Yup. There was apparently a kerfluffle between the operational development staff and the logistics people early in the B-29 program. The logistics folks wanted to stick with what was in all of the other USAAF bombing aircraft (for obvious reasons), but the Navy procured Collins transmitter quickly got a reputation for all that capability in much smaller (and lighter) package, so the ops folks won out. I suspect some of that debate went on at a few Officers' Clubs around DC, the Navy folks happy to go nyah-nyah-nyah over their superior equipment.

Among many other other things, the USAAF can thank them for the comfortable chamois lined earpads as well. Cross-pollination on the world's WWII flight lines did wonders for leveling capabilities.

The logistics folks got their licks in eventually, though. You may notice that the mount for the BC-375 is lower than the radio operator's table because of the height of that transmitter. Almost immediately after that change to installing the AN/ART-13 was made, radio ops began complaining about the awkward tuning effort required by its low position. In a curiously late final report on the "Operational Suitability of the Radio Equipment in the B-29 Airplane" (https://aafradio.org/docs/B-29_radio_suitability.pdf ), a last pitch was made to move the AN/ART-13 to the where the BC-348 receiver was sitting. Given the late date of the report, (23 February 1945), the USAAF brass determined, "Naw, not worth it." IIRC, it may not have been changed until the B-50 came out.

73,
- Mike KC4TOS

On 6/12/2022 5:44 PM, David Stinson wrote:

On 6/12/2022 2:10 PM, Brian McQueen wrote:

You sure that’s not a B-17? B-29’s used the ART-13 xmitter, not a BC-375...
Brian. WJ0P

Early B-29s, like many used to fly "the Hump"
over the mountains to China, used SCR-287. Conversion
to AN/ARC-8 (ART-13) was a late-war thing.

Moreover, the Radio Op position is certainly B-29.
B-17, -24, -25, -26 etc. were very different.

73 Dave S.