[Milsurplus] Re: Milsurplus Digest, Vol 24, Issue 28
Ralph Cameron
ramcam at magma.ca
Mon Apr 17 17:42:04 EDT 2006
Did you try installing XP on that other PC yet?
Ralph
----- Original Message -----
From: <milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net>
To: <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:30 PM
Subject: Milsurplus Digest, Vol 24, Issue 28
> Send Milsurplus mailing list submissions to
> milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> milsurplus-owner at mailman.qth.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Milsurplus digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. RE: Bomber Radio Pictures (Falls, Jim)
> 2. Re: RE: Bomber Radio Pictures (Todd, KA1KAQ)
> 3. Re: Bomber Radio Pictures (Kenneth G. Gordon)
> 4. RE: Bomber Radio Pictures (jay.coward at avagotech.com)
> 5. RE: Bomber Radio Pictures (D C *Mac* Macdonald)
> 6. Re: radios in old A/C (David Stinson)
> 7. Re: RE: Bomber Radio Pictures (Jack Antonio)
> 8. Re: RE: Bomber Radio Pictures (Todd, KA1KAQ)
> 9. ID'ing a military cabinet drawer, 80 FT-241-A xtals
> (barry tuttleman)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:54:35 -0700
> From: "Falls, Jim" <Jim.Falls at conservation.ca.gov>
> Subject: [Milsurplus] RE: Bomber Radio Pictures
> To: <Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Message-ID:
> <A73B6E7A4503E948826CE81A65AF5FECAFB6 at docexs1.ad.consrv.ca.gov>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Several members of our local Ham club will be setting up a working command
> radio exhibit at Arcata-Eureka Airport when the planes visit in June. It
> would've been fun to use the command sets and BC-348 for air to ground
> comm from the planes, but looks like that isn't possible, based on the
> photos. Does anyone know if these are functional? Maybe we need to do a
> little digging for cables and hardware up here.
>
> Jim Falls
> KG6FWT
> Humboldt Amateur Radio Club
> Eureka, CA
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 14:26:35 -0400
> From: "Todd, KA1KAQ" <ka1kaq at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] RE: Bomber Radio Pictures
> To: "Falls, Jim" <Jim.Falls at conservation.ca.gov>
> Cc: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID:
> <9ccb8c510604171126m76396225l4f0eb2695423e3e5 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 4/17/06, Falls, Jim <Jim.Falls at conservation.ca.gov> wrote:
>> Several members of our local Ham club will be setting up a working
>> command radio exhibit at Arcata-Eureka Airport when the planes visit in
>> June. It would've been fun to use the command sets and BC-348 for air to
>> ground comm from the planes, but looks like that isn't possible, based on
>> the photos. Does anyone know if these are functional? Maybe we need to do
>> a little digging for cables and hardware up here.
>
> The biggest issue is getting the time to do it, since the planes are
> gone most of the year. Unless you have pre-made cables removed from a
> B-17, it will require a diagram of the correct paths used and
> measurements of same, plus the correct cable and connectors. They
> might have the tubes for the BC-375 stored in their hangar, or might
> not.
>
> The trick would be to schedule time while the ship is down for routine
> servicing like engine overhaul/swap out. Of course, you need to be in
> their location, too. At one point they were based in Stow, Mass, about
> 3 hours south of me. I think they have them based in Florida.
>
> I think the working Command set display you mentioned will be a great
> way to expose folks to the correct gear and perhaps you can use it to
> open a dialog with the Collings folks and see where they stand. Most
> of them are volunteers who take time off to tour with the aircraft.
> The last I knew, they were very open to the idea and just lacked
> knowledgeable people to do the work and necessary items.
>
> Let us know how it goes, and be sure to get some pictures.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:36:55 -0700
> From: "Kenneth G. Gordon" <kgordon2006 at verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Bomber Radio Pictures
> To: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID: <44437DD7.10098.50C77C3 at localhost>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On 17 Apr 2006 at 0:00, Mike Morrow wrote:
>
>> Ray wrote:
>>
>> >If the BC-375 transmitters were in working condition what would you
>> >use them for?
>>
>> Perhaps to recreate with at least a little bit of accuracy the
>> historical configuration of the aircraft??
