[Milsurplus] Re: ongoing BC-342

Fri, 30 Apr 2004 22:04:09 -0400

Hi,

I would *guess* that the Signal Corps guys did the initial design and 
at least got a couple of prototype receivers running.  Then then wrote 
a specification around the radio they had built and asked for proposals 
to "industrialize" the design. RCA won the bid and did the conversion 
of the prototype over to a full blown military radio. My experience 
with the process was a lot more recent than the 1930's so I'm only 
guessing.

	Take Care!

		Bob Camp
		KB8TQ

On Apr 30, 2004, at 7:06 PM, [email protected] wrote:

> 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 <[email protected]>
> writes:
>> At 07:18 AM 4/30/2004 -0500, [email protected] 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)
> _______________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
>