[Milsurplus] BC-348Q being cheap

[Bruce Gentry]

On 9/8/12 11:08 AM, Ray Fantini wrote:
> 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
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>


          Has anyone considered the unexpectedly high mortality of the 
airplanes these radio were installed in as a justification for the 
change in construction techniques?  When the "Flying Fortress" was 
designed, the AAF thought it would be nearly impossible to shoot down, 
and therefore, like a battleship,  deserved the best of construction in 
every way. It was expected the airplanes could fly tens or even hundreds 
of missions, so the terminal strip construction was perceived to have an 
advantage in durability over thousands of hours of vibration and battle. 
Once the horrible losses became apparent,  a simpler design that would 
be reliable and satisfactory for the expected lifetime of the airplane 
and crew  would make sense from a cost and material perspective. Built 
good enough to get the job done well but no more, and conserving scarce 
resources both material and human.   How do others on this group feel 
about the often heard view that the "Q" model is a better performer?


       Bruce Gentry, KA2IVY