[Milsurplus] BC-348Q, R

Wed Nov 17 23:59:00 EST 2004

I'm reasonably familiar with the ferret/porcupine B-29s - it's a 
fascinating area and particular interest of mine in the 6 years I've 
been a consultant with the Smithsonian.  I've interviewed a fair number 
of folks who were connected with that sector of the war, as well as 
going through thousands of pages of musty documents, and one thing 
stands out - memories tend to blur dates and periods when it comes to 
specific nomenclatures.  I'd love to find some documentation on your 
MTTS acquaintances' experience, Scott.  It just isn't consistent with 
flight records, etc. that I've perused in the archives up until now.  I 
have no doubt the ARR-15s may have been used in the liaison function in 
the late 40's or Korean war, when the B-29 saw much greater use in the 
classic ELINT ferret role than the more predominant jamming role it 
assumed during the Pacific war against Japan.

No question about the outstanding military utility either, but it was a 
receiver at the right place at the wrong time.  The tidal shift to 
transceivers already had a head of steam and the future was bleak for 
separate combinations like the ART-13 and ARR-15 that made up the 
AN/ARC-25.  Mind you, I enjoy using it occasionally, but it simply isn't 
as much fun to use as the -348.  That's a personal opinion, of course - 
which goes back to the metrics question.... :-)

73,
Mike

Scott Johnson wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>