[Milsurplus] BC-348Q, R

Wed Nov 17 22:52:24 EST 2004

I Cannot directly document the installation of the ARR-15 in a Wartime B-29, 
but I have talked to a couple of gents at the IEEE MTTS a few years ago that 
said that the ARR-15/ART-13 combo was indeed installed on ELINT B-29's late 
in the war. As far as utility as an amateur receiver, I think they both come 
up short, but for point-to-point channelized communications, I find it 
lacking very little for its time.  An interesting sidenote: ever notice how 
the postwar Collins18S HF transceiver seems to have been made from leftover 
ART-13 and ARR-15 parts?

Scott
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Hanz" <AAF-Radio-1 at cox.net>
To: <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Cc: "Scott Johnson" <scottjohnson1 at cox.net>; "Mike Morrow" 
<kk5f at earthlink.net>; "Hue Miller" <kargo_cult at msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-348Q, R

> 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
>>
> 