From quixote2 at ix.netcom.com  Wed Oct  1 06:17:43 2025
From: quixote2 at ix.netcom.com (Thomas Adams)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2025 10:17:43 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] TBW pics in field use
Message-ID: <f4ec3943-d726-5752-f925-0b3f94f46605@ix.netcom.com>

Yes, the film is DESTINATION GOBI. And yes, the tube in question was an 807.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hubert Miller <kargo_cult at msn.com>
Sent: Sep 30, 2025 3:48 PM
To: arc5 at mailman.qth.net <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
Cc: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net <Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] TBW pics in field use

Wasn't there a photo posted on Milsurplus some year B.P. ( Before Plague ) that showed TBW RBM setup, somewhere like Okinawa ? 
 
Also, altho i don't really recomnend it, the 1960s movie 'Destination Gobi' ( i think that was the title ) has the "rear view" of the TBW at a weather reporting station in Gobi desert WW2. A little imagination helps pick it out. Whoever wrote the script though, did have some inside knowledge of WW2 U.S. Navy wx reporting stations. I saw this movie way back in '60s and then a few decades later bought a DVD of it for not much money, privately made. What i really wanted to review was my memory of back then - one of the enlisted tells the officer they are out of business because of lack of a spare 807. At least i seem to recall that was the tube number, definitely not 1625 or 803. The station gets bombed, i don't recall if before or after replacement tube shortfall, and so they have no choice but to close down and travel on foot to China coast. I would rate movie maybe 5 - 6 stars out of 10. I feel i got my money's worth, definitely.
-Hue Miller
 
 
 
Sent from my Galaxy

 
 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251001/cebfc0d3/attachment.html>

From mark.k3msb at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 12:17:42 2025
From: mark.k3msb at gmail.com (Mark K3MSB)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 12:17:42 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Military Aviation Museum VA Beach (Non) Airshow
Message-ID: <CABdVoaB-XnXSKbFNHcyq7pZM9aO4fQ01nmWNi1KFZ9VuLSqgSg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Everyone

I will be with the reenactment group at the Military Aviation Museum in VA
Beach this Saturday and Sunday.   The airshow was cancelled due to aircraft
issues, but the reenactors will still be there.   If you come, please stop
by and introduce yourself.

I plan to have the following at the event:

BC-348Q  (Working)
BC-375 (Static display only)
DF Setup (Working)

73 Mark K3MSB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251001/d80be58e/attachment.html>

From scr274 at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 12:43:03 2025
From: scr274 at gmail.com (Ken Kinderman)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 12:43:03 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] looking for cd-307 adapter cable pl54 jack to pl55
	plug
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR20MB43745BCFD1DAAA85B72834C5E41AA@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
References: <PH0PR20MB43745BCFD1DAAA85B72834C5E41AA@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAKUjTOZK32CWKoatLmC02qiYnQqF4zuaAURziYDG67FP+5XYAA@mail.gmail.com>

I have a few. Most are new, a few are clones. The new ones are packed, but
be aware that after so many years the wire has taken a set such that the
folds are kind of permanent. If  anyone still needs one or two, I'll send
them postpaid. More than just a few, I'd need to get few $ for postage.

73,

Ken
W2eWL

On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 3:43?PM Hubert Miller <kargo_cult at msn.com> wrote:

>
>
> What's your application ?
> -Hue Miller
>
> Sent from my Galaxy
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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/20251001/04d0305d/attachment.html>

From mark.k3msb at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 13:13:08 2025
From: mark.k3msb at gmail.com (Mark K3MSB)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 13:13:08 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] SCR-287 (BC-375 & BC-348) WW II Operational Question
Message-ID: <CABdVoaAAv0H1LKBRPMz_W6smPvWs8TVwwWRSnH8h=pWRh4SFWg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Everyone

Was there any preference to the mode used during missions? I'm specifically
referring to the time before bombers were equipped with the SCR-522.

I checked my books and did web searching, but was not able to find an
answer. I find numerous references to HF frequencies used, but nothing that
indicates voice or CW.

73 Mark K3MSB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251001/c522fb2b/attachment.html>

From mjcal79 at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 13:37:55 2025
From: mjcal79 at gmail.com (Charlie L.)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 13:37:55 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] MC163 and getting the trailing wire outside
Message-ID: <CA+d3itasp97m0oqxLYJom3s_0RE5bZ4sJ1jicPqvdwU+jNyDmg@mail.gmail.com>

I may have asked about this on here before, but does anybody have an MC163,
it will be marked as such, but it goes on the end of the phenolic tube that
exits out the side of a B17 that the trailing wire antenna passes through.
The MC163 is the electrical connection for the RF to the wire, and mounts
on the rod end inside the plane.   Pic attached.  Just to show it all, the
other pics are of the whole assembly, (minus MC163) and consist of the tube
with metal bell end labelled F10,  the fuselage metal adapter FT470, and
the wooden ball held inside the FT470, the MC 476.  Maybe the wood ball was
made by the Bocce Ball company, who knows.  The last drawing is the
blueprint for the whole thing in the plane, and may be too big to post here,

Charlie W4MEC in NC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251001/816db5b7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MC163.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7448 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251001/816db5b7/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: F10.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 362429 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251001/816db5b7/attachment-0003.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Tube end.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 212407 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251001/816db5b7/attachment-0004.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: FT470  MT 476.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 230899 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251001/816db5b7/attachment-0005.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 15-8529 Trailing Wire Antenna copy.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3983474 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251001/816db5b7/attachment-0003.jpg>

From kgordon2006 at frontier.com  Wed Oct  1 13:43:55 2025
From: kgordon2006 at frontier.com (kgordon2006)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2025 10:43:55 -0700
Subject: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] SCR-287 (BC-375 & BC-348) WW II Operational
	Question
In-Reply-To: <CABdVoaAAv0H1LKBRPMz_W6smPvWs8TVwwWRSnH8h=pWRh4SFWg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1896446531.691012.1759340638460@frontier.com>

As I understand it from a previous exchange on the ARC5 forum, CW was very seldomly used for communication.Most was done by voice: AM in those days.Sometimes, CW was used unofficially in bombers (B-17, etc.) to signal the home airfield that they were on their way back.But this info is anecdotal, not official.Ken W7EKBSent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Mark K3MSB <mark.k3msb at gmail.com> Date: 10/1/25  10:13  (GMT-08:00) To: "Military Radio Collectors Association (mrca at mailman.qth.net)" <mrca at mailman.qth.net>, ARC5 <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>, List Milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> Subject: [ARC5] SCR-287 (BC-375 & BC-348) WW II Operational Question 


	
	
	
	


Hi EveryoneWas there any preference to the mode
used during missions?   I'm specifically referring to the time before
bombers were equipped with the SCR-522.I checked my books and did web
searching, but was not able to find an answer.    I find numerous
references to HF frequencies used, but nothing that indicates voice
or CW.73 Mark K3MSB


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251001/736f79ff/attachment.html>

From mjcal79 at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 13:49:45 2025
From: mjcal79 at gmail.com (Charlie L.)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 13:49:45 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] SCR-287 (BC-375 & BC-348) WW II Operational
	Question
Message-ID: <CA+d3itZ+SsDmf_wdjsqOiWtuFX3u5mN-E0zWnDdOcCTzThr7CA@mail.gmail.com>

I have talked to a couple B17 radio ops from WW II, and one from Britain
where some Lancasters had the BC375.  CW was the preferred mode, TX's were
set  up on the assigned freqs for the mission, but one problem was what was
tuned at sea level, was a different animal at 25,000 feet and -40 degrees.
The Brit radio op said he never used the 375 in his plane other than
routine checks and set ups.  The primary reason for the 522 being
retrofitted was because the Brits used their version, of which the 522 was
an exact copy, and all on FM.  Freq coordination for the Allies was almost
a cluster, while the Germans came very prepared in the cross service comm
area.  Check out the attached pic of the SCR522, the PE73, and the antenna
reel after a fight.

Charlie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251001/6bff6ce4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: B17 ball turret section after a fight.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 244177 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251001/6bff6ce4/attachment-0001.jpg>

From kargo_cult at msn.com  Wed Oct  1 15:24:24 2025
From: kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 19:24:24 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] SCR-287 (BC-375 & BC-348) WW II
	Operational	Question
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB437486D42DD834D37C13498FE4E6A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

Remember that these crewed planes did carry a freq meter, so they could reset the transmitter. I have a radio log from a military flight in USA WW2 and the position report was CW. Ditto for everything i have read ( everything ) about WW2 crewed aircraft missions in Europe.
Long range position reports in the Pacific were also CW even for years after WW2. ( I knew a Navy radio op who flew in all class multiplace aircraft in years right after WW2. Actually used GO and RU in the late 1940s. )

German aircraft were not intended for very long range missions and they topped out at 6 MHz unless equipped with some special variant. Even flying over Russia. ( I have a smashed FuG10 transmitter from Stalingrad. It is the standard FuG10 HF set with top at 6000. The dial is permanently jammed at 5950. )

Japan's HF comms topped out at 10 MHz and they had plenty of quartz. Some memoir i read said they used practically only CW on HF.

Sometime i will list some book titles.
-Hue Miller


Sent from my Galaxy


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251001/3bdfd44c/attachment.html>

From hwhall at compuserve.com  Wed Oct  1 15:48:35 2025
From: hwhall at compuserve.com (hwhall@aol.com)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 19:48:35 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Milsurplus]
 =?utf-8?q?SCR-287_=28BC-375_=26_BC-348=29_WW_II=09Op?=
 =?utf-8?q?erational=09Question?=
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR20MB437486D42DD834D37C13498FE4E6A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
References: <PH0PR20MB437486D42DD834D37C13498FE4E6A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <1274242007.2417665.1759348115917@mail.yahoo.com>

>these crewed planes did carry a freq meter, so they could reset the transmitter

And the Command Set radio transmitters all had a calibration crystal inside.

Wayne
WB4OGM

From RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu  Wed Oct  1 16:12:14 2025
From: RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu (Ray Fantini)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 20:12:14 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] Video of the MRCA event at Gilbert
Message-ID: <DM8P220MB0472C5F887C7655DA9103ACBB8E6A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Just posted a video of last weekends event at MRCA Gilbert and some highlights of the show and nets. Did not get the opportunity to shot as much video as I would like to but that's how it goes. You can see the video at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SWOytOLBLU

Ray F/KA3EKH

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251001/dfce3d37/attachment-0001.html>

From mjcal79 at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 17:31:47 2025
From: mjcal79 at gmail.com (Charlie L.)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 17:31:47 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Aircraft use of freq meter
Message-ID: <CA+d3itabV2Gn4-vhDdrZGKSfy49L-2wJmR4hgtW6NDRmuixH+Q@mail.gmail.com>

Not sure how often they got the freq meter out.  In a B17, it was stowed in
a canvas bag behind the pilot's seat.

Charlie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251001/ef06621c/attachment.html>

From ka2ivy at verizon.net  Wed Oct  1 17:53:11 2025
From: ka2ivy at verizon.net (Brenda Gentry)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 17:53:11 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Aircraft use of freq meter
In-Reply-To: <CA+d3itabV2Gn4-vhDdrZGKSfy49L-2wJmR4hgtW6NDRmuixH+Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+d3itabV2Gn4-vhDdrZGKSfy49L-2wJmR4hgtW6NDRmuixH+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <64f663cc-7e7d-8ba1-f1d7-6e4b16e8da8a@verizon.net>

I have had the same question for some time. Would an operator need to 
change frequency that often in flight? If the practice was to "net" all 
of the transmitters before takeoff, wouldn't it be quicker to do it with 
an airfield reference?? How accurate would it be at 20 degrees below 
zero at 25,000 feet?

