[Milsurplus] BC-652 Ad Nauseam

[Paul Thekan]

I am confused why in the write up on the SCR 506 that Ray quoted that it
said :

"but takes the patience of Job to sort out the millions of tuning units"

What tuning units....the SCR 506 didn't use any tuning units.

The BC 191 in the SCR 193 that it replaced used a few tuning units

The radios IMO opinion that used a lot of tuning units were the GF/RU and
SCR 183/283 radios...and the BC 375 to a lesser extent but still a few.

Paul
N6FEG


On Thu, Jun 6, 2024, 9:16 AM howard holden <holden7471 at msn.com> wrote:

> It's also one of the most "fun" receivers to operate. Used one at the USS
> Ling in NJ for 11 years. Just a great receiver and built like a battleship.
> Sure wish I had one now!
>
> Howie WB2AWQ
>
> ________________________________________
> From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <
> milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> on behalf of Ken <
> kgordon2006 at frontier.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2024 8:58 AM
> To: Ray Fantini; milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-652 Ad Nauseam
>
> Yes, Ray, I always found the comment on the RAL to be particularly
> amusing: being a very "economically challenged" young ham, I used an NIB
> RAL-7 as my main station receiver for around 12 years for every mode, and
> found it to be a superb receiver. I still consider it to be the finest HF
> TRF receiver ever built.
>
> My ONLY complaint with it was the non-existent frequency read-out.
>
> I also had an RAK. I used it to copy the VLF Navy stations for code
> practice. One thing I was surprised about was that the RAK provided "single
> signal" selectivity: the "other side" of "zero-beat" simply wasn't there. I
> still don't know how RCA accomplished that.
>
> Ken W7EKB
>
>
>
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Ray Fantini via Milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Date: 6/6/24 07:13 (GMT-08:00)
> To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-652 Ad Nauseam
>
> Many may regard the authors comments as derogatory but I find them
> entertaining.
> Especiallly like the comment on page 71 of the manual with regard to the
> RAL.
> Ray F/KA3EKH
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20240606/557e9765/attachment-0001.html>