[Milsurplus] Best BC-348 if any

[WA5CAB--- via Milsurplus]

Sorry, but assumes facts not in evidence.  The last known publication 
updates were as follows:

BC-348-JNQ             T.O. 12R2-3BC348-2      15 APR 1957
BC-348-HKLR          T.O. 12R2-3BC-112        15 APR 1957 (PLUS SEVERAL 
BC-224 MODELS)
BC-348-EMOPS       AN 16-40BC224-3          21 SEP 1951 (PLUS SEVERAL 
BC-224 MODELS)

The 1957 revisions were administrive.  The last useful revisions to any of 
the three were in either 1948 or 1951.  After that, it was all either pub 
number changes or deletions of information that might be of use to the 
collector.

Also, AN/MRC-20 (first manual publication date 05 MAR 1954) included either 
R-584/MRC-20 or R-589/MRC-20.  R-584 was a modified BC-348-Q.  R-589 was a 
modified BC-348-R.

In a message dated 07/14/2015 08:57:43 AM Central Daylight Time, 
RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu writes: 
> 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 difficulty involved in support the older series of receivers they were withdrawn 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 cause they were mostly withdrawn from service and surpluses by that time?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
> 

Robert & Susan Downs - Houston
wa5cab dot com (Web Store)
MVPA 9480