[Milsurplus] BC-348Q being cheap

[WA5CAB at cs.com]

Well, they were cheaper.  That is supposed to have been one of the primary 
design criteria.  Unfortunately, two of the three Signal Corps Pricing 
Guides that I have (1946 and 1955) still list the BC-312 family but not the 
BC-224 family.  The one that does (1945), just lists "BC-224-(*)" and 
"BC-348-(*)" @ $327.  Whether that was average of all production or average of all 
models there is no way to tell.

The BC-224 was designed before 1940 but even so, I would object to calling 
the double-ended tubes in the majority of models "obsolete by 1940".  
Performance figures for single-ended and double-ended octal equivalents are 
substantially the same (the guts are the same and I've even seen a few of several 
types with the same can shape).  But the single-ended versions were 
obviously cheaper to build.  And the applications using them were as well.  So they 
replaced the earlier ones.  In some cases (although not so much with the HF 
stuff), circuits using the double ended tubes may be more stable without 
added shielding than the same circuit using single-ended versions.  As far as 
the 41 goes, I've often wondered why they didn't use a 12A6.  Maybe RCA 
wasn't making them at the time the BC-224 was designed.

Point to point wiring isn't any better, it's just cheaper.  And it looks 
sloppy.  But it's cheaper, and doesn't require as much care of the workers, 
which is why it caught on.  One practical downside today is that it's much 
more difficult to spot ham-hacks in a point to point wired set.

The BC-348-JNQ had the antenna trimmer deleted to save money.  That's 
cheaper in both senses of the word.  The BFO transformer is cheaper in dollars.  
It probably works as well as the others but it's more fragile.  I've sold 
every unbroken one that I ever managed to salvage.  The JNQ also eliminated 
the HFO B+ regulator, which was cheaper.  I've forgotten what the other 
cost-saving measures were.

Anyway, I don't collect aircraft sets (since the late 1980's) but if I did, 
I wouldn't pay as much for a JNQ as I would for the others.

Robert D

In a message dated 09/07/2012 15:47:10 PM Central Daylight Time, 
RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu writes: 
> With all due respect I am questioning your statement:
> 
> Judging from AN and T.O. dates, I think that it is incorrect to refer to 
> the models using single ended tubes as the "newer" models.  They did not 
> supercede the "older" models.  A more accurate characterization would be to 
> call them the "cheaper" models.  Based on manual dates, the BC-348-J, K or L, 
> and M all date from early to mid 1942.  And models in each of the three 
> contractor groups were produced through the end of the War.
> 
> There are no differences in specification's or mission requirements in any 
> of the series. Please justify how you can make a statement as to quality 
> of the components or complete radio such as a BC-348Q as being a "cheaper" 
> version of the same series? The J, N and Q were manufactured with newer 
> vacuum tubes and using military approved point to point construction technique 
> that was becoming and by wars end the standard for all electronic 
> construction. The RCA, Belmont Radio and Stromberg-Carlson manufactured radios all 
> used tubes like the 6K7 and "41" that were obsolete by 1939 The 6K7 was 
> introduced in 1935 and replaced by the 6SK7 in 1938 that was around until being 
> replaced by the 6BA6 in 1946, The UX6 base type 41 tube was replaced by 
> the 6K6 in 1935 The Wells Gardner receivers used tubes and construction 
> techniques that were state of the art in 1941, not the prewar design that 
> everyone else was churning out. 
> The Wells Gardner BC-348Q has always been and will continue to be a 
> favorite of mine. I have owned many BC-348 R and Q versions in modified and all 
> original configurations and have never considered one any better than the 
> other but have a personal preference for the newer component and construction 
> of the Q 
> I have on occasion seen this same statement in regards to the Wells 
> Gardner built sets and would like to discuss in this open forum what information 
> you and others have.
> 
> Ray F

Robert Downs - Houston
wa5cab dot com (Web Store)
MVPA 9480