[ARC5] ARC-5 and BC-4xx Serial Number Question

[Mike Everette]

For whatever it may be worth....

Back in the day, I was given a BC-457 which was absolutely untouched, unhacked, unviolated, whatever.  It was a black one.  However, the chassis above the line where the cover met the sides was bare aluminum.

This transmitter had a tag attached with screws, which read Serial Number:  128.

It was a Western Electric unit.

Of course, being a dumb teenager, I didn't think that much of it and hacked it up, moving it to 20 meters according to a "conversion" in the CQ Command Sets Handbook.  After all, it was one of the "useless" transmitters, right?

Somewhere among my junque, I think I may have the serial number tag, still.  I remember that I saved it, probably out of guilt for ruining the transmitter/artifact.  If I can put my hands on it I'll see what the order number and date was.  Come to think of it, that was the only black SCR-274N transmitter I'd ever seen until about 10 years ago, when a friend gave me a black BC-459... and this one has a Royal Canadian Air Force tag instead of US Army Signal Corps.  Its chassis is all black.

That BC-457 must have been an "Oily Boid."  I'd almost bet the order date is 1941 or very early 1942.  Will have to look.

By the way, it did work on 20 meters -- kinda-sorta.  I had better luck, though,  converting another BC-457 -- this one garden variety -- to 160, again following directions in the CQ Command Sets Handbook.  Worked like a champ.

73

Mike
W4DSE






--- On Mon, 2/4/13, WA5CAB at cs.com <WA5CAB at cs.com> wrote:

> From: WA5CAB at cs.com <WA5CAB at cs.com>
> Subject: Re: [ARC5] ARC-5 and BC-4xx Serial Number Question
> To: arc5 at mailman.qth.net
> Date: Monday, February 4, 2013, 12:23 AM
> With one minor quibble, my
> information agrees with Mike's.
> 
> Serial Numbers were assigned by component on those
> components that carried 
> Serial Numbers (not all did, and some that did early in the
> War did not 
> later).  There are numerous examples that substantiate
> this.  Early radios with 
> plug-in tuning units such as BC-191 and BC-223 were issued
> with all tuning 
> units having the same serial number as the
> transmitter.  The BC-1306 and the 
> RT-77/GRC-9 were originally issued with matching serial
> numbers on the 
> receiver, transmitter and case.  However, depots made
> no effort to keep the 
> serial numbers matched on the last two sets.  And I
> seriously doubt that any 
> effort was made to match serial numbers on ARA/ATA or
> SCR-274-N components 
> initially installed in any given aircraft.  I know for
> a fact (conversation with 
> my father-in-law who flew B-24's in the Pacific) that no
> such matches were 
> worried about in theater.
> 
> Every TM I have ever seen that quoted a serial number in the
> context of a 
> component change made during production also quoted an Order
> Number.  The 
> same thing is true of Navy serial numbers versus changes
> except that given the 
> Nayv's SOP to increment the radio set model number with each
> new contract, a 
> Navy manual would say something like Serial Number nnnn of
> TCS-12 and 
> Serial Number mmm of TCS-13 instead of quoting a Contract
> Number.  All of which 
> in general argues for Serial Numbers starting over with each
> new Contract 
> (Navy) or Order (Signal Corps).
> 
> Minor trivia point - a Navy Contract is equivalent to a
> Signal Corps Order. 
>  So many of such and such radio set for so many dollars to
> be delivered by 
> some date.  I don't know what the Navy called their
> equivalent agreement but 
> a Signal Corps Contract was an open-ended agreement for the
> duration to 
> build any type of widgets that the Signal Corps might decide
> that they needed 
> and to put up with Signal Corps Inspectors and other
> administrative matters.  
> The legal agreement to build so many of a specific radio or
> radio set for 
> however much money was an Order.  Signal Corps
> technical documents never 
> mention Contracts.
> 
> Robert D.
>  
> 
> In a message dated 02/03/2013 22:31:06 PM Central Standard
> Time, 
> kk5f at earthlink.net
> writes: 
> > John wrote:
> > 
> > >Just out of curiosity, were the Serial Numbers
> assigned sequentially for
> > >each type, or across all production?
> > >
> > >Ie: Was there:
> > >
> > >BC-453  S/N 1000
> > >BC-454  S/N 1000
> > >BC-455  S/N 1000
> > >etc ...
> > 
> > AFAIK, serial numbers started from 1 with each new
> contract, for each 
> > component.
> > I have some late SCR-274-N components with low serial
> numbers that can't 
> > possibly
> > represent the numbers of such components that had been
> made at that point.
> > 
> > I even have a USAF contract A.R.C. R-15 with serial
> number 1...but made 
> > under
> > a late contract.
> > 
> > I'll bet that others here have more accurate info on
> this aspect.
> > 
> > Mike / KK5F
> > 
> 
> Robert Downs - Houston
> wa5cab dot com (Web Store)
> MVPA 9480
> ______________________________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>