 ?? B.Gentry, KA2IVY

On 10/1/25 5:31 PM, Charlie L. wrote:
> Not sure how often they got the freq meter out.? In a B17, it was 
> stowed in a canvas bag behind the pilot's seat.
>
> Charlie
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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/20251001/b9056fec/attachment.html>

From mstangelo at comcast.net  Wed Oct  1 18:00:57 2025
From: mstangelo at comcast.net (mstangelo at comcast.net)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 18:00:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Milsurplus] Aircraft use of freq meter
In-Reply-To: <64f663cc-7e7d-8ba1-f1d7-6e4b16e8da8a@verizon.net>
References: <CA+d3itabV2Gn4-vhDdrZGKSfy49L-2wJmR4hgtW6NDRmuixH+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<64f663cc-7e7d-8ba1-f1d7-6e4b16e8da8a@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <330673794.862108.1759356057377@connect.xfinity.com>

>From what I read about WW2 radio operation they were instructed to net the radios before starting their operation. I assume they would use their Command radio for inter plane operation and one plane in the formation would use the Liaison radio to report to their field or command.

Does anyone have any documentation on the actual radio procedure used during missions/

Mike N2MS


 
> On 10/01/2025 5:53 PM EDT Brenda Gentry via Milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> I have had the same question for some time. Would an operator need to change frequency that often in flight? If the practice was to "net" all of the transmitters before takeoff, wouldn't it be quicker to do it with an airfield reference? How accurate would it be at 20 degrees below zero at 25,000 feet?
> B.Gentry, KA2IVY
> 
> On 10/1/25 5:31 PM, Charlie L. wrote:
> 
> > Not sure how often they got the freq meter out. In a B17, it was stowed in a canvas bag behind the pilot's seat. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Charlie

From kb8tq at n1k.org  Wed Oct  1 18:44:26 2025
From: kb8tq at n1k.org (Bob Camp)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 18:44:26 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Aircraft use of freq meter
In-Reply-To: <330673794.862108.1759356057377@connect.xfinity.com>
References: <CA+d3itabV2Gn4-vhDdrZGKSfy49L-2wJmR4hgtW6NDRmuixH+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<64f663cc-7e7d-8ba1-f1d7-6e4b16e8da8a@verizon.net>
	<330673794.862108.1759356057377@connect.xfinity.com>
Message-ID: <E6DA03A4-A55C-46EF-ADE5-7FF94D2B5B04@n1k.org>

Hi

At least as the story was told:

Pre-flight Signal Corps guys hauled frequency meters around to each airplane and got things ?right?. It was a bit of a scramble. Before they started out, they checked to make sure all of the meters agreed with each other. 

Bob

> On Oct 1, 2025, at 6:00?PM, mstangelo--- via Milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> wrote:
> 
> From what I read about WW2 radio operation they were instructed to net the radios before starting their operation. I assume they would use their Command radio for inter plane operation and one plane in the formation would use the Liaison radio to report to their field or command.
> 
> Does anyone have any documentation on the actual radio procedure used during missions/
> 
> Mike N2MS
> 
> 
> 
>> On 10/01/2025 5:53 PM EDT Brenda Gentry via Milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I have had the same question for some time. Would an operator need to change frequency that often in flight? If the practice was to "net" all of the transmitters before takeoff, wouldn't it be quicker to do it with an airfield reference? How accurate would it be at 20 degrees below zero at 25,000 feet?
>> B.Gentry, KA2IVY
>> 
>> On 10/1/25 5:31 PM, Charlie L. wrote:
>> 
>>> Not sure how often they got the freq meter out. In a B17, it was stowed in a canvas bag behind the pilot's seat. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Charlie
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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


From brooke at pacific.net  Thu Oct  2 14:44:41 2025
From: brooke at pacific.net (Brooke)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2025 11:44:41 -0700
Subject: [Milsurplus] Aircraft use of freq meter
In-Reply-To: <mailman.6758.1759358687.2991.milsurplus@mailman.qth.net>
References: <mailman.6758.1759358687.2991.milsurplus@mailman.qth.net>
Message-ID: <9efd9042-f676-10f6-eccd-682ebf987804@pacific.net>

Hi Brenda:

While learning about the technical aspects of the LM 18 I discovered that they had a lot of very sophisticated 
temperature compensation. Pretty much every component related to frequency has design elements aimed at temperature 
stability.
https://prc68.com/I/USM159.html#LM_18_Frequency_Meter

I can think of a couple of reasons the on board frequency meter would be used:
1. If a new frequency was learned via a radio message, or
2. a plane landed at a facility were there was minimal ground support and the radioman needed to setup a new frequency 
list for a new mission.

-- 
Have Fun,

Brooke Clarke
https://www.PRC68.com
axioms:
1. The extent to which you can fix or improve something will be limited by how well you understand how it works.
2. Everybody, with no exceptions, holds false beliefs.

-------- Original Message --------
> Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 17:53:11 -0400
> From: Brenda Gentry<ka2ivy at verizon.net>
> To:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Aircraft use of freq meter
> Message-ID:<64f663cc-7e7d-8ba1-f1d7-6e4b16e8da8a at verizon.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> I have had the same question for some time. Would an operator need to
> change frequency that often in flight? If the practice was to "net" all
> of the transmitters before takeoff, wouldn't it be quicker to do it with
> an airfield reference?? How accurate would it be at 20 degrees below
> zero at 25,000 feet?
>
>   ?? B.Gentry, KA2IVY

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251002/f91c802f/attachment.html>

From reuben.popp at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 17:22:50 2025
From: reuben.popp at gmail.com (Reuben Popp)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2025 16:22:50 -0500
Subject: [Milsurplus] Looking for unobtanium
Message-ID: <CAB-aZK8UVE_eWDZxToER-WyefnvSVfhyxcD51c_3zNF7cmTAnw@mail.gmail.com>

Hey all,

I come seeking some help from those of you who have been into collecting
and rebuilding these radios for far longer than I.  I am, short of an
exciter parts unit, short one piece from having most of an AN/WRC-1 system
to rebuild.  That's the exciter, the receiver, the amplifier, the antenna
tuner, and the handset.  What I am missing is the interconnect box
(NSN 5895-00-973-1063).  Last year one was quoted to me from a logistics
supply house for 24K.  YEOW!  There's pay to play and then there's where'd
my kidney, spleen and lung go?

Anyway.. I look all the time  trying to find one.. any time I head to the
hamfest, or on ebay, craigslist, you name it.. no dice.  Columbia
Electronics doesn't have one, Murphy's told me maybe if I had asked about
30 years ago, and Surplus Sales of Nebraska said we won't know until it
gets unburied (if it exists) in the warehouse.

So, my question to you is, in your time of having done this, how have you
gotten over this hurdle?  The TM has the specs for the box.. at least the
dimensions of it, so I could have one made, or fab it myself.. of course
that also means having to try and source another set of connectors for the
cabling in/out as well as building its innards.  At this point of waiting,
I'm beginning to think this is my only real chance of finding one, unless
one of you happen to have one squirred away, lol.

Any suggestions?  Thanks, and 73
Reuben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251002/ec7173cc/attachment.html>

From facility_406 at bruteforcedevelopment.com  Thu Oct  2 22:17:45 2025
From: facility_406 at bruteforcedevelopment.com (Facility 406)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2025 19:17:45 -0700
Subject: [Milsurplus] Looking for unobtanium
In-Reply-To: <CAB-aZK8UVE_eWDZxToER-WyefnvSVfhyxcD51c_3zNF7cmTAnw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAB-aZK8UVE_eWDZxToER-WyefnvSVfhyxcD51c_3zNF7cmTAnw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <33f16442-968b-268f-2b97-b737f674643e@bruteforcedevelopment.com>

> What I am missing is the interconnect box (NSN?5895-00-973-1063).

Nothing here.

Have you come across this page, with other references to that item?:

https://www.parttarget.com/5895-00-973-1063_5895009731063_0026-4600.html/-40286D6F-204A-4FDD-BBB5-AA8D9304E212

Maybe it'll show up under a different nomenclature.

Kurt


From Kargo_cult at msn.com  Thu Oct  2 23:51:38 2025
From: Kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 03:51:38 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] BX-33  use ?
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB437449DAE3E41B52278EB0B8E4E4A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

What is box BX-33 part of ? I cannot find any info on the net. I think it's for A and B batteries for
"something".
thanks-
Hue Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251003/9224e873/attachment-0001.html>

From facility_406 at bruteforcedevelopment.com  Fri Oct  3 00:05:00 2025
From: facility_406 at bruteforcedevelopment.com (Facility 406)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2025 21:05:00 -0700
Subject: [Milsurplus] BX-33 use ?
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR20MB437449DAE3E41B52278EB0B8E4E4A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
References: <PH0PR20MB437449DAE3E41B52278EB0B8E4E4A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <c4f1aed8-8fce-ab47-c1ae-2c2de257267e@bruteforcedevelopment.com>



On 10/2/2025 20:51, Hubert Miller wrote:
> What is box BX-33 part of ? I cannot find any info on the net. I think 
> it?s for A and B batteries for

Found on page 59 here:

http://hangarthirteen.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Graphic-Survey-of-AAF-Radio-Radar-Equipment-Pt-2.pdf

Part of:

"Test Equipment IE-19 is a portable test equipment for use by tactical 
organizations in aligning the channels in Radio Sets SCR-522 and SCR-542."

Kurt


From rpmeadow at bellsouth.net  Fri Oct  3 02:34:38 2025
From: rpmeadow at bellsouth.net (robert meadows)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 06:34:38 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Milsurplus] Looking for unobtanium
In-Reply-To: <CAB-aZK8UVE_eWDZxToER-WyefnvSVfhyxcD51c_3zNF7cmTAnw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAB-aZK8UVE_eWDZxToER-WyefnvSVfhyxcD51c_3zNF7cmTAnw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <112653388.2907923.1759473278250@mail.yahoo.com>

 Reuben,Here is a bit of information on your "unobtanium"... Well it just might be so.The item was manufactured by Raytheon, Harris, and BAE systems.Unit cost in 2007, That is Govt Acquisition Cost was $6624, with a "net" price listed as $2259.??Now for the real problem, the item is classified by DLA as DEMIL B, a now unused code, but, must be followed (DEMIL codes were "updated")? ?DEMIL B means Mutilation to scrap before disposal outside DOD or Foreign Military sales.
There may be some out there that were disposed of prior to being assigned DEMIL B.? A lot of such equipment was originally disposed as DEMIL A, which means just sell it, and then the "great thinkers" within DOD and DLA became convinced that an old radio could be used by nasty folk in pursuit of bad things.? But those in DOD did not and still do not know that a nice ricebox radio will do more and are readily available for not very much.
Good Luck.Or, just start building one.? William Perry? Co can probably supply all the connectors you need.
CheersRobertW4RRD
    On Thursday, October 2, 2025 at 05:20:25 PM EDT, Reuben Popp <reuben.popp at gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 Hey all,

I come seeking some help from those of you who have been into collecting and rebuilding these radios for far longer than I.? I am, short of an exciter parts unit, short one piece from having most of an AN/WRC-1 system to rebuild.? That's the exciter, the receiver, the amplifier, the antenna tuner, and the handset.? What I am missing is the interconnect box (NSN?5895-00-973-1063).? Last year one was quoted to me from a logistics supply house for 24K.? YEOW!? There's pay to play and then there's where'd my kidney, spleen and lung go?

Anyway.. I look all the time? trying to find one.. any time I head to the hamfest, or on ebay, craigslist, you name it.. no dice.? Columbia Electronics doesn't have one, Murphy's told me maybe if I had asked about 30 years ago, and Surplus Sales of Nebraska said we won't know until it gets unburied (if it exists) in the warehouse.

So, my question to you is, in your time of having done this, how have you gotten over this hurdle?? The TM has the specs for the box.. at least the dimensions of it, so I could have one made, or fab it myself.. of course that also means having to try and source another set of connectors for the cabling in/out as well as building its innards.? At this point of waiting, I'm beginning to think this is my only real chance of finding one, unless one of you happen to have one squirred away, lol.