>
> I wonder what the problems would be if they WERE operational, and if
> a visitor showed a valid ham license and competence with this sort of
> gear, it could be operated on the air...at least for some special event?
> Then an GPU would be validly useable.
>
> Ken W7EKB
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:07:11 -0600
> From: <jay.coward at avagotech.com>
> Subject: RE: [Milsurplus] Bomber Radio Pictures
> To: <kgordon2006 at verizon.net>, <Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Message-ID:
> <F1604E09BAEC2D4B9407D7E8361A4453A51608 at wcosmb09.cos.agilent.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Probably a huge liability.You never know when a component will fail.As
> Hams,were used to it and can deal with what can happen.I once had the 1uf
> cap in the 28V input of a modulator explode like an M-80 firecracker.Never
> did figure out why except for age.After cleaning up the mess it made and
> replaceing the cap every thing worked fine.
> How would I explain to an aircraft owner that I burned up his airplane
> because a 60+ year old component in his command set failed?
> Probably better to restore and just look than to operate.We can do that at
> our own risk at home.
> My .02
> Jay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: milsurplus-bounces+jay.coward=avagotech.com at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:milsurplus-bounces+jay.coward=avagotech.com at mailman.qth.net] On
> Behalf Of Kenneth G. Gordon
> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 11:37 AM
> To: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Bomber Radio Pictures
>
> On 17 Apr 2006 at 0:00, Mike Morrow wrote:
>
>> Ray wrote:
>>
>> >If the BC-375 transmitters were in working condition what would you
>> >use them for?
>>
>> Perhaps to recreate with at least a little bit of accuracy the
>> historical configuration of the aircraft??
>
> I wonder what the problems would be if they WERE operational, and if
> a visitor showed a valid ham license and competence with this sort of
> gear, it could be operated on the air...at least for some special event?
> Then an GPU would be validly useable.
>
> Ken W7EKB
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:23:57 +0000
> From: "D C *Mac* Macdonald" <k2gkk at hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: [Milsurplus] Bomber Radio Pictures
> To: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID: <BAY20-F24522579FB2A4BF4BEBD75F1C70 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> Some may wish to kill the messenger (me) but what would
> be the acceptance of having only shells with dummy controls
> and so forth showing that only an expert could tell wasn't
> real??? This would minimize weight gain to operational birds.
>
> The old stuff would not be acceptable for actual comm and
> nav purposes anyway from the standpoints of frequency
> accuracy, stability, bandwidth, etc.
>
> Let's face it, what used to involve many hundreds of pounds
> of gear, to say nothing about the weight of the wires, can
> not only probably be done eaily with less than two hundred
> pounds and that would include HF!!!
>
> Mac - K2GKK/5
>
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: <jay.coward at avagotech.com>
> To: <kgordon2006 at verizon.net>, <Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: RE: [Milsurplus] Bomber Radio Pictures
> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:07:11 -0600
>
> Probably a huge liability.You never know when a component will fail.As
> Hams,were used to it and can deal with what can happen.I once had the 1uf
> cap in the 28V input of a modulator explode like an M-80 firecracker.Never
> did figure out why except for age.After cleaning up the mess it made and
> replaceing the cap every thing worked fine.
> How would I explain to an aircraft owner that I burned up his airplane
> because a 60+ year old component in his command set failed?
> Probably better to restore and just look than to operate.We can do that at
> our own risk at home.
> My .02
> Jay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: milsurplus-bounces+jay.coward=avagotech.com at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:milsurplus-bounces+jay.coward=avagotech.com at mailman.qth.net] On
> Behalf Of Kenneth G. Gordon
> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 11:37 AM
> To: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Bomber Radio Pictures
>
> On 17 Apr 2006 at 0:00, Mike Morrow wrote:
>
> > Ray wrote:
> >
> > >If the BC-375 transmitters were in working condition what would you
> > >use them for?
> >
> > Perhaps to recreate with at least a little bit of accuracy the
> > historical configuration of the aircraft??
>
> I wonder what the problems would be if they WERE operational, and if
> a visitor showed a valid ham license and competence with this sort of
> gear, it could be operated on the air...at least for some special event?
> Then an GPU would be validly useable.
