[Milsurplus] BC-348Q being cheap

[Mike Morrow]

Robert wrote:

> The one that does (1945), just lists "BC-224-(*)" and "BC-348-(*)" @ $327.

That sounds about what I've read somewhere for a late-WWII BC-348-*.  That
wasn't at all inexpensive though.   Adjusted for inflation, that amount in
1945 dollars equates to $4100 today.

> The BC-224 was designed before 1940...

My BC-224-A manual is dated 1936!  It is hard to believe that such an
outstanding and long-lived design dates from so early, even taking into
account the changes made after the BC-224-A.

> but even so, I would object to calling the double-ended tubes in the
> majority of models "obsolete by 1940".

One can't well argue against the success of the older design.  Some
BC-348-R versions were still flying in older USAF aircraft in the
early 1970s.

> 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.

Very true.  There were no 12A6 tubes in 1936.  Not even the later
K/L/R and J/N/Q models used a 12A6 for AF.  They use a 6K6...I don't
know when that became available.  The 12A6 was available before 1939.

> 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.

The J/N/Q models eliminated another expensive device...the RF gain pot that
was concentric to the main tuning capacitor shaft.  It reduced second RF stage
gain as higher frequencies were tuned.

> 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.

I have an absolutely pristine BC-348-Q with its original mount and connector.
I display it as a thing of untainted beauty.  For my AN/ARC-8 I use a BC-348-R
whose extent of usage and wear seems comparable to the T-47A/ART-13 with which
it is paired.  I pair the earlier-still BC-348-P with a BC-375-E for a SCR-287-A.
The R model is really my favorite of all.  At least its tube layout makes more
sense than that of the J/N/Q models...it just doesn't seem "right" to have the
AF output tube on the same deck as the two RF stage tubes.

It would be wrong to interpret "cheaper to build", which the Wells-Gardner
J/N/Qs no doubt were (significantly), as meaning "more poorly made".

Regardless of vintage, the BC-224/348 is likely the most successful receiver
design of its era...really great engineering!

73,
Mike / KK5F