Any suggestions?? Thanks, and 73
Reuben______________________________________________________________
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/20251003/0bb4aa26/attachment.html>

From Kargo_cult at msn.com  Fri Oct  3 03:46:58 2025
From: Kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 07:46:58 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] BX-33 use ?
In-Reply-To: <c4f1aed8-8fce-ab47-c1ae-2c2de257267e@bruteforcedevelopment.com>
References: <PH0PR20MB437449DAE3E41B52278EB0B8E4E4A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
	<c4f1aed8-8fce-ab47-c1ae-2c2de257267e@bruteforcedevelopment.com>
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB43744728F131D111DE9D85E0E4E4A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

>Found on page 59 here:

http://hangarthirteen.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Graphic-Survey-of-AAF-Radio-Radar-Equipment-Pt-2.pdf

Part of:
"Test Equipment IE-19 is a portable test equipment for use by tactical organizations in aligning the channels in Radio Sets SCR-522 and SCR-542."
>Kurt

Thanks so much, Kurt. I had quite forgotten 'Hangar 13'. Their Library has some really intersting material.
https://hangarthirteen.org/library/
I am so pleased with this site's 'mission' that i will likely donate a WW2 USAAF maintenance 'comic book'.

So, the BX-33-A is pretty useless. I had an I-130 at one time, but i'm sure i just took it apart, for some minimal harvest.
The BX-33-A  is 10 lbs. If you have an SCR-522, 542 ( unlikely ), and want this for the IE-19 test set, i will mail it at postage cost.
It is a battery holder box, only.
-Hue Miller


From kargo_cult at msn.com  Fri Oct  3 04:42:23 2025
From: kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 08:42:23 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] SCR-287 (BC-375 & BC-348) WW II Operational
	Question
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB43748629580CBDD495AA47DBE4E4A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

Decades back, Harry Lewis, ARRL SCM for WA, had a story in 'Worldradio' mag abt a radio op flying into AK and the liaison transmitter failed, so he used the BC-221 to call the airfield. As i write this i realize there's a problem with his story that hadn't dawned on me before. I am sure he has left this plane of existance so i can feel relatively guilt free for saying this, but i know of 2 other instances where he told a whopper, but at least an intersting one. Perhaps i will find that Worldradio article and scan and post it here.
-Hue Miller



Sent from my Galaxy


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251003/5e44cc54/attachment.html>

From mjcal79 at gmail.com  Fri Oct  3 08:22:06 2025
From: mjcal79 at gmail.com (Charlie L.)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 08:22:06 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Looking for Unobtanium
Message-ID: <CA+d3itbmzspDH=QRDbTFJ8qEmxQ16-Jq9-7CEanweCPQ0ByM9Q@mail.gmail.com>

Try this guy:  http://www.forgottenfield.com/amg/
He does not seem to answer his email reliably, but he does answer his
phone.  I have purchased several items from him that were in the
unobtainium classification such as original never opened boxes of ARC and
SCR racks and controls.

Also, https://www.nostalgiaair.org/  you might find a rare item here, but
it is also a good place to post a want to buy ad.  Also, don't forget
trying just posting on a site like QTH.com in the classified section, or ER
Magazines classified.

Charlie, W4MEC in NC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251003/081e87a1/attachment.html>

From mjcal79 at gmail.com  Fri Oct  3 08:29:58 2025
From: mjcal79 at gmail.com (Charlie L.)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 08:29:58 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] DEMIL B,
Message-ID: <CA+d3itbZzWg1j5-0zydND4_48W50ndn5rxo5n6DoCbMrAJreCQ@mail.gmail.com>

I watched a guy take a hammer to a Sprague cap checker because the order
said to destroy it, even though I tried to get it from him and assuring him
I would 'destroy it'.  We used to post a flyer in the post office
advertising our surplus, transmitters, receivers, control equipment, tube
type nav gear as it was replaced by solid state, but along came a certain
San Francisco female House of Rep person and her husband that modified the
rules and both made a fortune in military surplus.  Now it all goes to
Kansas City or some place in the midwest and they dispose of everything,
heartlessly destroying stuff that still has a use, but as mentioned, they
fear somebody will take it and use it for nefarious reasons.  Radio gear
was a big target for destruction because of the fear of what they might do
to things like air traffic control, never understanding that brand new,
fully synthesized rigs could be bought off ebay that would do a much better
job than a set of GRR/GRT rigs you had to order a crystal for.

Charlie in NC.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251003/39a2d02f/attachment-0001.html>

From nick at navy-radio.com  Fri Oct  3 08:42:53 2025
From: nick at navy-radio.com (Nick England)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 08:42:53 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Looking for Unobtanium
In-Reply-To: <CA+d3itbmzspDH=QRDbTFJ8qEmxQ16-Jq9-7CEanweCPQ0ByM9Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+d3itbmzspDH=QRDbTFJ8qEmxQ16-Jq9-7CEanweCPQ0ByM9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAB55hNcwEychVq5khpLzNkp5hUPbZxOfo1wLdJa4XrwNzzn0Fw@mail.gmail.com>

Be careful of any want ad responses you get on QTH.com. There are scammers
lurking there.

Nick England K4NYW
Chapel Hill NC
www.navy-radio.com


On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 8:22?AM Charlie L. <mjcal79 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Try this guy:  http://www.forgottenfield.com/amg/
> He does not seem to answer his email reliably, but he does answer his
> phone.  I have purchased several items from him that were in the
> unobtainium classification such as original never opened boxes of ARC and
> SCR racks and controls.
>
> Also, https://www.nostalgiaair.org/  you might find a rare item here, but
> it is also a good place to post a want to buy ad.  Also, don't forget
> trying just posting on a site like QTH.com in the classified section, or ER
> Magazines classified.
>
> Charlie, W4MEC in NC
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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/20251003/c9cd3ac9/attachment.html>

From nick at navy-radio.com  Fri Oct  3 10:08:40 2025
From: nick at navy-radio.com (Nick England)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 10:08:40 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Looking for unobtanium
In-Reply-To: <CAB-aZK8UVE_eWDZxToER-WyefnvSVfhyxcD51c_3zNF7cmTAnw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAB-aZK8UVE_eWDZxToER-WyefnvSVfhyxcD51c_3zNF7cmTAnw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAB55hNf0A7M3M2n6P=059n7DcmGLOKF1LMqeCd2Womd6XctXRw@mail.gmail.com>

FYI - Here is what Reuben is looking for (in "unrestored" state)
https://www.navy-radio.com/xmtrs/wrc1/j1265.htm

Nick England K4NYW
Chapel Hill NC
www.navy-radio.com


On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 5:22?PM Reuben Popp <reuben.popp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> I come seeking some help from those of you who have been into collecting
> and rebuilding these radios for far longer than I.  I am, short of an
> exciter parts unit, short one piece from having most of an AN/WRC-1 system
> to rebuild.  That's the exciter, the receiver, the amplifier, the antenna
> tuner, and the handset.  What I am missing is the interconnect box
> (NSN 5895-00-973-1063).  Last year one was quoted to me from a logistics
> supply house for 24K.  YEOW!  There's pay to play and then there's where'd
> my kidney, spleen and lung go?
>
> Anyway.. I look all the time  trying to find one.. any time I head to the
> hamfest, or on ebay, craigslist, you name it.. no dice.  Columbia
> Electronics doesn't have one, Murphy's told me maybe if I had asked about
> 30 years ago, and Surplus Sales of Nebraska said we won't know until it
> gets unburied (if it exists) in the warehouse.
>
> So, my question to you is, in your time of having done this, how have you
> gotten over this hurdle?  The TM has the specs for the box.. at least the
> dimensions of it, so I could have one made, or fab it myself.. of course
> that also means having to try and source another set of connectors for the
> cabling in/out as well as building its innards.  At this point of waiting,
> I'm beginning to think this is my only real chance of finding one, unless
> one of you happen to have one squirred away, lol.
>
> Any suggestions?  Thanks, and 73
> Reuben
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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/20251003/6553fd3b/attachment.html>

From reuben.popp at gmail.com  Fri Oct  3 15:08:30 2025
From: reuben.popp at gmail.com (Reuben Popp)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 14:08:30 -0500
Subject: [Milsurplus] Looking for unobtanium
In-Reply-To: <CAB-aZK8UVE_eWDZxToER-WyefnvSVfhyxcD51c_3zNF7cmTAnw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAB-aZK8UVE_eWDZxToER-WyefnvSVfhyxcD51c_3zNF7cmTAnw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAB-aZK-FV+WGV45-wNuUbKDXCrwikgKZ3bq93WQ+hORahDgDCg@mail.gmail.com>

Apologies if this comes out of thread..

Thank you all, I truly appreciate it.  Still on the hunt, unless I can
convince Nick or Brown to relinquish theirs ;).

I THINK the "uncommon" things I would need to source to build one would be
the two filters in assembly A6 and the relay.  That said, I'm trying to
follow the latter's path and understand what exactly it does when
energized.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems:

1. AC comes in via the box, traverses the filters in A6 and then enters the
amplifier.
2. AC comes out of the amplifier on pins R and S of the 41 position
connector
   - S supplies common to all connected units
   - R supplies 115 to both the transmitter and receiver as well as the
"left" side of the relay.  Someone please educate me here if there's better
nomenclature here.
3. This is where I begin to get lost.  I ASSume that when 28V is applied to
pin M of the transmitter, that energizes the coil of the relay, making the
circuit and applying 20V to pin T of the amplifier for the carrier.

Bear with me here a moment.  My understanding of relays is that the coil
has a minimum voltage requirement to make the circuit.  I ASSume here
that's at least(?) 20V?  If pin T is expecting 20V for the carrier, then
if/when the relay makes, wouldn't that effectively be 28V from its input?

On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 4:22?PM Reuben Popp <reuben.popp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> I come seeking some help from those of you who have been into collecting
> and rebuilding these radios for far longer than I.  I am, short of an
> exciter parts unit, short one piece from having most of an AN/WRC-1 system
> to rebuild.  That's the exciter, the receiver, the amplifier, the antenna
> tuner, and the handset.  What I am missing is the interconnect box
> (NSN 5895-00-973-1063).  Last year one was quoted to me from a logistics
> supply house for 24K.  YEOW!  There's pay to play and then there's where'd
> my kidney, spleen and lung go?
>
> Anyway.. I look all the time  trying to find one.. any time I head to the
> hamfest, or on ebay, craigslist, you name it.. no dice.  Columbia
> Electronics doesn't have one, Murphy's told me maybe if I had asked about
> 30 years ago, and Surplus Sales of Nebraska said we won't know until it
> gets unburied (if it exists) in the warehouse.
>
> So, my question to you is, in your time of having done this, how have you
> gotten over this hurdle?  The TM has the specs for the box.. at least the
> dimensions of it, so I could have one made, or fab it myself.. of course
> that also means having to try and source another set of connectors for the
> cabling in/out as well as building its innards.  At this point of waiting,
> I'm beginning to think this is my only real chance of finding one, unless
> one of you happen to have one squirred away, lol.
>
> Any suggestions?  Thanks, and 73
> Reuben
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251003/55b796d8/attachment.html>

From mjcal79 at gmail.com  Fri Oct  3 15:27:09 2025
From: mjcal79 at gmail.com (Charlie L.)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 15:27:09 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Yep, was scammed from a QTH ad
Message-ID: <CA+d3itb656prnbm=2AOoZoNCRadkvjO8=X3d4MzGJX0RD9nt8A@mail.gmail.com>

Nick mentioned to use caution on posted ads, and I am very careful, but I
got caught one time by a very convincing person with the URR I was looking
for.  I posted him on the QTH scammer list.  Alway be sure to check there
when someone seems eager to offer you something.  I did find my URR's here
on milsurp and was very happy with the deal.  Plus, never take down an ad
for something you are selling until you have the money in your hand, and
don't edit the ad and say 'sold', or 'sold pending funds', just take it
down when you have the money.  There are A LOT of people that will answer
your ad saying they want it, but when you ask them how they would like to
pay, they are never heard from again.  Also, be really accurate on
descriptions.  I got burned by a guy who bought a 4BTV I had, and I clearly
put in the ad that it had been up for 6 months, which I would think for the
normal person would imply it is weathered a bit.   The buyer wanted  his
money back because he said it was not bright and shiny,  I kid you not.  He
sent it back after I sent him the shipping money and what he paid for it.
I advertised it again, and put in the words, "this antenna is not bright
and shiny."  The guy that bought it was happy as a clam, and put it up
immediately.

