[Milsurplus] My closing comments ... was Re: Strong Stomach Needed.

[Michael Tauson]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Mike Morrow<kk5f at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Modifications made by the military to equipment as part of the equipment's
> service history are as authentically significant as the original design of the
> equipment.  Look at those R-584/MRC-20 units made from a BC-348, or
> those T-412/ART-13B units made from ATC, T-47, and T-47A units, or
> all the MWOs performed on gear during its service period.

This was the first half of my point.  I took your statement "In other
words, I'm interested in how the equipment performed, exactly as
issued, for the intended customer." in its most literal sense (I know,
a dirty trick for which I owe you an apology) since the equipment had
been modified from the original to fit Navy specifications.  Precisely
why it was done, I don't know but I'm sure someone thought it was a
good idea at the time.

The other half was aimed at John, that being the part of my
re-installing a dynamotor since it came without one hence wasn't an
intact piece as purchased and I actually have to open it up to make it
complete.

I have several groups into which equipment here falls. These are as follows:

1.) Operational as built with no modifications.  These are pieces that
I can light up with all the original components intact without having
them snap, crackle, pop or let smoke out.

2.) Repaired.  This is equipment that failed the first test that has
required things like cap restuffing or replacement or other component
replacements just to make them work.  These are kept as original as
possible - or at least original appearing.

3.) Restored.  Restored equipment has been unconverted and returned as
close as possible to original condition.  Sometimes this involves
filling holes and repairing other indescretions so that outwardly they
are original and they have as close as possible to original components
but taking the covers off will show where things like chassis repair
work has been done.

4.) Converted.  These are too far gone to be unconverted although
could be used to make mockups of long disappeared equipment.  The
"50s-60s command set rig" will have these on board.

5.) Strippers and bare chasses.  The name says it all.  These are good
for building things on but that's about it.

While "House Beautiful" is pretty, I prefer equipment that's been used
and has some character to it.  It has a story to tell and, while I may
never know what that story is, that makes it unique and special.

> Today there is no need to modify in any manner 65-year old equipment just
> to get on the air.

Yep, and I would never advocate doing so.  At the same time, there is
plenty of pre-converted equipment floating around for those who have
the urge to "make it work gooder" or something.  The BC-696 I
mentioned a while back is such a case.

This is a coin with two sides.  One is that of the military historian
who wants intact as-built (or altered via MWOs et al) equipment.  The
other is the person interested in ham radio's history and converted
equiment is most definitely a part of that.  And then there's people
like me who stand the coin on edge and see both sides.

This has been fun but let's return to the regularly scheduled broadcast.

Best regards,

Michael, WH7HG
-- 
http://www.nationalmssociety.org/chapters/NTH/index.aspx
http://wh7hg.blogspot.com/
http://kludges-other-blog.blogspot.com
Hiki Nô!