>
> Ken W7EKB
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 14:27:12 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
> From: David Stinson <arc5 at ix.netcom.com>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] radios in old A/C
> To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID:
> <1406215.1145302032151.JavaMail.root at elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: telegrapher at att.net
>>Subject: [Milsurplus] radios in old A/C
>>
>>Just before i retired from the fone factory i went to the local CAF outfit
>>wanting to sign up and help with the restoration of their B-25.
>>Since my prior life in the AF i was an aircraft mechanic they
>>were glad to have me. I asked about putting original radios
>>in them to make it a more authentic situation. No No was the replay.
>>YOu can't use them and the by removing them it gives us
>>the ability to carry more weight, you know, like another passenger!
>
> I've heard that before, too, Larry, and I think it's a load of bull.
> The aircraft was made to haul TONS of BOMBS, for pity's sake.
> The percentage of total gross weight represented by the radios
> vs. not having a bomb load makes that argument a joke.
> I think the real reason is a matter of ego, frankly.
> Real radios don't have the "Ahhhh! Ohhhh!" factor
> of dolling-up the outside or the guns. You don't get money stuffed
> in the contribution boot by people saying: "Gosh! Those
> radios sure were cool!" Getting the historic technology correct
> has to be a matter of principle, and money trumps principle
> for some of these groups. Thank God there are exceptions.
>
> As far as liability for burning up the plane:
> You have a point, J, but then
> the whole thing is 60 years old and is filled with stuff
> that can catch fire. These planes caught fire on a whim
> when they were new. If that's a "show-stopper,"
> they better never start the engines.
>
>>... (Their) response told me things about them and i felt i might have a
>>hard time
>> living in their political world. I don't do well with political people.
>
> Amen. Say it twice.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:43:47 -0700
> From: Jack Antonio <scr287 at sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] RE: Bomber Radio Pictures
> To: "Todd, KA1KAQ" <ka1kaq at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Falls, Jim" <Jim.Falls at conservation.ca.gov>,
> Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID: <4443EFF3.6020409 at sbcglobal.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Todd and the group,
>
> As much as I would dearly love to operate either
> the command or liason set from a B-17, I just don't
> think it's going to happen.
>
> The only way I see it happening is if one of the flight
> crew was an enthusiastic ham who shared our enjoyment of
> the equipment.
>
> I shudder to think of just letting someone show their
> ham license and then getting access to the radios, they
> would be ruined in short order. Let's face it, the
> technical skills needed to tune up and operate an
> SCR-274N(let alone a BC-375) just aren't there in
> most of todays hams.
>
> The use of the radios would have to be closely
> monitored and supervised, frequencies would have
> to chosen for each area, a decision made as to
> AM or CW (I'd choose CW), lots of details.
>
> Plus the time and expense of maintaining the radios
> (lets see, given the prices of 211's these days, one
> plane ride equals 4 211's), I doubt if the owners of
> the aircraft, even if they cared, would want the
> hassle.
>
> Another problem I have heard about is that theft
> and vandalism is a problem that the groups have
> with the "walk through" tours. In the pictures that
> were just posted, I noticed the tube
> cover is missing from the BC-375, when that aircraft
> was in Reno a few years ago, that cover was there.
> I wonder if it became someone's souvenir.
>
> There was a B-17 that came to Carson City a few years
> ago, I don't know the group, but the radio installation,
> as well as the rest of the aircraft were impressive. I had
> a long talk with one of the crew(who was unusually friendly)
> about the workings of the bomb release mechanisms. Even the
> IFF was installed, in the gunners compartment just behind
> the radio room bulkhead.
>
> I think our best bet would be to see if something could
> be worked out with one of the B-17s on display at a museum,
> sort of an "open radio room" day similar to the "open
> cockpit day" that the Castle AFB museum has.
>
> Jack
>
> Jack Antonio WA7DIA
> scr287 at sbcglobal.net
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:21:33 -0400
> From: "Todd, KA1KAQ" <ka1kaq at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] RE: Bomber Radio Pictures
> To: "Jack Antonio" <scr287 at sbcglobal.net>
> Cc: "Falls, Jim" <Jim.Falls at conservation.ca.gov>,
> Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID:
> <9ccb8c510604171321l760c5c2dvce3d70170de84bc9 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 4/17/06, Jack Antonio <scr287 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Todd and the group,
>>
>> As much as I would dearly love to operate either
>> the command or liason set from a B-17, I just don't
>> think it's going to happen.
