[Milsurplus] BC-221-xx v. LM-xx Questions

[J Forster]

Mike Morrow wrote:

> >First, what is the family tree of the units? Specifically I was
> >surprised at how early the LM-18 design and components (especially the
> >tubes) appeared compared to the BC-221. Was this Navy conservatism or
> >what? Was the BC-221 a re-engineered LM-xx?
>
> What do you find superior about the BC-221?

I didn't mean superior...   just more modern. The use of metal tubes, for example.

> Most LM-* units have a signal tone modulator, a very useful feature that none of the BC-221 variants have.

Includin the BC-221-AK ??  Mine has a modulator.

> The LM-* units are smaller, not having that big heavy wooden or metal box wrapped around it like the BC-221 has.  The calibration book fits more compactly to the LM-*, without the heavy panel-door mounted contraption that the BC-221 uses.

The BC-221 books, being attached, are lost far less often than the LM-xx ones. I have 4 or 5 LMs w/o books, making them less useful and less collectible.

-John

> [Sure, I know that the LM-20 has a pretty good-sized water-tight box around the electroniccs, but even that is preferable to the BC-221.]
>
> I prefer the LM-* as a CFI over the SCR-211.  It's one of the few pieces of WWII US Navy gear that is better than the USAAF equivalent, IMHO.
>
> Mike / KK5F
> ex-USN