[Milsurplus] BC-348Q being cheap

[Ray Fantini]

Many of the items that you site as cost reductions can also be seen as application of value engineering, to that extent that was any additional benefit derived from the separate HFO and regulator? Never noticed any drift in a Q myself, and what radio designed after 1940 used 6K7 tubes? Point to point construction was what everyone used post war, maybe Tektronix and one or two other kept the idea of the terminal mounted components but I worked on enough of that old Tektronix style stuff to know troubleshooting and replacement were not quick or easy. And as to the antenna trimmer, think that was useless. Maybe another knob to twist but in terms of providing a useful function all it did was add another thing to play with. I will still stand by my statement that the Wells Gardner design was an improvement over the early design.
Contract or order numbers 11415-WF-43 and 928-DAY-DE for Wells Gardner BC-348Q receivers were being issued in 1943 and the contract order numbers 11414-WF-43 along with 8980-WF-43 for the Belmont Radio BC-348R also being 1943 If the BC-348Q were a low cost version of the early design why did the government continue to purchase a more expensive R version?  My speculation is the requirement was so great that the government continued to buy the old design built by RCA and Belmont Radio because they needed every radio they were able to get? Perhaps if the need were not so great less of the older design would have been produced?
There is no question on the Wells Gardner design being newer with the first contract I see being issued for the BC-348J under 832-CHI-42 at least a year after RCA and Belmont Radio were producing the BC-348C and H under 1780-NY-41 and 2356-CHI-41
I will continue to beat the drum on the Wells Gardner updated design being just as good as the original 1936 design. Perhaps at the end of the day this is just a personal preference thing but for me  I will not accept that the Wells Gardner designed BC-348J,N or Q are somehow sub standard to the Belmont Radio or RCA radio.
Ray F


________________________________
From: WA5CAB at cs.com [WA5CAB at cs.com]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 7:25 PM
To: Ray Fantini; milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: BC-348Q being cheap

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