>>
>> The only way I see it happening is if one of the flight
>> crew was an enthusiastic ham who shared our enjoyment of
>> the equipment.
>
> Maybe if you're one of the $4K sponsors? (o:
>
>> Another problem I have heard about is that theft
>> and vandalism is a problem that the groups have
>> with the "walk through" tours. In the pictures that
>> were just posted, I noticed the tube
>> cover is missing from the BC-375, when that aircraft
>> was in Reno a few years ago, that cover was there.
>> I wonder if it became someone's souvenir.
>
> Actually, I thought the same thing, Jack - but if you look again, you
> can see the corner of it at the bottom edge of the picture. Maybe Stu
> removed it for the shot, or perhaps a crew member stores their lunch
> in there. Plenty of room with the tubes missing. But yes - I almost
> included that in my original post: knobs, levers, anything that can be
> pulled, pryed, or otherwise forced off is seen as a potential souvenir
> to some. It happens in museums where people are allowed to touch
> things, so it's no surprise.
>
> I think that many of the newer restoration efforts now pay much more
> attention to the forgotten details like radio gear, gun sights, and so
> on. As Dave said, it's not going to add that much additional weight to
> the aircraft and would bring a lot more character to the restoration,
> making up for it in my opinion.
>
>> I think our best bet would be to see if something could
>> be worked out with one of the B-17s on display at a museum,
>> sort of an "open radio room" day similar to the "open
>> cockpit day" that the Castle AFB museum has.
>
> That perhaps combined with actual gear set up and operating as Jim
> mentioned they plan to do. Even for those who aren't as anal about
> details as we are tend to enjoy and appreciate the funny black box
> with knobs when it actually works and produces noises that they can
> identify with. "Wow, they had to listen to THAT??"
>
> I think the biggest issue most places fear in opening things up too
> much is the added wear and tear on surfaces, doors, handles, hinges,
> or anything that would see a lot of use. Vandalism could be handled
> simply by having someone on station with the gear as long as the room
> is open, making sure no one pocketed anything. Radio rooms are pretty
> tight quarters and would limit the number of people who could visit at
> any one time, simplifying matters even more.
>
> The biggest leap forward is having knowledgeable people on hand to
> operate, maintain, restore, and handle such things. Not a big deal if
> the group is receptive, but I've heard other stories like the one
> Larry relates. Reminds me a lot of radio clubs: it starts out well
> enough, then evolves into someone's turf with all of the usual control
> issues and biases. Unlike radio clubs though, the warbird situation is
> much more acute since there just aren't as many around.
>
> ~ Todd KA1KAQ
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:28:50 -0700
> From: barry tuttleman <btuttleman at worldnet.att.net>
> Subject: [Milsurplus] ID'ing a military cabinet drawer, 80 FT-241-A
> xtals
> To: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID: <4443FA82.20005 at worldnet.att.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> looking for identification/application of the following: looks like a
> military cabinet drawer, unmarked on the outside; approximately
> 8"x8"x2"; contains 80 NOS (?) xtals - freq range is 20.00mc to 27.9mc in
> 100kc steps (marked "Channel 0" to "Channel 79"). xtals are marked, on
> the pin side, as follows:
>
> SIGNAL CORPS US ARMY
> FT-241-A
> WESTERN ELECTRIC NEW YORK, NY
>
> very clean set; also looking for a price range for selling; photos here:
>
> http://home.att.net/~btuttleman1/1drawer1.jpg
> http://home.att.net/~btuttleman1/1drawer2.jpg
> http://home.att.net/~btuttleman1/1drawer3.jpg
> http://home.att.net/~btuttleman1/1drawer4.jpg
>
> tia,
> barry
> carson city, nv
> --
> Barry Tuttleman
> Carson City, Nevada
>
> electronics-related website:
> http://home.att.net/~btuttleman2/electron.html
>
> industrial-related website:
> http://home.att.net/~btuttleman/barrysite.html
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> End of Milsurplus Digest, Vol 24, Issue 28
> ******************************************
More information about the Milsurplus
mailing list