[Milsurplus] RE: BC-312/348

[Kargokult@aol.com]

In a message dated 3/18/02 6:34:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
antqradio@juno.com writes:

<< Hi Hue and the Group
 My only guess about this point is that the -224A version is like the -312
 simply because that was the starting point.  In the -224B "the form
 follows function" rule would apply.  Low weight translates to light
 aluminum alloys but the requirement for frequency accuracy translates to
 a rigid frame to hold the tuning mechanism.  It is interesting to note
 that the aspect ratios (length width height) are approximately the same
 for each radio.  The -312 is taller but the -224 is deeper.  I'm sure
 that the redesign to make the radio lighter for aircraft use resulted in
 the final production radio form. >>

--I'm not quite sure if i understand all the above. I had to pack up my
BC-224-A so i can't inspect it now, but i don't recall it being any
heavier than the  BC-224-B,  and the  224-A was  definitely used
in aircraft. B-18, i think, and in the rear seat of an army 2-seat
observation plane - Buffalo?  Something like that?
Semiseriously, i wonder if the Army tried out the 224-A and said:
"Look, can you do something about putting the tuning knob and 
the frequency scales more in the middle of the set, and make it a 
little easier to service, also?"
Or maybe the Army just said:
"We are thinking about buying a whole lot of the one we decide on.
But this thing looks like hell, like something Ft. Monmouth came up
with. Can you do something about that?"
Regards, Hue Miller