[Milsurplus] BC348Q

[Hue Miller]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Al Klase" <skywaves at webex.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 6:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC348Q

> I had my 348-C out to take pics 
> for Brad's restoration.  Here's what I found.
> 
> BC-348-C
> 
> Tunes 3.0 to 5.0 MC, 100 turns "lock to lock"
> 3.5 to 4.0 (80 meters) is 20 turns.
> 4.9-5.0 is 5 turns
> 3.5 to 3.6 is 4 turns
> 
> BC-348-R
> Tunes 3.5 to 6.0 MC, 100 turns "lock to lock"
> 3.5 to 4.0 is 20 turns.
> 4.9-5.0 is about 3 turns
> 3.5 to 3.6 is 5 turns
> 
> So it looks like the later sets have better bandspread than 
> the -C for 80-meter CW usage.  The -C does have tick marks 
> every 20 KC that are absent in the later radios.
> 
> Regards,
> Al

Nice work, Al, and thanks.

I conclude that on the face of it, the sans-LF (no LF band) 224 and 348's would seem to
have better bandspread ( which is khz/ dial revolution ).  As you found, both have the
mechanical-design parameter of 100 turns for full dial travel, end to end, so the -C with
3 - 5 MHz per this band, instead of the 3.5 - 6 MHz for the later versions, has slightly 
better bandspread overall.  

However, as you found, and i had not realized, it also DEPENDS where your frequency of
interest lies on the band. So the 80m cw segment 3.5-6 actually is at the very bottom of this
band on the LF 348s, and have better bandspread. 20 kHz versus 25 kHz for revolution for
the older C model. After thinking about this, i think i came to my own conclusion that this
is not enuff of an improvement in b/s to be very significant, and i would still prefer the C
or other non-LF versions, for their better dial markings.

This all reminds me of a conversion article i read on the BC-312/ 342 once. The idea was, to
improve the 40 meter bandspread by padding down one band so the 40 meter band appeared
at the very bottom of the dial, instead mid-band.

BTW, if anyone would take on a comparison of the 312/ 342 bandspread in the same manner,
so it could be compared to the 348, i for one, would really appreciate it.  This bandspread,
kHz per dial revolution has long been a big issue of mine, since for actually using the sets,
it is really important, and so rare to find a single-knob tuning receiver of years past that had
any respectable bandspread. The HF-RBS/RBM, RBC, and R-808 (on top bands), certainly
are poor in this respect, for example.
-Hue Miller