[Milsurplus] BC-375

[Bob Camp]

Hi

I totally agree that the BC-375 was a well built radio. I look at the 
little ARC-5 radios and then at the BC-375 and it's a bit of a shock to 
realize they both operated in the same airplanes. Obviously they were 
used differently, but there is a major size difference.

The bomb load in a B-17 depended a lot on how much fuel they had to 
carry. In some cases the BC-375 amounted to >= 10% of bomb load. That's 
a significant issue in a bomber. Obviously the engines weighted a lot 
more, so the radio wasn't the only issue ...

	Take Care!

		Bob Camp
		KB8TQ

On Apr 25, 2004, at 8:36 AM, David Stinson wrote:

>
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Bob Camp <ham at cq.nu>
>
>> Am I the only one who finds it hard to believe that the BC-375 ever 
>> was
>> considered a lightweight aircraft radio? I'm not disputing the fact
>> that a ton of them flew in various bombers during the war. It just
>> seems like you could have gotten the job done without quite as much
>> weight.
>
> Weight was only one consideration for WWII aircraft radio.
> The transmitter also had to be reliable,
> easily maintained by lightly-trained "90-day-wonder" radio mechanics,
> have good spare-parts logistics and available quickly.
> The BC-375 fit all these requirements;
> it had a long history of satisfactory service pre-war,
> they were very easy to maintain,
> there were already large stocks of spare parts available and
> they could be mass-produced with a minimum of retooling.
> There were many more sophisticated designs produced
> during the war, but none in the Army or Navy that fit
> these early-war requirements so well.
> If you judge transmitters by strictly technical standards,
> a half dozen beat the -375.
> If you judge them by the totality of
> requirements for a liaison transmitter
> in the first two years of the war,
> the -375 was way ahead of them all.
>
> 73 DE Dave Stinson AB5S
>