Charlie W4MEC in NC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251003/411ed7cb/attachment.html>

From nick at navy-radio.com  Fri Oct  3 16:21:05 2025
From: nick at navy-radio.com (Nick England)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 16:21:05 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Looking for unobtanium
In-Reply-To: <CAB-aZK-FV+WGV45-wNuUbKDXCrwikgKZ3bq93WQ+hORahDgDCg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAB-aZK8UVE_eWDZxToER-WyefnvSVfhyxcD51c_3zNF7cmTAnw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAB-aZK-FV+WGV45-wNuUbKDXCrwikgKZ3bq93WQ+hORahDgDCg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAB55hNfm5Uo6=xTi2YsQzHm-FPz-yjQh04413yZoVo50CBKKng@mail.gmail.com>

It looks like the interconnection schematic (figure 5-8) has an error - it
shows one of the relay contacts connected to 115ac input. BUT the other
contact is shown going to +20 carrier on the exciter - this is wrong wrong
wrong! Someone got confused when drawing a line on this schematic.

The correct wiring is shown in the AC power distribution schematic (figure
5-10). The AM-3007 power transformer is energized when the relay is
energized.
The relay is energized by +28vdc from the exciter in standby or operate.

Nick England K4NYW
Chapel Hill NC
www.navy-radio.com


On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 3:08?PM Reuben Popp <reuben.popp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Apologies if this comes out of thread..
>
> Thank you all, I truly appreciate it.  Still on the hunt, unless I can
> convince Nick or Brown to relinquish theirs ;).
>
> I THINK the "uncommon" things I would need to source to build one would be
> the two filters in assembly A6 and the relay.  That said, I'm trying to
> follow the latter's path and understand what exactly it does when
> energized.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems:
>
> 1. AC comes in via the box, traverses the filters in A6 and then enters
> the amplifier.
> 2. AC comes out of the amplifier on pins R and S of the 41 position
> connector
>    - S supplies common to all connected units
>    - R supplies 115 to both the transmitter and receiver as well as the
> "left" side of the relay.  Someone please educate me here if there's better
> nomenclature here.
> 3. This is where I begin to get lost.  I ASSume that when 28V is applied
> to pin M of the transmitter, that energizes the coil of the relay, making
> the circuit and applying 20V to pin T of the amplifier for the carrier.
>
> Bear with me here a moment.  My understanding of relays is that the coil
> has a minimum voltage requirement to make the circuit.  I ASSume here
> that's at least(?) 20V?  If pin T is expecting 20V for the carrier, then
> if/when the relay makes, wouldn't that effectively be 28V from its input?
>
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 4:22?PM Reuben Popp <reuben.popp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I come seeking some help from those of you who have been into collecting
>> and rebuilding these radios for far longer than I.  I am, short of an
>> exciter parts unit, short one piece from having most of an AN/WRC-1 system
>> to rebuild.  That's the exciter, the receiver, the amplifier, the antenna
>> tuner, and the handset.  What I am missing is the interconnect box
>> (NSN 5895-00-973-1063).  Last year one was quoted to me from a logistics
>> supply house for 24K.  YEOW!  There's pay to play and then there's where'd
>> my kidney, spleen and lung go?
>>
>> Anyway.. I look all the time  trying to find one.. any time I head to the
>> hamfest, or on ebay, craigslist, you name it.. no dice.  Columbia
>> Electronics doesn't have one, Murphy's told me maybe if I had asked about
>> 30 years ago, and Surplus Sales of Nebraska said we won't know until it
>> gets unburied (if it exists) in the warehouse.
>>
>> So, my question to you is, in your time of having done this, how have you
>> gotten over this hurdle?  The TM has the specs for the box.. at least the
>> dimensions of it, so I could have one made, or fab it myself.. of course
>> that also means having to try and source another set of connectors for the
>> cabling in/out as well as building its innards.  At this point of waiting,
>> I'm beginning to think this is my only real chance of finding one, unless
>> one of you happen to have one squirred away, lol.
>>
>> Any suggestions?  Thanks, and 73
>> Reuben
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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/20251003/d8203188/attachment-0001.html>

From kargo_cult at msn.com  Fri Oct  3 16:31:07 2025
From: kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 20:31:07 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] SCR-287 (BC-375 & BC-348) WW II Operational
	Question
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB4374C32ADDAA14EE07D4DD00E4E4A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

Why would you think it was used as a voice transmitter ? But there is the crux of the problem - why contact the tower by CW when you are that close ? I don't recall what size plane it was, but i think large enough to have pilot voice radio. Failing that, i think maybe a light gun could come into play.
I once bought a LARGE HEAVY "German receiver off an Italian cruiser"  that came via same gentleman. The fellow who then owned it next, right before me, bought this tale. I was similarly flummoxed before i put 2 and 2 together and realized Germany had no 9 pin minis in the war years.  The rec was a 2 man and a boy lift. I found some photo of it in CQ mag. I am wondering right now if i could find it in that large book on Western  world's SW communication receivers.

Live and learn, a fool is soon parted from his money, and...so on.

While i'm on this topic, i am reminded of an article in good old CQ, this a war years memoir, which was 100% BS. Maybe more than 100%.  I wondered, how could the editor be so dumb ? Author supposedly met Roosevelt, Churchill and more, and supposedly convinced the navies to adopt VLF for convoy communications. Pure, streaming BS. I do have to admit, though, in earlier decades i was snowed by supposed true "veteran accounts" which were purest BS. My BS detector is better calibrated now.
-Hue Miller



Sent from my Galaxy


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251003/72f5c5dc/attachment.html>

From kargo_cult at msn.com  Fri Oct  3 16:41:53 2025
From: kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 20:41:53 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] Yep, was scammed from a QTH ad
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB4374F6CF3EB3DEA51CE24310E4E4A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

This story makes me wish there was some kind of escrow service for buying things from individuals. That would put an end to scam losses.
-Hue Miller



Sent from my Galaxy


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251003/04f1deb5/attachment.html>

From smithab11 at comcast.net  Fri Oct  3 16:51:41 2025
From: smithab11 at comcast.net (B. Smith)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 16:51:41 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] SCR-287 (BC-375 & BC-348) WW II Operational
 Question
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR20MB43748629580CBDD495AA47DBE4E4A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
References: <PH0PR20MB43748629580CBDD495AA47DBE4E4A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <c9d348f4-90cc-41e8-870b-6b25edcd7160@comcast.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251003/03b904e7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: semk4che.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 9511 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251003/03b904e7/attachment-0001.gif>

From kargo_cult at msn.com  Fri Oct  3 17:42:25 2025
From: kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 21:42:25 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] SCR-287 (BC-375 & BC-348) WW II Operational
 Question
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB43745ACD4CFFEE473A06A44EE4E4A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>


Yeah, well....


Sent from my Galaxy


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251003/073f248e/attachment.html>

From kargo_cult at msn.com  Fri Oct  3 17:52:13 2025
From: kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 21:52:13 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] SCR-287 (BC-375 & BC-348) WW II Operational
 Question
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB4374640E65C81F3650F93374E4E4A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

Mark, darn interesting post ! Last person to chute from the plane. That IS something to note and remember, altho i don't think Guiness has a category fot it - yet. The noise complication - something i'd never considered at all before. So different from running the gear down here in the shack.
I have only flown in one AC that was REALLY loud, and that was some earlier model Army chopper. I thought it was torture.
-Hue Miller



Sent from my Galaxy


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251003/fd233570/attachment.html>

From kargo_cult at msn.com  Fri Oct  3 23:22:55 2025
From: kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2025 03:22:55 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] SCR-287 (BC-375 & BC-348) WW II Operational
 Question
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB437435C21CA7FAC2535F6271E4E5A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>





Sent from my Galaxy


-------- Original message --------
From: Bill Cromwell
Date: 10/3/25 15:39 (GMT-08:00)
To: Hubert Miller

>Once upon a time when I was active the Navy-Marine Corps MARS system one of our members used an LM or 221 (don't remember which) as  CW transmitter by keying the antenna feed line. It was not the very best of armchair copy but the people he needed to contact heard him with no fills. I was logged into that net session and heard him well enough to copy. We were all in the state of Michigan and not hundreds or thousands of miles apart and the frequency was just above 4 MC.
Bill  KU8H
>Michigan QRP Club  M-1778

Bill, how did that fellow match the presumably low Z antenna to the high Z connection on the freq meter ?
"QRPP ! "
-Hue Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251004/1d8e578f/attachment-0001.html>

From dennis.monticelli at gmail.com  Sat Oct  4 01:24:38 2025
From: dennis.monticelli at gmail.com (Dennis Monticelli)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 22:24:38 -0700
Subject: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] SCR-287 (BC-375 & BC-348) WW II Operational
	Question
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR20MB437435C21CA7FAC2535F6271E4E5A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
References: <PH0PR20MB437435C21CA7FAC2535F6271E4E5A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CADgAsSTV5k5vjcshB+dW6S9OSdCc5k=+PcQT6p_uQMM=3q39+Q@mail.gmail.com>

I have a regular 80M morning sked with a friend in the Sierra Nevada
mountains.  I am located in the San Francisco Bay area.  My rig is a CMS
suitcase spy set.  It puts out about 5 watts and because the osc runs
continuously during TX, a backwave as well.  I measured the backwave at
1.6mW.  My friend can often copy the backwave.  Distance about 200 mi.
Full size dipoles at both ends.  Under the right conditions, it doesn't
take much.

Dennis AE6C



On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 8:23?PM Hubert Miller <kargo_cult at msn.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Sent from my Galaxy
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Bill Cromwell
> Date: 10/3/25 15:39 (GMT-08:00)
> To: Hubert Miller
>
> >Once upon a time when I was active the Navy-Marine Corps MARS system one
> of our members used an LM or 221 (don't remember which) as  CW transmitter
> by keying the antenna feed line. It was not the very best of armchair copy
> but the people he needed to contact heard him with no fills. I was logged
> into that net session and heard him well enough to copy. We were all in the
> state of Michigan and not hundreds or thousands of miles apart and the
> frequency was just above 4 MC.
> Bill  KU8H
> >Michigan QRP Club  M-1778
>
> Bill, how did that fellow match the presumably low Z antenna to the high Z
> connection on the freq meter ?
> "QRPP ! "
> -Hue Miller
> ______________________________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: https://www.qsl.net/donate.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251003/7b36f83a/attachment.html>

From Kargo_cult at msn.com  Sat Oct  4 04:01:18 2025
From: Kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2025 08:01:18 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] SCR-287 (BC-375 & BC-348) WW II Operational
 Question
In-Reply-To: <CADgAsSTV5k5vjcshB+dW6S9OSdCc5k=+PcQT6p_uQMM=3q39+Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <PH0PR20MB437435C21CA7FAC2535F6271E4E5A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
	<CADgAsSTV5k5vjcshB+dW6S9OSdCc5k=+PcQT6p_uQMM=3q39+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB4374BFE38AAD8F77571A2EB4E4E5A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

Your post is interesting but doesn't address my question. I imagine the RF route for osc to antenna in the CMS is via grid-plate capacitance in the 6L6 final
and thence to the output circuit. With the LM or BC-221 as transmitter, as Bill related, i tend to think this would only work with a high Z antenna, like 1/2 wave. 

I also have the CMS, never used it tho. The black plastic sheet for covering the key, to keep hands off, got the sticky disease, so i discarded it. I am thinking
i will plug in 1 volt receive tubes in the xmtr; maybe improve the stability that way. 
I wonder how the regen works with no actual gain control. That circuit design is very old. 
I suspect the CMS was intended for Philippines. It is a U.S. Navy radio. The Navy also owned the MBM, which seems not to have been the insurgents' answer
to prayer either. I further suspect the CMS was just too hobbyist - like for a radio issued to people with only a basic operator level training. My speculations
only. The CMS did stay in the Navy catalog for some years after the war, apparently; witness that AC supply for it, which is clearly of a newer generation of 
electronics. 
-Hue Miller 

From mjcal79 at gmail.com  Sat Oct  4 16:18:04 2025
From: mjcal79 at gmail.com (Charlie L.)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2025 16:18:04 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Odd transmitters,,,
Message-ID: <CA+d3itZuC3N5kLee7tqvbx55GJnuf7dyVp4bO-2BSqQ10y_AyA@mail.gmail.com>

 "Once upon a time when I was active the Navy-Marine Corps MARS system one
  of our members used an LM or 221 (don't remember which) as  CW transmitter
  by keying the antenna feed line."

