise complete.
>>
>> Ken,
>>
>> I have a BC-312 buried in storage, I think.  I don't remember what the
>>  wire dial indicator is.  Is this a little wire to let you see where
>> the dial is set?
>
> Yes.
>
>>  Would seem if so to be fairly easy to replace, that
>> is if you can get to it.
>
> That is the hard part. In addition, there were two versions: one had the 
> little
> wire, and the other was a line scribed on a piece of thin plexiglass.
>
>>  I remember that the thing is very heavy for
>> it's size and densly packed.
>
> Yes. It is unusually heavy for its size. However, once properly restored, 
> they
> are an excellent receiver, although the crystal filter was not properly
> designed nor implemented.
>
> In my opinion, they are a better receiver than the BC-348 types.
>
> Ken W7EKB
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:30:13 -0500
> From: "David Stinson" <arc5 at ix.netcom.com>
> Subject: Re: [ARC5] BC-312-D by RCA
> To: "ARC-5 List" <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
> Message-ID: <5E1F6EBC5A88419AB77550BF46AE7E74 at DaddyPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Kenneth G. Gordon" <kgordon2006 at frontier.com>
>
>> In my opinion, they are a better receiver than the BC-348 types.
>
> What?!?  Ya'll go grab the torches!
> I'll get the rope!....  ;-)
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:34:22 -0700
> From: "Kenneth G. Gordon" <kgordon2006 at frontier.com>
> Subject: Re: [ARC5] BC-312-D by RCA
> To: "David Stinson" <arc5 at ix.netcom.com>
> Cc: Arc5 at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID: <4F85DCBE.1623.3EE23F5 at kgordon2006.frontier.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On 11 Apr 2012 at 13:30, David Stinson wrote:
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Kenneth G. Gordon" <kgordon2006 at frontier.com>
>>
>> > In my opinion, they are a better receiver than the BC-348 types.
>>
>> What?!?  Ya'll go grab the torches!
>> I'll get the rope!....  ;-)
>
> Hee hee!  Don't forget the tar and feathers. :-)
>
> Well, my first really GOOD receiver was a BC-348, and I liked it a lot. 
> (My
> very first receiver was an AR-3 in which I never did learn how to use the
> BFO).
>
> Although the BC-312/342 would never have been a very good aircraft
> receiver (much too heavy for one thing), while the BC-348 was (obviously) 
> an
> excellent aircraft receiver, as a ham communications receiver, I liked the 
> BC-
> 342 better, both from an operational standpoint, and a signal-handling
> standpoint.
>
> Ken W7EKB
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
>
>
> End of ARC5 Digest, Vol 99, Issue 13
> ************************************
> 