[Milsurplus] Fwd: Re: LM/BC-221 stability

[Bruce Gentry]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [Milsurplus] LM/BC-221 stability
Date: 	Tue, 07 Jan 2014 08:43:05 -0500
From: 	Bruce Gentry <ka2ivy at verizon.net>
To: 	David Stinson <arc5 at ix.netcom.com>



This discussion of BC-221s has caused a question to arise regarding
their use on bombers. Did each radio operator set up the BC-375 with
their own BC-221, or did one plane do so and all the others  "spot"
him?  How about the drift of BC-375s, did the home base send a short
message frequently so the radio operator could zero beat it and be on
exact frequency for their reply?  Did each bomber make a report, or did
one or two report for them all?   What happened if the mission required
total radio silence both ways until it was time to report results.  Was
the BC-221 and BC-375 accurate enough to be on frequency?  This would be
far more important for CW than AM,  it is unlikely the inaccuracy would
be a problem on AM for a broad receiver. I have never met a veteran WW2
airborne radio operator to ask these questions, I wonder how many are
still left?...  :(

       Bruce Gentry   KA2IVY

On 1/7/14 7:55 AM, David Stinson wrote:
>  LMs that I've seen usually need a lot of the oil-filled caps replaced.
>  If you have one, like a bypass, on any of the voltage busses
>  and it's leaking, it can pull the oscillator regardless of the power
>  supply regulation.
>  Some of them a real bear to replace.
>
>  ______________________________________________________________
>  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
>