[Milsurplus] Best BC-348 if any

Tue Jul 14 12:36:05 EDT 2015

Ray, you are entitled to your opinion but I honestly don't see anything modern about point to point wiring.  "Modern" (post WW2) military construction techniques use modular construction where whole assemblies are held to the mainframe with a few captive screws and an Oldham coupler for mechanical components. Nothing like that in the J, N and Q examples.  Yes, some point to point wiring is in post Korean War electronics but so are canvas phenolic circuit boards or insulated stand offs and wiring harnesses connecting circuit elements. 
The reason you see so many of the Belmont and Well Garner radios is that they made 80% of the 100,000 or so built for the war.  This according to Ken Corwin's BC-348 webpage.  As for modern components, Mil Specs for components got real tough in the early 1950's as the cost for the new weapon's systems went through the roof.  Nothing cause more grief then loosing a B-47 or scrubbing a mission for the failure of a capacitor, relay or tube.  
Most, if not all of these Mil Specs have been rescinded since most modern off the shelf components have as good a reliability as the older Mil Spec components at a fraction of the cost in adjusted for inflation dollars.  None of the BC-348's were built with these caps, resistors and such.  Reliability was a different concept in WW2 when the average bomber wasn't expected to last all that long in combat and aircrews were expendable.  Jim
      From: Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>
 To: "milsurplus at mailman.qth.net" <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> 
 Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 8:57 AM
 Subject: [Milsurplus] Best BC-348 if any

Basic premise, the J, N and Q versions of the receiver are the shape of things to come. They perform the exact same function, were constructed with modern parts when compared to the early design and were produced using modern construction techniques at a reduced cost. How is this not equal if not superior? Perhaps the overall demand for production is the only reason that the older version stayed in production so long.
Anecdotal evidence, I have been doing this for a while now and had the opportunity to visit many museums and see radio installation. In addition to this have read a book or two and have tended to notice that aircraft that were considered obsolete and disposed of in large numbers after the Second World War such as the B-17 and B-24 used the older version BC-348 paired with the BC-375 where more modern aircraft such as the B-29 or C-54 have BC-348 J, N and Q receivers and AN/ART-13 transmitters (AN/ARC-8). In post war aircraft such as the B-36 where the ARC-8 was used I have never seen any photographic evidence of anything other than a J, N or Q in use. Perhaps because of the use of what would be considered prewar components and the difficulty involved in support the older series of receivers they were withdrawn from service first? Why are service manuals produced well into the nineteen fifties and readily available for the J, N and Q and not the primitive series? Maybe it's be
 cause they were mostly withdrawn from service and surpluses by that time? None of this speaks well for the superiority of the original design.
Over the years I have owned and worked on both series of receivers, in completely stock configuration and heavily modified and my personal preference has been and will still be towards the Q as being the last and best of the line. An antenna trimmer or possibly an additional mark on the dial is not enough for me to consider any one of the receiver's superior to the other, but if it's a question of my opinion I will stick with the last produced version. 
Additional Nonsense, there are over two dozen YouTube videos on the BC-348, with more showing the Q family of receivers then all the other combined. My video on modifications of the BC-348Q has over thirty two thousand views, more than the R, O and C variants combined! You can see it at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKRez8euQU4

Ray F

______________________________________________________________
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