[Milsurplus] Re: Milsurplus digest, Vol 1 #930 - 14 msgs

[w5xe@juno.com]

I have had both Ken and the 342 is a good receiver.  
Covers the same range as the BC348 except the
348 is lighter and a power supply had to be supplied
since it was 28v.  The BC342 had the RA-20 power
supply built in as did the low frequency version BC344
which covered 150-1500 Kc.  That one was my Conelrad
monitor in the late 50's.  The BC312 was a 12v version
of the BC342/344 and was primarily used in the 
portable/mobile environment.  Interesting thing is that
a great many of the BC312's were equipped with a 
noise blanker, I guess for the ignition noise of the
vehicles.  Not so with the other versions.  I had
the BC342 and BC348 operating side by side and
no noticeable difference between either.  Dial calibration
about the same, and as I said, weight and height of
the 312/342/344 was bit more than the 348.  I used my
Lafayette/trio HE73 preselector/convertor to get up
to 15 and 10 meters and it helped with the calibration on
20 by using the 3.5-4.5 range to spread out 20.  Alas
the BC342 finally gave up when the audio transformer
went and spread tar all over the inside.  Passed it along
to others for parts.

73
Ray
Walking a mile in the other guys moccasins is a good idea.
When you finish the walk, you're a mile away from him, AND 
you've got his moccasins.
Ray Colbert, W5XE, OOTC#3618, SOWP#1064M 
El Paso,(FAR WEST)TEXAS