If you have an old HP608 sig gen, you can operate 2 meter FM by hooking an
ant to it, set it on freq, and speaking loudly into the side of it.  Voice
vibrations FM the carrier.

Charlie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251004/24159250/attachment.html>

From kb8tq at n1k.org  Sat Oct  4 17:14:55 2025
From: kb8tq at n1k.org (Bob Camp)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2025 17:14:55 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Odd transmitters,,,
In-Reply-To: <CA+d3itZuC3N5kLee7tqvbx55GJnuf7dyVp4bO-2BSqQ10y_AyA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+d3itZuC3N5kLee7tqvbx55GJnuf7dyVp4bO-2BSqQ10y_AyA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <049658E4-A29E-41BC-9117-B46CBA136A11@n1k.org>

Hi

Turns out that you can hook a pretty normal signal generator to an antenna and
key up various local repeaters. Sometimes you might do it on purpose (with proper
ID)  rather than by accident :) :) :). I have data on that being true for at least 50
years. 

Doing VHF com to an airport you can easily see from your plane? You don?t need
much power into your antenna if it?s a clear channel and their gear is running properly. 

Bob

> On Oct 4, 2025, at 4:18?PM, Charlie L. <mjcal79 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> "Once upon a time when I was active the Navy-Marine Corps MARS system one
>   of our members used an LM or 221 (don't remember which) as  CW transmitter
>   by keying the antenna feed line."
> 
> If you have an old HP608 sig gen, you can operate 2 meter FM by hooking an ant to it, set it on freq, and speaking loudly into the side of it.  Voice vibrations FM the carrier.
> 
> Charlie
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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


From Kargo_cult at msn.com  Sat Oct  4 18:17:10 2025
From: Kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2025 22:17:10 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] SCR-287 (BC-375 & BC-348) WW II Operational
 Question
In-Reply-To: <CAOufO-_+VupGRtpV2njKHk6Hij2Po=jKVMG0UEy6EFHKXn-m8w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <PH0PR20MB437435C21CA7FAC2535F6271E4E5A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
	<CADgAsSTV5k5vjcshB+dW6S9OSdCc5k=+PcQT6p_uQMM=3q39+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<PH0PR20MB4374BFE38AAD8F77571A2EB4E4E5A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAOufO-_+VupGRtpV2njKHk6Hij2Po=jKVMG0UEy6EFHKXn-m8w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB43746B34EEA923420628C403E4E5A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>





Sent from my Galaxy



-------- Original message --------
From: Frank Barnes <fbw4npn at gmail.com>
Date: 10/4/25 15:03 (GMT-08:00)
To: Hubert Miller <Kargo_cult at msn.com>
Cc: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net, ARC5 <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [ARC5] [Milsurplus] SCR-287 (BC-375 & BC-348) WW II Operational Question

I attach the output of my shop LM-8 (similar to the BC-221) to a random wire antenna about 20 feet long, strung along the floor joists in the ceiling of my indoors basement shop.  My understanding is that the output of these units is something like 10-15 milliwatts.   I receive the signal on my shop's Yaesu 840 and if the LM-8 is set to 7.04 Mhz (base frequency is 3.52 Mhz), I get receivable harmonics all the way into the 30 Mhz range.
Some time ago, I keyed the LM-8 antenna while testing another receiver tuned to 7.04, and to my surprise, a station came back to me from well out of town.  Very surprising. Wonder what would happen if I coupled the LM-8 to my twinlead-fed 144' Delta "loop"? - but too many harmonics!  Time to build an LC circuit to restrict the output to the desired frequency?  Might be fun.  QRPP  The only problem will be how to use my electronic keyer to send the code by breaking the antenna connection - I can't use my old J-38 hand key much any more, due to a nerve injury, but I can loaf along with the keyer.

On Sat, Oct 4, 2025 at 4:01?AM Hubert Miller <Kargo_cult at msn.com<mailto:Kargo_cult at msn.com>> wrote:
Your post is interesting but doesn't address my question. I imagine the RF route for osc to antenna in the CMS is via grid-plate capacitance in the 6L6 final
and thence to the output circuit. With the LM or BC-221 as transmitter, as Bill related, i tend to think this would only work with a high Z antenna, like 1/2 wave.

I also have the CMS, never used it tho. The black plastic sheet for covering the key, to keep hands off, got the sticky disease, so i discarded it. I am thinking
i will plug in 1 volt receive tubes in the xmtr; maybe improve the stability that way.
I wonder how the regen works with no actual gain control. That circuit design is very old.
I suspect the CMS was intended for Philippines. It is a U.S. Navy radio. The Navy also owned the MBM, which seems not to have been the insurgents' answer
to prayer either. I further suspect the CMS was just too hobbyist - like for a radio issued to people with only a basic operator level training. My speculations
only. The CMS did stay in the Navy catalog for some years after the war, apparently; witness that AC supply for it, which is clearly of a newer generation of
electronics.
-Hue Miller
______________________________________________________________
ARC5 mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net<mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net>

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


--
Frank Barnes
www.W4NPN.org<http://www.w4npn.net/>
Chapel Hill, NC
Grid Square FM05
Cell 919.260.7955
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251004/0bc99b02/attachment-0001.html>

From boeing377 at gmail.com  Sat Oct  4 19:44:35 2025
From: boeing377 at gmail.com (boeing377 at gmail.com)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2025 16:44:35 -0700
Subject: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] SCR-287 (BC-375 & BC-348) WW II Operational
	Question
In-Reply-To: <CADgAsSTV5k5vjcshB+dW6S9OSdCc5k=+PcQT6p_uQMM=3q39+Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <PH0PR20MB437435C21CA7FAC2535F6271E4E5A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
	<CADgAsSTV5k5vjcshB+dW6S9OSdCc5k=+PcQT6p_uQMM=3q39+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFZq+EwKVPGjRuB6p4OM30mSnsZ3b4fT53fC3nArNV32=LvxGA@mail.gmail.com>

That 1.6 mW backwave copy is very impressive.

I had a 10 M WSPR balloon that also had a CW beacon. 13 mW. Got a few
thousand mile CW spots. 46,000 ft float altitude. Stayed up 110 days.
Multiple trips around the world.

Have a WSPR balloon aloft now on its 6th orbit. Been up since June 14.

https://wsprtv.com/?cs=AF6IM&ch=326&band=10m&start_date=2025-06-13

Mark
AF6IM







On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 10:25?PM Dennis Monticelli <
dennis.monticelli at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have a regular 80M morning sked with a friend in the Sierra Nevada
> mountains.  I am located in the San Francisco Bay area.  My rig is a CMS
> suitcase spy set.  It puts out about 5 watts and because the osc runs
> continuously during TX, a backwave as well.  I measured the backwave at
> 1.6mW.  My friend can often copy the backwave.  Distance about 200 mi.
> Full size dipoles at both ends.  Under the right conditions, it doesn't
> take much.
>
> Dennis AE6C
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 8:23?PM Hubert Miller <kargo_cult at msn.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my Galaxy
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Bill Cromwell
>> Date: 10/3/25 15:39 (GMT-08:00)
>> To: Hubert Miller
>>
>> >Once upon a time when I was active the Navy-Marine Corps MARS system one
>> of our members used an LM or 221 (don't remember which) as  CW transmitter
>> by keying the antenna feed line. It was not the very best of armchair copy
>> but the people he needed to contact heard him with no fills. I was logged
>> into that net session and heard him well enough to copy. We were all in the
>> state of Michigan and not hundreds or thousands of miles apart and the
>> frequency was just above 4 MC.
>> Bill  KU8H
>> >Michigan QRP Club  M-1778
>>
>> Bill, how did that fellow match the presumably low Z antenna to the high
>> Z connection on the freq meter ?
>> "QRPP ! "
>> -Hue Miller
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> ARC5 mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: https://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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/20251004/7fdc46d0/attachment.html>

From quixote2 at ix.netcom.com  Sat Oct  4 20:37:19 2025
From: quixote2 at ix.netcom.com (Thomas Adams)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2025 00:37:19 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] Odd transmitters,,,
Message-ID: <ea777248-c506-33e7-584c-2d98228a4289@ix.netcom.com>

My first QSO (long before I got a license) was with a Knight Kit "Span Master" regen receiver.
With the regen cranked up all the way and a key in the antenna lead, me and a kid a block away 
were able to run low speed CW. To receive, just back off of the regen control and turn up the
volume.

I'm not even sure we were inside of a ham band (I'm betting we weren't).


Mr. T.

-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie L. <mjcal79 at gmail.com>
Sent: Oct 4, 2025 3:19 PM
To: <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: [Milsurplus] Odd transmitters,,,

"Once upon a time when I was active the Navy-Marine Corps MARS system one
  of our members used an LM or 221 (don't remember which) as  CW transmitter
  by keying the antenna feed line." 
 
If you have an old HP608 sig gen, you can operate 2 meter FM by hooking an ant to it, set it on freq, and speaking loudly into the side of it.  Voice vibrations FM the carrier. 
 
Charlie



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251005/8bef9df6/attachment.html>

From arc5 at ix.netcom.com  Sat Oct  4 21:59:50 2025
From: arc5 at ix.netcom.com (David Stinson)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2025 20:59:50 -0500
Subject: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] SCR-287 (BC-375 & BC-348) WW II Operational
 Question
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR20MB4374640E65C81F3650F93374E4E4A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
References: <PH0PR20MB4374640E65C81F3650F93374E4E4A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <bad4da99-f6aa-458e-9e10-484617bdedda@ix.netcom.com>

Helicopters do not fly.
They beat the air into submission.

On 10/3/2025 4:52 PM, Hubert Miller wrote:
> I have only flown in one AC that was REALLY loud, and that was some 
> earlier model Army chopper. I thought it was torture.
> -Hue Miller
>
>
>
> Sent from my Galaxy
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> Home:http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
> Help:http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post:mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by:http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list:https://www.qsl.net/donate.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251004/beb3d140/attachment-0001.html>

From dennis.monticelli at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 00:38:24 2025
From: dennis.monticelli at gmail.com (Dennis Monticelli)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2025 21:38:24 -0700
Subject: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] SCR-287 (BC-375 & BC-348) WW II Operational
	Question
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR20MB43746B34EEA923420628C403E4E5A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
References: <PH0PR20MB437435C21CA7FAC2535F6271E4E5A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
	<CADgAsSTV5k5vjcshB+dW6S9OSdCc5k=+PcQT6p_uQMM=3q39+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<PH0PR20MB4374BFE38AAD8F77571A2EB4E4E5A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAOufO-_+VupGRtpV2njKHk6Hij2Po=jKVMG0UEy6EFHKXn-m8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<PH0PR20MB43746B34EEA923420628C403E4E5A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CADgAsSTdKedn-mZymzuJg6JsLUucdsXDOUpGo4dFyB_-evvBGA@mail.gmail.com>

I like this thread.  Here are some additional details regarding using the
CMS on 80M CW.

The transmitter module was removed from the case and used standalone.  I
left it 100% stock.  Receiving was ably handled by a restored BC-348-N.
The manual states that one could use 6L6's at 450V from a line operated
supply or 6V6's at 250V from a battery or hand crank gen.   I used a bench
PS.  First up was the 6L6 and it had keying problems with a crystal.  I
switched to a pair of JAN metal 6V6's and it keyed beautifully with a rock
or as a VFO.  There was a lot of pulling with the VFO and a thermal warmup
period so I elected to go with an FT-243 rock.  Using the lowest Z output
coil tap I was able to get 5W output with a little over 300V applied (max
rating for a metal 6V6).

