[Milsurplus] More MBF bashing

[Ray Fantini]

Your response brings up more questions than it answers. Ok, the MBF is a late war or post war design but what's the point of a radio that operates in the VHF low band television allocation? 
Everyone knew that television was going to be low band VHF and that's the future, that along with the section next to that being the old FM broadcast allocation so what a terrible place to operate a radio. Prior to that installation of VHF FM for all local maritime communications in the sixties and seventies most ship to ship short range was HF AM not low band VHF AM, can see where the MBF may be a nice little radio for harbor, service and patrol craft but thought that was the role of the TCS and later URC family of radios. URC-7 has to be a late forties design, cannot imagine that being designed any later then 1950 and the URC-35 replaced that by the sixties. Think given the choice between a URC-7 and a TCS would take the TCS!  All of the URT/URR and the TDQ stuff operated just above the MBF or old TBS and would not net with any of that low band VHF stuff so the MBF, TBS and TBY all appear to be a line that dies with the MBF, cannot imagine anyone using a TBY by 45 considering the newer and far superior VHF low band FM sets that were available, so was it that the MBF design was in the pipeline and produced regardless of need? 
RF

-----Original Message-----
From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Mike Morrow
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 1:24 PM
To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Convoy radios and the MBF

Robert wrote:

> The 115 VAC/VDC power supply for the TBY was built to allow usage of 
> the TBY on merchant shipping equipped only with MF and HF CW rigs.  
> Much of the pre-war merchant shipping had 115 VDC systems.  It could 
> talk to the TBS on the escorts.  The little MBF was built to replace it.

The other issue that rules out the possibility of MBF use by anyone in WWII except possibly in the very last days of WWII is its date of introduction.

The MBF is not even listed in the January 1945 SHIPS 242A (List of Naval Radio, Radar, and Sonar Equipment).  The only date I find on the *preliminary* instruction manual for the MBF is 13 June 1945 on an addendum sheet at the front.  It appears to me that the earliest at-sea use of the MBF could not have been much earlier than mid-1945.

BTW, both of the above cited manuals are excellent products that I got from from Robert's catalog.  SHIP 242A is possibly the most useful historical document in my library.

Ray wrote:

> Short of use on a museum ship why would anyone want a Collins MBF?

Well, it's a lot easier to put on 6m than is the BC-1000-A.  It's an interesting design both electrically and mechanically.  It is "Collins"
after all, and prominently marked as such on the front.  But more generally that raises questions like this:

Why would anyone want a ARA receiver that doesn't cover a ham band, or a
AN/APN-1 radio altimeter, or an ABK or SCR-695 IFF set, or a AN/ARW-17 guided bomb receiver, or a AN/APN-9 LORAN A set, or a ZB VHF homing set, or even that BC-1000-A FM set?  Ask Jack Antonio why he went to the effort of firing up his RT-45/ARQ-1 "Sandy" HF/VHF jamming set.  The whole subject of radio equipment design and use by the military in wartime is fascinating and much more educational from a historical and technical standpoint than
only that of the common gear that has or had direct ham-use capability.   

> Have seen them before and always wondered if this was the radio that 
> would have been supplied to merchant vessels for use in convoys?

I think that is a very reasonable application, but only if the MBF had come out a couple of years earlier.  Obviously the large multi-unit TBS sets would *not* have been convenient to install on merchant shipping, or even smaller naval vessels for which the MBF is ideal.  The MBF operates from 115 VAC or VDC.
Its power supply automatically configures itself...it doesn't even matter what polarity is presented to two AC/DC power connector terminals.

> There is a MBF currently listed on that place, item # 140625412601

(Link http://www.ebay.com/itm/140625412601 )

It's quite remarkable for condition, but unfortunately it is missing the unobtainable control covers (which the seller commendably makes very clear).
Also, the shock mounts have been removed and small pads of rubber substituted.
Otherwise it looks like NOS condition.  Hams almost always discarded the covers on the MBF.  I have one MBF COL-43065 that is complete with all covers and shock mount plate COL-10479, but it is the only one that complete that I've ever come across.  I've never seen the COL-10406 accessory case that would have been mounted above the RT unit.

Mike / KK5F