[MRCA] BC-224 vs BC-348

[Herb Mooney]

Thank you, good info for a NOOB :-) So offering a working restored BC-224
with dynamotor for a working restored or original condition BC-348 with
dynamotor might be a good trade or of interest to someone of the WWII radio
persuasion? This BC-224 is a beauty, but I am trying to recreate the B-29
radio room in my mobile P-30 Bomber Step-Van (bread/UPS Truck). The BC-224
isn't exactly correct for a B-29 setup.


<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>

<#m_6176129639353964056_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 1:56 PM Doran Platt <jeepp at comcast.net> wrote:

> Concur with Ray on almost all.  The non-concur is Ford vs. Chevy. I prefer
> the other-than J, N, and Q models. Much easier to remove the "modules".
> Also, arguably easier to recap.  That said, the alignment variable caps on
> other than J, N, and Q models are more robust. The other than models are
> exhibiting split collars allowing the cap to short. The J, N, and Q models
> have non-shielded cans for Xtal filter and BFO.  But, when any model works,
> it does work. Antenna trimmer? Your call.  IMHO......
> Jeep K3HVG
>
> On 05/31/2023 11:13 AM EDT Ray Fantini <rafantini at salisbury.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> May be wrong but I always though the BC-224 was the twelve volt version of
> the BC-348 and was paired up with things like the BC-191 transmitters for
> ground use and the BC-348 was most frequently paired with the ART-13 for
> the AN/ARC-8, then again the SCR-193 for ground operation used a BC-312
> with a BC-191 transmitter, BC-312 and 342 receivers were more a ground
> radio where the BC-224 and 348 were built lighter for air use?
>
> I have a BC-224 just because its so weird in being twelve volt but
> otherwise appears the same as a 348, personally I prefer the later
> production run BC-348Q  over the older design 224/348 although I think all
> were in production at the same time. Don’t think any of them are a good
> retirement investment. Collect what you like or find fun to use, once you
> get into perceived value things go downhill fast!
>
>
>
> Ray F/KA3EKH
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net <mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net> *On
> Behalf Of *Herb Mooney
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 31, 2023 10:41 AM
> *To:* mrca at mailman.qth.net
> *Subject:* [MRCA] BC-224 vs BC-348
>
>
>
>
>
> I have both, and was wondering if one or the other was more desirable from
> a collector standpoint. I plan to have both working eventually, the BC-224
> in the shack and the BC-348 in a mobile environment, both teamed up with
> ART-13s.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Herb - W4BCH
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> MRCA mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mrca
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:MRCA at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> MRCA mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mrca
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:MRCA 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/mrca/attachments/20230531/dc2dee56/attachment-0001.html>