I will admit that I did make one teensy weensy temporary mod.  I snuck a
thin pair of wires through a factory adjustment hole in the rear.  The
wires were tack soldered to the B+ ON/OFF slide switch on the front panel.
This allowed me to use a foot-switch operated T/R relay for snappy QSO
exchanges.

With my antenna tuned to 50 ohm and measuring 5W, I then swapped the
antenna for the 50 ohm input of my spectrum analyzer.  This is how I
recorded 1.6mW of backwave.  The 200 mi path between my friend and I is a
good one around dawn.  When he copies me 599, the backwave is heard.  It's
not a one time event; it happens month after month. There is a ceramic
neutralization trimmer in the CMS circuit that I left untouched.  Was it
adjusted for 6V6 or 6L6?  I don't know.  I did not readjust it for fear of
breaking that cap.

Note that the telegraph key switches the B+ line.  That is why I chose the
Navy flameproof.  Lots of fun using this little rig.  I welcome comments on
the usage of the CMS set.

Dennis AE6C


On Sat, Oct 4, 2025 at 5:35?PM Hubert Miller <Kargo_cult at msn.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Sent from my Galaxy
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Frank Barnes <fbw4npn at gmail.com>
> Date: 10/4/25 15:03 (GMT-08:00)
> To: Hubert Miller <Kargo_cult at msn.com>
> Cc: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net, ARC5 <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [ARC5] [Milsurplus] SCR-287 (BC-375 & BC-348) WW II
> Operational Question
>
> I attach the output of my shop LM-8 (similar to the BC-221) to a random
> wire antenna about 20 feet long, strung along the floor joists in the
> ceiling of my indoors basement shop.  My understanding is that the output
> of these units is something like 10-15 milliwatts.   I receive the signal
> on my shop's Yaesu 840 and if the LM-8 is set to 7.04 Mhz (base frequency
> is 3.52 Mhz), I get receivable harmonics all the way into the 30 Mhz range.
> Some time ago, I keyed the LM-8 antenna while testing another receiver
> tuned to 7.04, and to my surprise, a station came back to me from well out
> of town.  Very surprising. Wonder what would happen if I coupled the LM-8
> to my twinlead-fed 144' Delta "loop"? - but too many harmonics!  Time to
> build an LC circuit to restrict the output to the desired frequency?  Might
> be fun.  QRPP  The only problem will be how to use my electronic keyer to
> send the code by breaking the antenna connection - I can't use my old J-38
> hand key much any more, due to a nerve injury, but I can loaf along with
> the keyer.
>
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2025 at 4:01?AM Hubert Miller <Kargo_cult at msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Your post is interesting but doesn't address my question. I imagine the
>> RF route for osc to antenna in the CMS is via grid-plate capacitance in the
>> 6L6 final
>> and thence to the output circuit. With the LM or BC-221 as transmitter,
>> as Bill related, i tend to think this would only work with a high Z
>> antenna, like 1/2 wave.
>>
>> I also have the CMS, never used it tho. The black plastic sheet for
>> covering the key, to keep hands off, got the sticky disease, so i discarded
>> it. I am thinking
>> i will plug in 1 volt receive tubes in the xmtr; maybe improve the
>> stability that way.
>> I wonder how the regen works with no actual gain control. That circuit
>> design is very old.
>> I suspect the CMS was intended for Philippines. It is a U.S. Navy radio.
>> The Navy also owned the MBM, which seems not to have been the insurgents'
>> answer
>> to prayer either. I further suspect the CMS was just too hobbyist - like
>> for a radio issued to people with only a basic operator level training. My
>> speculations
>> only. The CMS did stay in the Navy catalog for some years after the war,
>> apparently; witness that AC supply for it, which is clearly of a newer
>> generation of
>> electronics.
>> -Hue Miller
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> ARC5 mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: https://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>
>
> --
> Frank Barnes
> www.W4NPN.org <http://www.w4npn.net/>
> Chapel Hill, NC
> Grid Square FM05
> Cell 919.260.7955
> ______________________________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: https://www.qsl.net/donate.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251004/c52d8a6d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IMG_5619[1].JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3665704 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251004/c52d8a6d/attachment-0001.jpe>

From Kargo_cult at msn.com  Sun Oct  5 02:33:07 2025
From: Kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2025 06:33:07 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] SCR-287 (BC-375 & BC-348) WW II Operational
 Question
In-Reply-To: <CADgAsSTdKedn-mZymzuJg6JsLUucdsXDOUpGo4dFyB_-evvBGA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <PH0PR20MB437435C21CA7FAC2535F6271E4E5A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
	<CADgAsSTV5k5vjcshB+dW6S9OSdCc5k=+PcQT6p_uQMM=3q39+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<PH0PR20MB4374BFE38AAD8F77571A2EB4E4E5A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAOufO-_+VupGRtpV2njKHk6Hij2Po=jKVMG0UEy6EFHKXn-m8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<PH0PR20MB43746B34EEA923420628C403E4E5A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
	<CADgAsSTdKedn-mZymzuJg6JsLUucdsXDOUpGo4dFyB_-evvBGA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB437462CB2114AA361C3C2F5BE4E2A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

Not a whole lot is known about the CMS. The schematic looks like it was drawn around 1930, but that's obviously not the case.
As i may have mentioned here before, its ability to use a variety of 1 and 6 volt tubes, both triodes and pentodes, in the transmitter,
"may" follow a QST magaine idea from around 1938 - 1940 on an "emergency transmitter". I have this date issue, but it's somewhere
else right now. Since it's USN, i my suspicion is that it was for China or Philippines use, where it was a U.S. Navy game until maybe 
1944. SACO, the name just came to me. "Sino - American Cooperation Organization", i guess. BTW, the ONLY photo of the Navy DAG i 
have ever seen was of some Navy chap teaching a Chinese national how to use. Like it was actually going to be used by Chinese 
nationals - fat chance of that. I think more like, "This is a required course / this is a way to prove we're actually doing a job out here". 
Anyway, CMS. The plastic protector over the key is pretty hokey. The light bulb with loop for tuning the final is pretty hokey too. And
the regen receiver with tuning and regen controls only - no gain control - that went out about 1932. Anyway there would be scant need
for use of such a radio in China, so my guess it was designed in a hurry (  like "Hell of a Rush Order" ?  ) when the Philippines fell and it
was learned there was a resesitance still hiding out. Then was declined for actual issue, because, well, of the "amateurish" aspects i
mentioned. 
The MBM history in the Philippines is almost totally unkown too. The manual's directions for tuning up the transmitter is non-obvious
even to me, and i think before i memorized the operation, when using it, i would have to read the instructions carefully. It uses the
L network same as on the ART-13 and TBX, but i think it was maybe thought the user would be a total ignoramus and therefore, why
not confuse him some more ? And what genius thought you could walk thru Manila carrying a large, new, American - looking suitcase ?
Like the Japanese soldiers would merely remark, "Well, my goodness, there's something you don't see every day !"

The AC supply for the CMS was developed for some covert operations school or some such. I'm sure you can find more about it on the
net.
Photo is not my set. I don't think i have the 'test meter'; i think the space is taken up with transmitter coils, test lamp and such.
My archive indicates the article i saved is from 'Wireless For The Warrior', Louis Meulstee;  WftW Volume 4 Supplement, Chapter 219.
ver 108 Dec. 2018
-Hue Miller 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CMS with test meter .jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 90154 bytes
Desc: CMS with test meter .jpg
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251005/0c0bd660/attachment-0001.jpg>

From smithab11 at comcast.net  Mon Oct  6 12:45:04 2025
From: smithab11 at comcast.net (B. Smith)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 12:45:04 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Vehicle Power in the Field
Message-ID: <1c900605-8fb9-4268-ba35-32f1ca95256a@comcast.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251006/83b6d452/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: K4chepanels.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 302668 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251006/83b6d452/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: K4chepanels.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 302668 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251006/83b6d452/attachment-0003.jpg>

From RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu  Mon Oct  6 14:14:33 2025
From: RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu (Ray Fantini)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 18:14:33 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] AN/PRC-74 offset - clarifier
Message-ID: <DM8P220MB047249F5B6E9F77B17C091C2B8E3A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Been doing a bunch of AN/PRC-74 radios lately. Have a flock of them on the bench right now working on synthesizer alignment.
That radio has an internal calibrator that you push in and turn that zero beats the radio to the nearest 10 kHz. The same knob is also a "clarifier" for use in receive. The weird thing is the clarifier allows you to vary the 1 kHz osculator up and down in receiver to correct for differences in receive frequency and when you switch over to transmit the clarifier offset is removed and substituted with a preset offset. The result is that you can make small corrections when receiving when you transmit the radio goes back to a preset offset and not the same frequency that you may be on. This is only a matter of cycles, or hundreds of cycles but somewhat an issue.
Tony N3KCB turned me onto the idea of disconnecting wire number 1 on TB601 and when you do that the relay that switched the offset generated by the RIT out is bypassed and the result is the same amount of offset you needed to be on channel is there when you transmit.
Think that's a great modification. Now if I can get this whole mess of the spectrum generator and the calibration oscillator sorted and the multitude of offset oscillators set things will be looking up. And why is it you have to remove the entire synthesizer deck to remove the covers to do an alignment in the first place? Maybe alignment at depo was done with the entire assembly removed so it did not matter about having to remove it and replace it without the covers and then remove it again to put them back in place.


Ray F/KA3EKH

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251006/e78d925a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IMG_2579.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 944998 bytes
Desc: IMG_2579.JPG
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251006/e78d925a/attachment-0001.jpe>

From mzfb at aol.com  Mon Oct  6 14:33:23 2025
From: mzfb at aol.com (Mike Christie)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 18:33:23 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Milsurplus] Milsurplus Digest, Vol 258, Issue 19
In-Reply-To: <mailman.7244.1759774498.2991.milsurplus@mailman.qth.net>
References: <mailman.7244.1759774498.2991.milsurplus@mailman.qth.net>
Message-ID: <215750824.4492025.1759775603147@mail.yahoo.com>

 RayLooks like you got you work cut out for you. Please keep me in mind after you get some workingMikeW1ZFB
    On Monday, October 6, 2025 at 02:15:08 PM EDT, milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net> wrote:   

 Send Milsurplus mailing list submissions to
??? milsurplus at mailman.qth.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
??? http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
??? milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
??? milsurplus-owner at mailman.qth.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Milsurplus digest..."


Today's Topics:

? 1. AN/PRC-74 offset - clarifier (Ray Fantini)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 18:14:33 +0000
From: Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>
To: "mrca at mailman.qth.net" <mrca at mailman.qth.net>,
??? "milsurplus at mailman.qth.net" <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>,
??? "MMRCG at groups.io" <MMRCG at groups.io>
Subject: [Milsurplus] AN/PRC-74 offset - clarifier
Message-ID:
??? <DM8P220MB047249F5B6E9F77B17C091C2B8E3A at DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
??? 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Been doing a bunch of AN/PRC-74 radios lately. Have a flock of them on the bench right now working on synthesizer alignment.
That radio has an internal calibrator that you push in and turn that zero beats the radio to the nearest 10 kHz. The same knob is also a "clarifier" for use in receive. The weird thing is the clarifier allows you to vary the 1 kHz osculator up and down in receiver to correct for differences in receive frequency and when you switch over to transmit the clarifier offset is removed and substituted with a preset offset. The result is that you can make small corrections when receiving when you transmit the radio goes back to a preset offset and not the same frequency that you may be on. This is only a matter of cycles, or hundreds of cycles but somewhat an issue.
Tony N3KCB turned me onto the idea of disconnecting wire number 1 on TB601 and when you do that the relay that switched the offset generated by the RIT out is bypassed and the result is the same amount of offset you needed to be on channel is there when you transmit.
Think that's a great modification. Now if I can get this whole mess of the spectrum generator and the calibration oscillator sorted and the multitude of offset oscillators set things will be looking up. And why is it you have to remove the entire synthesizer deck to remove the covers to do an alignment in the first place? Maybe alignment at depo was done with the entire assembly removed so it did not matter about having to remove it and replace it without the covers and then remove it again to put them back in place.


