[Milsurplus] BC-348 series CORRECTION

Tue Jun 27 16:10:16 EDT 2017

Indeed anything is possible. I am saying that as far as I am concerned I do not think there was an operational or training need that required a AC powered aircraft receiver that warranted retrofitting a BC-348, the same arguments have been around for years about the AC version of the later ARR-41, at least with the BC-348 there is evidence that a kit exist for AC conversion but I still stand by the statement that this was manufactured for the Ham and SWL market.
By the time we get to Korea or the Cold War the BC-348 was still a capable AM aircraft radio for limited HF use but out classed by what was on the market for HF communications. If we are looking at documents from Hallicrafters that have 48/49 dates that’s around the same time the first generation of Collins 51J/R-388 receivers were being deployed. That was the future of HF radio in ground operations, what would a perspective radio operator or technician learn from something like a kluged together BC-348? By the fifties and later in the sixties we were in a world of R-388, SP-600 and finally R-390 receivers. We may have all learned a lot from the BC-348, I know I have but in military terms cannot imagine much being taught or time being spent on such an obsolete platform beyond 1950. But the Ham market would have been there for that receiver from post WW2 up to the seventies. That’s where all the AC power supplies were.

At least that’s how I see it and as my wife will be the first to tell you it’s not like I have never been wrong before.

Ray F/KA3EKH

From: James Whartenby [mailto:antqradio at sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 2:44 PM
To: Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>; WA5CAB at cs.com; milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-348 series CORRECTION

Ray
As I understand it, there were perhaps thousands of BC-312 / BC-342 receivers made but 10's of thousands of BC-348's were made.  Was there any other HF receiver made in these numbers for WW2?

Sorry that Hallicrafters isn't up to your build standards but it is obvious, at least to me, that this was a military rush job to meet a specific need.  Could have been used in Tech School as a teaching aid for all I know.

Yes, thousands of BC-348's were disposed of after WW2.  When the Cold War broke out five years later, the brass was alarmed that not enough NOS BC-348's were in inventory to meet projected needs but this is a discussion for another time....
Jim

________________________________
From: Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu<mailto:RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>>
To: James Whartenby <antqradio at sbcglobal.net<mailto:antqradio at sbcglobal.net>>; "WA5CAB at cs.com<mailto:WA5CAB at cs.com>" <WA5CAB at cs.com<mailto:WA5CAB at cs.com>>; "milsurplus at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>" <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 1:12 PM
Subject: RE: [Milsurplus] BC-348 series CORRECTION

At the time they were disposing of thousands of BC-348 receivers there were also huge mounds of BC-342 receivers that already worked on AC, have useable audio outputs and remote muting and were more selective and stable then the BC-348. The BC-342 was designed for ground CW/AM and RTTY communications unlike the BC-348, if you’re going to use anything why not use what’s already in the system and not try to re-invent the wheel?
If anything BC-348 receivers were needed in there 28 volt version to back up all the ARC-8 sets out in the air fleet, along with all the BC-348 that found their way into early B-36 and C-97 so why use something that you want to keep in its original form to meet a demand for something that you already have in inventory?
What possible application would there be for a AC powered BC-348 anyway? The SP-200/BC-779 and a plethora of other good AM radios were already in use for tower radios. They have 600 ohm balance outputs designed for running into phone lines and audio matrix systems that would be in a tower. Any serious communications channel would be using serious receivers like the AR-88 or products by National, once again I am not saying that it’s not a good receiver but why bother with trying to convert something that’s useful in its design to something that not? Especially when you already have receivers that do that job?
By 1948/49 receivers like the 51J/R-388 family appeared and they so far surpass any of the old BC-348 or BC-342 receivers any possible military need for those radios in any ground role was thru. All the SCR-199/299 and 399 sets in the field must have provided a glut of BC-342 receivers so once again why waste time and money on trying to re-fit a BC-348? Unless you’re a Ham or SWL.

The PF-298 is not convincing me of anything and no matter how long or until I see real evidence that the military had a AC powered BC-348 I will keep beating this drum.

Ray F/KA3EKH

From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> [mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of James Whartenby
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 1:43 PM
To: WA5CAB at cs.com<mailto:WA5CAB at cs.com>; milsurplus at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-348 series CORRECTION

I don't think so....

The photo of the FP-298 does not show four captive mounting screws like that which is seem in various photos of BC-348 dynamotor mounting plates.  Also the PF-298 is a flat plate with one simple stiffening bend while the dynamotor plates are stamp formed.  I don't see evidence of extra holes in the PF-298 plate.  It was not re-purposed but built from scratch for the government, IMHO.

Perhaps the reason for an AC power supply for the BC-348 is that this receiver was available and was good enough to perform the job at hand.  All of the other receivers that were previously mentioned would cost much more to either purchase or transfer from another location or agency then the cost of the retrofit AC power supply.  The FP-298 is just a cost effective solution to a particular problem.

As for the FP-298 being a Navy program, I'm not so sure.  The Navy had it's own HF radios and the BC-224 / BC-348 were Signal Corps designs.  So this sort of bucks the Navy trend on equipment, as I understand it.  Besides, Government Source Inspectors can accept items for any government agency but they use the same rubber stamp for all.
Jim

________________________________
From: WA5CAB--- via Milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>>
To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-348 series CORRECTION

The Hallicrafters EP-298 was built using surplus parts for the surplus market after the War.  It was built on salvaged DM-24 and DM-28 base plates, also using the salvaged original terminal strip.  The rest of the components were also surplus and sometimes have various military QA stamps on them.  The Navy did have some BC-348's later in the War.  Mostly in US AAF aircraft transferred to the Navy, like the B-24 and B-25.  The Navy acceptance stamp would have been on the DM-28 from one of those transactions.  Hallicrafters didn't waste any time or money removing any such markings.  I have also seen EP-298's with the typical orange Signal Corps (or AAF) QA stamps on the bottom of the mounting plate, sometimes with part of the stamp cut away.

After the War, the Navy, like the Army and from 1948 the Air Force, had plenty of AC operated radio receivers already on hand that were being surplus'd out by the thousands.  And if they hadn't, they had plenty of aircraft receivers already on hand that they would have converted instead of getting into the inter-service hassle of trying to obtain sets from the Army to convert.

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

In a message dated 06/27/2017 09:25:10 AM Central Daylight Time, antqradio at sbcglobal.net<mailto:antqradio at sbcglobal.net> writes:
Ray
Can't speculate on why the Navy or any other service would need AC power for the BC-348 but I easily found a photo and schematic of a Hallicrafters made power supply at: http://www.ohio.edu/people/postr/bapix/BC348Q_3.htm

Jim

______________________________________________________________
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<mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net<http://www.qsl.net/>
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20170627/f6b05025/attachment-0001.html>