[Milsurplus] BC-348Q, R

[Scott Johnson]

Great info, but I think the best airborne pairing of late WWII was the 
ART-13 and the ARR-15, They almost seem to have been made to work together! 
The ARR-15 is undoubtedly the finest airborne receiver of the war.  Problem 
was, only a few B-29's were equipped with them at the very end.

Scott
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Morrow" <kk5f at earthlink.net>
To: "Hue Miller" <kargo_cult at msn.com>
Cc: <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-348Q, R


> Hue wrote:
>
>>I saw an ad for "V & H Surplus" from RTV-News magazine, 1954.
>>The ad said they wanted to buy ART-13's, of course, but also
>>BC-348, and the ad said "bonus paid for Q and R."
>>Why?
>
> First, I'm unqualified to state anything but my opinion.  Many other list 
> members will have much better input.
>
> I consider the BC-348 series to have been produced in WWII in three 
> generations:
>
> E, M, P - Many double-ended older tubes, VT-48 (41) AF output.
> K, L, R - Same as E, M, P except VT-152 (6K6) AF output.
> J, N, Q - Big internal redesign using newer single-ended tubes,
>             point-to-point wiring, and circuit simplifications such
>             as elimination of following features:
>             - Antenna alignment trimmer control,
>             - RF stage gain adjustment pot ganged to tuning cap.,
>             - Local oscillator voltage regulator.
>
> The JNQ models would appear to tbe the most modern, but I think that the 
> purpose of their redesign was actually to reduce production costs compared 
> to other versions.   Just look at an R next to a Q and it would seem to me 
> that an R model must have been significantly more expensive to make.
>
> I can understand an outfit looking for this "latest" model series, but I 
> don't know why it would make much difference as far as selecting between 
> J, N, or Q models other than a Q model would likely have fewer in-service 
> hours on it than J or N models.
>
> The KLR models were produced concurrently with the JNQ models, so a R 
> model likewise would likely have fewer in-service hours on it than K or L 
> models.
>
> Anyway you look at it, a Belmont R model or a Wells-Gardner Q model would 
> have been the last of their respective production series, so maybe that 
> was worth a price premium to the surplus house you mentioned.  It's 
> sometimes hard to keep in mind when looking at post-war surplus ads 
> selling BC-348s for $70 or even complete BC-375s for $50 that those prices 
> translate into about $700 and $500 in today's dollars!
>
> Just my guess, anyway.
>
> I preferred to match a P model to the BC-375-E in my SCR-287, since the 
> older tubes in the P design come closer to being contemporary with the 
> ancient tubes of the BC-375.   I preferred to match a Q model to the 
> T-47A/ART-13 in my AN/ARC-8, since the electrical design of the Q model is 
> more closely contemporary with that of the T-47A.  The R model would be my 
> second choice for my AN/ARC-8.  I don't think there was a finer airborne 
> HF radio system anywhere in the world during WWII than the AN/ARC-8.
>
> Mike / KK5F
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net