[Milsurplus] BC-348Q, R

[Mike Hanz]

Do I detect a hint of a Collins fan?   :-)    More seriously, the 
wartime ARR-15s were all navy acquisitions.  None of them went into AAF 
aircraft that I can document.  On the question of "best receiver",  it 
all depends on how you frame the performance metrics.  I have both the 
receivers mentioned (http://members.cox.net/aafradio/flightdeck/b29.htm) 
and though important in a military operational sense, frankly the 
matching channelization capability of the ARR-15 seems to me to be a 
relatively minimal part of ham utility.  The original contract ARR-15 
that's in the basement flight deck is beautifully made and was a superb 
compliment to the ART-13, but it suffers from a selectivity standpoint 
and the lack of a crystal filter if you compare it with the BC-348.  Hue 
and I have discussed ways of making it better, like Q multipliers, etc., 
but they are somewhat intrusive in terms of wiring mods, so I've 
resisted the urge thus far.  From a user-friendliness perspective the 
BC-348 wins hands down, and that in itself reflects the enduring 
popularity of the breed. 

73,
Mike

Scott Johnson wrote:

> 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 
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>