[Milsurplus] Re: ongoing BC-342

[antqradio@juno.com]

Bob and Group
Perhaps my question was poorly worded.

How much of the receiver engineering design was that of the Signal Corps
and how much was that of RCA?  Did the Signal Corps supply just a block
diagram, which RCA fleshed out, or did the Signal Corps supply
everything, including mechanical layout?

The reason for my question is this:  There appears to be revisions
between the BC-224, the BC-224A and finally the BC-224B before production
started in earnest.  If the design was done by Fort Monmouth, then why
any changes at all?  RCA should have just built to print, end of story. 
It seems to me that some engineering design (if not all) was done by RCA.

This in no way implies that the Signal Corps is not the prime mover of
this or any other program.  The Signal Corps defined the need and RCA (or
any other contractor like Collins and the R-390) supplied a solution.  On
that basis alone, they can claim the title.  I am concerned with the
engineering effort.  Who came up with the solution to the problem?

I guess the next thing to do is to check to see if there is any heritage
between early to mid 30's RCA communications receivers and the BC-224 or
BC-312.  I suspect that the BC-312 could have entered service first or at
least caught the eye of BC-224 contract monitors at Fort Monmouth and the
BC-224A followed soon after.

Can those of us who are fortunate enough to have early examples of these
fine receivers please report the contract dates?  The very first contract
date may be meaningless but the next follow on may answer the question.

Regards from Arkansas,
Jim


On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:19:05 -0500 Bob Wilder <bwild@earthlink.net>
writes:
> At 07:18 AM 4/30/2004 -0500, antqradio@juno.com wrote:
> 
> >Greetings
> >A question or two for those in the know.
> >What exactly does "Designed by Signal Corps" mean? 
> 
>  From my research I find that this means that the receiver was 
> designed
> at the Signal Corps R&D center at Fort Monmouth, NJ  (sometimes 
> referred to as Bell Labs)