[Milsurplus] CRV-46123...what is it?...

[Hue Miller]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Hanz" <AAF-Radio-1@cox.net>

> Hue Miller wrote:
>
> > Wait a minit. Wasn't the standard loop for the DZ, just the
> > DW ?
>
> It appears as though it might be similar in the photos of the original
> DZ, Hue, but apparently the inner construction was different to obtain
> the low impedance.

Sounds like maybe a non resonant loop, with a low inductance
/ few turns winding, maybe?

> > The Navy had a lot of fine ground equipment, but it seems they never developed
> > on their own, a topnotch HF aircraft receiver during WW2. Instead they put to
> > use the USAAF's  BC-348. On their own, all they had was the ARB, RU, RAX,

> While I'll admit the remote tuning requirement of the ARB makes it a bit
> kludgey to use, it's an excellent short wave receiver in its own right.
>   Just because it doesn't match our current operational preferences as
> hams or SWL buffs doesn't make it fundamentally a bad set.

Actually, it is extremely compact for the time. I imagine in those
days it really impressed people with its state of the art compactness. It has occurred to me that
actually RCA didn't
have to compact it quite that much, even.
And yes, the dial action is the major drawback for the "after
market".

> And the
> RAX-1 triplets, for another example, are vastly superior to the BC-348
> in terms of dial length and frequency coverage, among other things.

Aagin i say, wait a minit.
For the aftermarket, the 18-27 MHz frequencies might be nice,
but the RAX never captured much interest from hams or SWLs,
probably due to the wide selectivity, or maybe it was that it was
not so reliably findable compared to the supply of 348's.
( There was 1 article on the lf RAX, "The Secret Weapon",
in Radio TV Experimenter, where the legendary  C. M.
Stanbury used the RAX tuned to 455 kc/s next to his main
receiver, this to be able to pull and separate broadcast band
dx.)

So for military tactical use, the 18-27 Mcs coverage was a
waste, as the most common matched transmitter version of
the GO, only went up to 18 Mcs.
And cost-wise, it had to be a lot more expensive to supply
3 receivers to cover one range.
And the dial resolution and tuning rate on the 348 is better
than on the RAX too, isn't it?

> It's hard to compare apples and oranges when the basic requirements for
> the competing sets were so different at their inception.

At least in the RAX / BC-348 comparison, it's not so different.
The proof in this is that the Navy replaced the RAX in many
of its large patrol planes, with the BC-348.  ( I wonder if that
proved any kind of accounting problem, as "BC" doens't fit
very well into the Navy's letter-system nomenclature.)

> I'm just being the devil's advocate here, because I pretty much agree
> with you and Mike Morrow on the assertion about the BC-348...or at least
> almost.

Understood. We're here for fun, anyway.

> Just to muddy the
> waters further, my personal choice for best of breed is the ARR-7, which
> is the repackaged Halli SX-28.  How do three crystal and three tuned
> circuit selectivities compare with the single off/on crystal filter of
> the -348?  How about the neato motor tuning drive?  With an APA-10
> panadapter it's a superb ham set for its age.

How about 13-30 Mcs. (for example) on one small dial and
NO bandspread? Now try to use crystal selectivity on 20
meters band!
( I wonder why the crystal selectivity was even included, as
this was a search receiver.)
Yes, this is a nicely built machine. But the designers sure didn't
provide any kind of tuning rate suitable for comm receiver use.
And no one in the after market solved this either.
( I actually saw one of the 73 (??) magazine conversions
somewhere- with the tuning dial on top the set- but i guess
it didn't impress me enuff to buy it - i think i recall that even
with that conversion, the dial markings on the new dial, for
the ham bands, were still not very good. )

>  If Hallicrafters had
> adopted a precision dial like the BC-348 has instead of that cheap
> celluloid thing, IMO it would win hands down.

Right. Of course the military never would go for the 2-dial
system (tuning + bandspread), but if the builder had provided
say, a 2-speed dial action, or some other bandspreading thing,
this receiver would have been a post-war market star.
( It didn't slow down R E Goodheart's surplus ads, where they
made it sound the ARR-7 was the best communications receiver
ever. But then, R E also called the RBS/ RBM, "The Navy's
Pride". )

Like the ARC-2, for another example. If Collins had foregone
that tricky PT variable IF that stumped the hams, this set would
have been a post war surplus market conquerer.
But that would have been bad for Hallicrafters, Harvey Wells,
etc.
Maybe that idea was in there too. Don't make the gear perfect. Don't threaten the post war civilian
market. Like dumping tools
machinery and jeeps in the ocean.
Just kidding on this last part, of course.
Hue