Ray F/KA3EKH

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251006/e78d925a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IMG_2579.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 944998 bytes
Desc: IMG_2579.JPG
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251006/e78d925a/attachment.jpe>

------------------------------

______________________________________________________________
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


End of Milsurplus Digest, Vol 258, Issue 19
*******************************************
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251006/9fd0d214/attachment.html>

From n4fs at eozinc.com  Mon Oct  6 15:44:26 2025
From: n4fs at eozinc.com (Mike Feher)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 15:44:26 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] [MRCA] AN/PRC-74 offset - clarifier
In-Reply-To: <DM8P220MB047249F5B6E9F77B17C091C2B8E3A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <DM8P220MB047249F5B6E9F77B17C091C2B8E3A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <0dc001dc36f9$a01109a0$e0331ce0$@eozinc.com>

Ray - Not that it will be of any real help, but if you can find a RPST for
it, it may tell you what was at the depot. 73 - Mike 

 

Mike B. Feher, N4FS

89 Arnold Blvd.

Howell NJ 07731

908-902-3831

 

From: mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net <mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf
Of Ray Fantini via MRCA
Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 2:15 PM
To: mrca at mailman.qth.net; milsurplus at mailman.qth.net; MMRCG at groups.io
Subject: [MRCA] AN/PRC-74 offset - clarifier

 

Been doing a bunch of AN/PRC-74 radios lately. Have a flock of them on the
bench right now working on synthesizer alignment.

That radio has an internal calibrator that you push in and turn that zero
beats the radio to the nearest 10 kHz. The same knob is also a "clarifier"
for use in receive. The weird thing is the clarifier allows you to vary the
1 kHz osculator up and down in receiver to correct for differences in
receive frequency and when you switch over to transmit the clarifier offset
is removed and substituted with a preset offset. The result is that you can
make small corrections when receiving when you transmit the radio goes back
to a preset offset and not the same frequency that you may be on. This is
only a matter of cycles, or hundreds of cycles but somewhat an issue. 

Tony N3KCB turned me onto the idea of disconnecting wire number 1 on TB601
and when you do that the relay that switched the offset generated by the RIT
out is bypassed and the result is the same amount of offset you needed to be
on channel is there when you transmit. 

Think that's a great modification. Now if I can get this whole mess of the
spectrum generator and the calibration oscillator sorted and the multitude
of offset oscillators set things will be looking up. And why is it you have
to remove the entire synthesizer deck to remove the covers to do an
alignment in the first place? Maybe alignment at depo was done with the
entire assembly removed so it did not matter about having to remove it and
replace it without the covers and then remove it again to put them back in
place.

 

  

Ray F/KA3EKH

 



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251006/819d876c/attachment-0001.html>

From facility_406 at bruteforcedevelopment.com  Mon Oct  6 17:18:47 2025
From: facility_406 at bruteforcedevelopment.com (Facility 406)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 14:18:47 -0700
Subject: [Milsurplus] Vehicle Power in the Field
In-Reply-To: <1c900605-8fb9-4268-ba35-32f1ca95256a@comcast.net>
References: <1c900605-8fb9-4268-ba35-32f1ca95256a@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <451f105f-d841-aa59-8f18-f92c8dad5595@bruteforcedevelopment.com>



On 10/6/2025 09:45, B. Smith via Milsurplus wrote:
> My solution to maintaining a charged battery (24 volt)? during display ops.
> Panels can provide over 4 amps.

Nice!

In the mid-90's, I had 6m, 2m, and 440 in a 1986 Toyota Celica ST.

I had a habit of leaving the radios on while roaming around where I was, 
and with a weak battery, voltage would often drop below 10V causing 
problems with starting, and radios to shut off.

I fixed this by placing a solar panel in the center of the hood. 
Nothing big, about 5W, which allowed me to leave the radios on, and 
start the car with no dropouts.

A lot of comments while I was out and about, of course, but the best was 
heard when I pulled into McDonald's at Tonopah, Nevada.

Several kids had their faces pressed against the windows checking out my 
little sports car bristling with antennas, and as I went inside, I heard 
one comment, "I wonder what that is?"  His buddy swatted him, and said, 
"You dummy!  Don't you know anything??  That's one of those new electric 
cars!"

Kurt

From mjcal79 at gmail.com  Mon Oct  6 18:48:58 2025
From: mjcal79 at gmail.com (Charlie L.)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 18:48:58 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Vehicle Power in the Field
Message-ID: <CA+d3itZ6-57U0WZkUjaPtwKBBua8TSvH=K3DBO7=O8H8vtAUaw@mail.gmail.com>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251006/96ff68b5/attachment-0001.html>

From mjcal79 at gmail.com  Mon Oct  6 18:52:56 2025
From: mjcal79 at gmail.com (Charlie L.)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 18:52:56 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Vehicle power in the field
Message-ID: <CA+d3ita12GVfdhQVUPVpg9RfuV+mWd5VOEe2sT_pRDe5oTgRGQ@mail.gmail.com>

Forgot to attach it.

Charlie in NC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251006/d9219129/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SignalCorpsHorse.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 78269 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251006/d9219129/attachment-0001.jpg>

From kargo_cult at msn.com  Mon Oct  6 20:50:36 2025
From: kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2025 00:50:36 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] RUGF parts
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB437446CEE7042EBB62FEB1EEE4E0A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>


I find myself today rooting in storage, and - estimating the extent of my challenge.
I know this is really short notice, but - i will be here about one more hour from sending this. If there's something you need in RU GF, let me know right now.
-Hue Miller



Sent from my Galaxy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251007/cd6608c1/attachment.html>

From gfsmith at cox.net  Mon Oct  6 23:45:49 2025
From: gfsmith at cox.net (gfsmith)
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2025 03:45:49 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Milsurplus] Odd transmitters,,,
In-Reply-To: <ea777248-c506-33e7-584c-2d98228a4289@ix.netcom.com>
References: <ea777248-c506-33e7-584c-2d98228a4289@ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <1594085998.121359.1759808749595@mail.yahoo.com>

 Here you go: http://www.k4che.com/BC221/BC221pg1.htm :) 

    On Saturday, October 4, 2025 at 05:37:35 PM PDT, Thomas Adams <quixote2 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:  
 
 
My first QSO (long before I got a license) was with a Knight Kit "Span Master" regen receiver.

With the regen cranked up all the way and a key in the antenna lead, me and a kid a block away 

were able to run low speed CW. To receive, just back off of the regen control and turn up the

volume.

?

I'm not even sure we were inside of a ham band (I'm betting we weren't).

?

?

Mr. T.

?

-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie L. <mjcal79 at gmail.com>
Sent: Oct 4, 2025 3:19 PM
To: <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: [Milsurplus] Odd transmitters,,,

?
"Once upon a time when I was active the Navy-Marine Corps MARS system one
? of our members used an LM or 221 (don't remember which) as? CW transmitter
? by keying the antenna feed line." ?If you have an old HP608 sig gen, you can operate 2 meter FM by hooking an ant to it, set it on freq, and speaking loudly into the side of it.? Voice vibrations FM the carrier. ?Charlie
?
______________________________________________________________
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/20251007/15a01ccc/attachment.html>

From kargo_cult at msn.com  Tue Oct  7 01:46:18 2025
From: kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2025 05:46:18 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] Vehicle power in the field
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB43741598423E661A97560FECE4E0A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

I had the rec years ago, then sold it for not much money cuz i saw no future for me with SCR-203. I had the saddlebags too, but i couldn't find them when i last looked, so i may have given them away. I like regen receivers a whole lot, but you have to draw the line somewhere. ( projects/time. )
-Hue Miller



Sent from my Galaxy


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251007/91a79f07/attachment-0001.html>

From smithab11 at comcast.net  Tue Oct  7 11:38:48 2025
From: smithab11 at comcast.net (B. Smith)
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2025 11:38:48 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Vehidle Power in the Field Questions
Message-ID: <87ffe732-6262-4560-925e-a1c3d57a9401@comcast.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251007/be3b2fe5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: solk4che.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 202325 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251007/be3b2fe5/attachment-0002.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: solk4che.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 202325 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251007/be3b2fe5/attachment-0003.jpe>

From clare.owens at gmail.com  Tue Oct  7 13:32:07 2025
From: clare.owens at gmail.com (Clare Owens)
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2025 13:32:07 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Vehidle Power in the Field Questions
In-Reply-To: <87ffe732-6262-4560-925e-a1c3d57a9401@comcast.net>
References: <87ffe732-6262-4560-925e-a1c3d57a9401@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CAFdOJ7PhjU82VK8Fntzmedzm=XJpCwGqszG21Oug+7Ur-hL_Qw@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you, those panels are very interesting.  I just looked at the Ascent
web site and could not find any link to a way to find out costs or how to
purchase.  Can you assist in locating a source?

73,

Clare, N2RJB

On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 11:39?AM B. Smith via Milsurplus <
milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> wrote:

> Answers to questions. The flexible panels are made by Ascent and can be
> rolled up  for storage. They are just about the right length for the top of
> the M151A1. Wiring  can be easily concealed. Each panel is rated for max
> power at over 35 volts. Sometimes I just use a single panel.  No noise, no
> fumes, and the engine starts at the end of the day when you are ready to
> depart the LZ.
> K4CHE
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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/20251007/63fa1408/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: solk4che.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 202325 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251007/63fa1408/attachment-0001.jpe>

From old_radio at aol.com  Tue Oct  7 15:31:51 2025
From: old_radio at aol.com (Jim Whartenby)
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2025 19:31:51 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Milsurplus] [R-390] R-392
In-Reply-To: <ec460e73-dc55-404c-bc07-31625c5da2e0@twc.com>
References: <CABC_M2DFuLi3TZAzGXU0h9MpTk0x6Vy=Zy5oeJ4vay=tizdKNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABC_M2B9fqCScGVkpFo34PaqKPNF79dX+v=9THjgk-TK+Wxnfg@mail.gmail.com>
	<002201dc3469$baf4ad40$30de07c0$@videotron.ca>
	<CABC_M2AUKkbF8Z37pRHQPFmdaM2q+X1uEUmg+17Dc42u+DJz0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<DM6PR03MB3529C1E9D9D3BCBC9353C5C9B7E5A@DM6PR03MB3529.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<CABC_M2DB2NGmZeehHODeQ8k0XCWbVGoS19VYU_G75rikjdH5rQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<DM6PR03MB3529F6A485936BC62BC3771CB7E5A@DM6PR03MB3529.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<CABC_M2AXcE4PCwANMTh-hbuzwWatiCqqbmiX-gQY5JLgb+h=Cw@mail.gmail.com>
	<DM6PR03MB3529C71B63AEF4BFA12218D4B7E3A@DM6PR03MB3529.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<002301dc36dc$8dd1e380$a975aa80$@videotron.ca>
	<1004773612.4450273.1759770855769@mail.yahoo.com>
	<003a01dc36ea$e76b7a60$b6426f20$@videotron.ca>
	<1715820994.14026.1759776486550@mail.yahoo.com>
	<824580224.1852.1759776862149@mail.yahoo.com>
	<ec460e73-dc55-404c-bc07-31625c5da2e0@twc.com>
Message-ID: <872208102.478799.1759865512390@mail.yahoo.com>

I have received two requests for a DM of the test data.? One fellow asked a few questions about the operating temperature of the R-390/URR.? My reply is in blue below. 
 

 Hi Jim,?
<snip>

A question just popped into mind while writing this:? During prototype 
testing just why didn't Collins engineers understand and take measures 
to mitigate the fact the audio deck gets roasted in hot SIGINT locations 
(deserts, etc.), for example?

The Collins designers did understand the heat issues and early on challenged the specification and made suggestions.? Some of the challanged specifications were addressed and others were not.??See the?R-389-390-final-engineering-report-(Al-Tirevold) which is enclosed.??On document page 7, pdf page 12 starting at the second to last paragraph.

