[Milsurplus] BC-348Q

[Mike Morrow]

Hue wrote:

>...first ones don't have the pretty useless LF band. In fact, i don't think 
>the Army needed the LF band for the vast majority of its planes.

The LF/MF band would have been very useful to the USAAF.  All the civilian control towers transmitted most of their business on 278 kc, or on frequencies nearby.  It would doubtless have been useful to have that capability on USAAF aircraft, aside from the coverage provided by the SCR-274-N or the RDF.  I think the need to accomodate the standard civil aviation traffic control frequency pair of 278 kc and 3105 kc was likely one of the reasons that the USAAF finally decided the BC-696-A 3000 to 4000 kc transmitter was worth adding to the SCR-274-N.

As a ham and radio listener in the mid- and late-1960s, I spent a lot of time copying the maritime Morse traffic heard from 420 to 512 kc.  There was continuous local airport weather available on the NDB frequency at the local Air Force base.  So the LF/MF band coverage was quite useful and entertaining even for a hobbyist.  Not much there now, though!

>I'd like to canvas people's opinions of the BC-348 versus BC-312.

I'm sure the BC-312 types of receivers were more than adequate in their intended military environments.  But as a hobbyist's set, the BC-312 is way too heavy, doesn't have LF/MF coverage, has all those superfluous transmitter jacks, and has a very large and ugly power connector on the front panel.

Mike / KK5F