[Milsurplus] 24 Volt BC-312's & KC-97L

Tue May 17 09:35:12 EDT 2005

I think that any installation of a BC-312 in a KC-97L would have been bogus. 
I have never, ever seen such a thing, and on top of that, it makes no 
operational sense.

Scott
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James C Whartenby" <antqradio at juno.com>
To: <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] 24 Volt BC-312's & KC-97L

> If a BC-312 was found properly mounted in an aircraft, why is this bogus?
> Could it be the result of a need that was better filled by a BC-312?  As
> for rarity, BC-348s appear to be more plentiful then BC-312s or BC-342s.
> eBay completed auctions confirm this by almost two to one, at least for
> the last 30 days.
>
> I am sure SAC was first in line for modern (post WW2 developed)
> equipment.  Does anyone know when ARC-21s and ARC-27s were first
> introduced?  I am guessing it was around 1952 for the ARC-27 and maybe
> 1953 for the ARC-21?  Anyone have an ARC-21 or any related subassemblies
> in excess of their needs?
> See you at Dayton,  I'll be lugging an updated Radio Flyer!
> Jim
>
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 08:38:29 -0700 (PDT) Mike Morrow <kk5f at earthlink.net>
> writes:
>> Ray wrote:
>>
>> > ... they tell me this is how they received it from the National
>> Guard unit
>> > that was flying it. The ship is a odd mix of technology with some
>> vintage
>> >electronics on board like the BC-312, and what's stranger is the
>> APX-6
>> >transponder that's above it,
>>
>> They can claim what they will, I don't believe it for a moment.
>> IMHO, the BC-312 is undoubtedly bogus.  It weighs twice what a
>> BC-348 weighs, and runs off 12 vdc (or was it the very rare "X"
>> model, much more difficult to find than a BC-348), and lacks 200 to
>> 400 kc coverage.  Even the BC-348 and ART-13 (ARC-8) was very
>> obsolete for a SAC aircraft in 1955.  Certainly SAC would not have
>> installed a BC-312, and there would be no reason for the ANG to have
>> done this.
>>
>> The AN/APX-6 IFF or the similar-looking AN/APX-25 derivative is
>> possibly genuine, though.  They were being used on SAC aircraft well
>> into the 1970s.
>>
>> >and newer systems like two new encoding altimeters and a modern
>> >altitude encoding transponder.
>>
>> They wouldn't need the APX-6/25 then.  Sounds like a civilian
>> backfit.
>>
>> >Their is no HF command transmitter installed, and no ARC-5 type
>> junk,
>>
>> A KC-97 of this vintage and assigned to a command of such high
>> national priority as SAC would definitely have had an AN/ARC-21 (AM)
>> or later the AN/ARC-65 (USB) 140 lbm drum HF set installed, maybe
>> along with the associated AN/ARR-36 auxiliary HF receiver.
>> Possibly, a non-pressurized version of the AN/ARC-58 HF set might
>> have been installed.  Minor service/support aircraft might have had
>> the old AN/ARC-8 still in place, but not a KC-97.  There would have
>> been no reason for this gear to have been removed for ANG service.
>>
>> No surprise about "ARC-5 junk"...HF "command sets" had been long
>> since supplanted by UHF command sets like the AN/ARC-27 and -34 by
>> 1955.  Contemporary VHF sets would likely have been the older
>> AN/ARC-3, 36, 49 type of sets.  VHF capability wasn't all that
>> important if UHF was available.
>>
>> The ADF set of choice in 1955 would likely have been the AN/ARN-6.
>>
>> >Perhaps in the conversion to a "L" in 65 is when they removed the
>> HF
>> >transmitter, installed the new transponder and altimeters, ... also
>> all
>> >the VHF and UHF communications appear to be from the mid sixties.
>>
>> Military digital-tuned UHF sets commonly in use in the mid-1960s
>> would include the AN/ARC-27, 34, and 51(*).  Plus the USAF had a
>> host of other less common oddball UHF sets like the ARC-33, 66, 74,
>> etc.
>>
>> The common military digitally-tuned VHF set of that era was the
>> AN/ARC-73.
>>
>> >Brings up the question I brought up before, is this ship only
>> >relevant if it is returned to the state that it was when delivered
>> >from the factory, or as it was finally retired from active
>> service?
>>
>> I'd say the last, but the lineup described is almost certainly NOT
>> what was in place when the aircraft was in military service.  It's
>> just too fishy and bizarre.  The museum folks need to do a better
>> job of figuring out where all that goof-ball stuff came from, and
>> get rid of it.
>>
>> On a slightly different matter, but related to airborne commo gear,
>> I wonder how many list members realize how much communications
>> avionics was on the typical Vietnam-era Army UH-1 ("Huey")
>> helicopter.  Here'a list from a late-1960s UH-1D/H model:
>>
>> AN/ARC-51BX   UHF         225-400 mc.
>> AN/ARC-102     HF/SSB    2 to 30 mc.  (Only on command aircraft)
>> AN/ARC-131     VHF-FM    30 to 76 mc.
>> AN/ARC-134     VHF-AM    116 to 150 mc.
>> AN/ARN-82       VHF-VOR  108 to 127 mc.
>> AN/ARN-83       ADF         0.1 to 1.75 mc.
>>
>> This doesn't include all the other IFF and navigation gear.  This
>> gear would do proud even the largest of military aircraft of the
>> mid-1960s.  Yet these small aircraft carried gear covering almost
>> all of the useful spectrum to 400 mc.
>>
>> 73,
>> 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 