During development they probably at least placed units into 
environmental overs in their labs to run them at the upper limits of the 
temperature specification. That potential for thermal damage would have 
been easy to catch. Or did the designers plow through the Design Phase 
piece of the schedule thus not leaving time in the test-and-rework 
schedule for engineering changes after that prototype analyses which 
would prevent the RX (or, at minimum, a couple of its internal modules) 
from simply becoming expensive 'throw-away' item(s) once damaged beyond?practical repair.
Collins agreed to the requirements of the R-389 and R-390 in Military Specification Mil-R-13947A SigC dated 14 February 1958.? This was later amended for the R-390A and became?Mil-R-13947B SigC dated 26 October 1960.? This amended specification for the R-390A/URR is also enclosed.??

Spec is spec as they say so once the contract is signed Collins agreed to all of the contract requirements.? Through the progress reporting cycles, the problems encountered in trying to make the agreed upon performance can be negotiated but there is no guarantee that the Signal Corps will modify the spec to make life easier for the Collins design team.

A case in point (no pun intended) is the waterproof case mentioned in the first answer, above.? The high heat load of the R-390 in mobile configuration was addressed and the result was a new contract for the R-392.? I am sure that there were many issues that were mentioned in the series of progress reports, some were changed and some were not.

The regulated power supply is mentioned in the enclosed Final Engineering Report on document page 14, PDF page 19.? It appears that the regulated power supply was an agreed upon solution but since I haven't seen the first Military Specification,?Mil-R-13947A, I do not know if it was required by the Signal Corps or suggested by Collins.? In either case, the two parties agreed to it.

All of the above answers implies that the designer of the R-390 was the Signal Corps and Collins implemented this design.? Of course this is just my opinion (I am sure that there will be some later comments) but Collins did manufacturer a receiver that was ahead of it's time for the U.S. Navy, the ARR-15.? This is the first receiver using the second and third PTOs that Collins designed, patented and built.??

I can easily imagine that the Signal Corps tested the R-390 concept by putting a crystal controlled pre-selector ahead of the ARR-15.? Then you have an RF stage, mixer, variable IF, second mixer, fixed IF, then audio and power supply.? This is pretty much the simplified block diagram of the R-390, is it not?
The early R-390/URR manuals (TM 11-856, January 1955 and two slightly 
earlier Collins-published preliminary manuals) specify a 55C (131F) 
upper environmental limit suggesting not just for storage but for actual 
operation. No distinction made between storage and operation.

Whew! Can you imagine the temps found in a rack full of these units, 
possibly with covers left in place, in a small SIGINT enclosure or 
vehicle setting in a Middle East or North African desert back in the 
day? Prototype testing should have raised that risk. But maybe, back in 
the early 50s once the Korean Conflict erupted, the WWII mindset of 
literally "Get it done at any cost!" could have still been in practice? 
The later manual (TM 11-5820-357-10, R-390A/URR Operators Manual, 
29DEC60) has that info left out for some reason. The bean counters 
evidently caught on to that mindset I had mentioned and launched a 
project which begat the cost-reduced R-390A in the mid-50s.
Well there is something to be said about the Korean War and how it affected military procurement.? The B-47 was greatly affected and so were all of the systems that went into this aircraft.? I feel that both the Signal Corps and Collins learned much from the R-390 development experience and the follow on contract for the R-390A cost reduction program reflects this Korean War experience and the trust in the Collins engineering department.

Regards,Jim

  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251007/eba17cae/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: R-389-390-final-engineering-report-(Al-Tirevold).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1512091 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251007/eba17cae/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mil-r-13947b R-390 military specification.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 168021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251007/eba17cae/attachment-0003.pdf>

From kg2bz at comcast.net  Tue Oct  7 16:07:26 2025
From: kg2bz at comcast.net (comcast)
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2025 16:07:26 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] looking for PNH-4 military tape recorder
Message-ID: <5CB239C3-3085-47A2-AE92-F79304199838@comcast.net>

folks. anyone have one of these for sale? let me know thanks Jeff N2IA
Sent from my iPhone

From kargo_cult at msn.com  Tue Oct  7 17:26:40 2025
From: kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2025 21:26:40 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] FW: caps mica xmt
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB43746EB8E4732C5705D01CA9E4E0A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

These mica transmit caps are for high voltage and the large rectangular box ones are also marked with RF amps capacity. I wonder, has anyone here experience with the reliability of this type cap ? In other words, are they still likely to be good ? I of course will maybe test them later, depending on info i get.
-thanks-
Hue Miller



Sent from my Galaxy


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251007/30319dc3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 20251006_183407_resized.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 222806 bytes
Desc: 20251006_183407_resized.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251007/30319dc3/attachment-0001.jpg>

From kgordon2006 at frontier.com  Tue Oct  7 21:07:35 2025
From: kgordon2006 at frontier.com (kgordon2006)
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2025 18:07:35 -0700
Subject: [Milsurplus] FW: caps mica xmt
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR20MB43746EB8E4732C5705D01CA9E4E0A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <208836486.537769.1759885661845@frontier.com>

I have used both kinds in the past. For my uses, they seemed to be almost indestructible.I used a bunch of them in an antenna coupler once.They worked perfectly.But that was a long time ago: like 40 years ago.Ken W7EKBSent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Hubert Miller <kargo_cult at msn.com> Date: 10/7/25  14:26  (GMT-08:00) To: 'PSARA google group' <psara_seattle at googlegroups.com>, Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net Cc: nwvrs at googlegroups.com Subject: [Milsurplus] FW: caps mica xmt 
These mica transmit caps are for high voltage and the large rectangular box ones are also marked with RF amps capacity. I wonder, has anyone here experience with the reliability of this type cap ? In other words, are they still likely to be
 good ? I of course will maybe test them later, depending on info i get.
-thanks-
Hue Miller







Sent from my Galaxy







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251007/be15cc05/attachment.html>

From mstangelo at comcast.net  Tue Oct  7 22:29:44 2025
From: mstangelo at comcast.net (mstangelo at comcast.net)
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2025 22:29:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Milsurplus] FW: caps mica xmt
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR20MB43746EB8E4732C5705D01CA9E4E0A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
References: <PH0PR20MB43746EB8E4732C5705D01CA9E4E0A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <1853102400.64565.1759890584907@connect.xfinity.com>

Hue,

I have some caps like those. What I do is try to find out the current rating and make a resonant series circuit with a coil and pass RF from a transmitter into a 50 ohm dummy load. See if they heat up.

Mike N2MS

> On 10/07/2025 5:26 PM EDT Hubert Miller <kargo_cult at msn.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> These mica transmit caps are for high voltage and the large rectangular box ones are also marked with RF amps capacity. I wonder, has anyone here experience with the reliability of this type cap ? In other words, are they still likely to be good ? I of course will maybe test them later, depending on info i get.
> -thanks-
> Hue Miller

From mjcal79 at gmail.com  Wed Oct  8 15:47:34 2025
From: mjcal79 at gmail.com (Charlie L.)
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 15:47:34 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Transmit micas
Message-ID: <CA+d3ita=hgEZVwCrWv4+CAm6AhWxrVU26De9YV7Z+B3HLwVU3w@mail.gmail.com>

I also have a box full of these, and when I checked them, most were
leaking, not just ua with volts attached but indications using an
ohmmeter.  The block with the two mounting holes had a higher failure than
the flat ones.   Still, being 80+ years old, many still hung in there.
When I was solving the last issues in my TCS station, the key to getting
rated power out was finding many of these caps leaking, some only a little
bit, megohms, but enough to make a 20 watt difference in output.

Charlie, W4MEC in NC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251008/1b1ba30b/attachment.html>

From mark.k3msb at gmail.com  Wed Oct  8 19:20:19 2025
From: mark.k3msb at gmail.com (Mark K3MSB)
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 19:20:19 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Mid Atlantic Air Museum (non) Airshow Reenactment AAR
Message-ID: <CABdVoaDsXgzOSgdMLZ--c3nV66t8AwF2EatiWCC1J=rbFtcyqg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Everyone

As mentioned before, the airshow was cancelled about a week before we were
to attend the event, but the group went anyway and had a great time!   The
museum was glad we were there and they treated us wonderfully.

Here's a photo of my setup:

[image: image.png]

The DF setup is the same as before, but I brought the SCR-287 instead of
the SCR-274N.

The BC-348Q is restored and sports a restored dynamotor, and it runs nicely
off a pair of batteries in series.   Very little dynamotor whine.   The
antenna was a 50 foot wire run from the radio tent to another tent, and
performed well.   I tuned the receiver to CHU Canada on 7850 Kc and quite a
few people were said they were "amazed that radio can hear that far"!

The BC-375 was for display only.   The DF setup worked well with the
Broadcast Band receiver, but alas, no NDB's could be heard this time.

Even if there weren't issues with the museum's aircraft, there was a
temporary flight restriction issued for the Norfolk / Virginia Beach area
on Saturday due to President Trump being in the area.  The TFR would have
significantly impacted the airshow.

Still, the museum's Grumman Avenger was flying the circuit  all day
qualifying new pilots.   Here's a few videos....

https://www.k3msb.com/temp/Avenger1.MOV
https://www.k3msb.com/temp/Avenger2.MOV
https://www.k3msb.com/temp/Avenger3.MOV

As far as what worked well etc, nothing different that what I reported for
the events I participated in earlier this summer.

73 Mark K3MSB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251008/a5ce7aec/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1217692 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251008/a5ce7aec/attachment-0001.png>

From arc5 at ix.netcom.com  Thu Oct  9 05:37:41 2025
From: arc5 at ix.netcom.com (David Stinson)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 04:37:41 -0500
Subject: [Milsurplus] Transmit micas
In-Reply-To: <CA+d3ita=hgEZVwCrWv4+CAm6AhWxrVU26De9YV7Z+B3HLwVU3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+d3ita=hgEZVwCrWv4+CAm6AhWxrVU26De9YV7Z+B3HLwVU3w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6a01fca8-76bf-419f-b082-0f76be6f3067@ix.netcom.com>

A tip from the late, great Nick Brolon:
If you have a sensitive DC volt meter which will
read millivolts, put it across these "transmit micas."
On many, you will read a small voltage.
This is from moisture which has entered over
80 years.

Cover a cookie sheet with parchment paper.
Put your micas in a 180-200F oven for an hour or so.
The heat will drive out the moisture from most
of them.? Let them cool and many will check "good" again.
Worked for me.? Had a few "stubborn" which
required a second treatment.? Only two
failed to recover from about a dozen.

GL OM DE Dave AB5S
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251009/5a872743/attachment.html>

From RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu  Thu Oct  9 10:11:16 2025
From: RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu (Ray Fantini)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 14:11:16 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] [MRCA] Mid Atlantic Air Museum (non) Airshow
	Reenactment AAR
In-Reply-To: <CABdVoaDsXgzOSgdMLZ--c3nV66t8AwF2EatiWCC1J=rbFtcyqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABdVoaDsXgzOSgdMLZ--c3nV66t8AwF2EatiWCC1J=rbFtcyqg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DM8P220MB047287F5AA835D90B44FDE5CB8EEA@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Cool set up, If you get the power supply sorted for the 375 or maybe move to something like a ART-13 for a ARC-8 set up think you can do many on air QSO on 3885 or better yet 7290 with that set up. I found doing anything on forty to be way better then eighty because you get good coverage on forty in the morning or afternoon where eighty don't open up until later in the day.  ARC-8 set up will give you 100 watts that will work with a short antenna and still give great performance, and there is always a good group of AM stations to talk with on 7290 on the weekend.

Ray F/KA3EKH


From: mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net <mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of Mark K3MSB
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2025 7:20 PM
To: Military Radio Collectors Association (mrca at mailman.qth.net) <mrca at mailman.qth.net>; ARC5 <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>; List Milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: [MRCA] Mid Atlantic Air Museum (non) Airshow Reenactment AAR


Hi Everyone

As mentioned before, the airshow was cancelled about a week before we were to attend the event, but the group went anyway and had a great time!   The museum was glad we were there and they treated us wonderfully.

Here's a photo of my setup:

[cid:image001.png at 01DC3902.E24C47C0]
The DF setup is the same as before, but I brought the SCR-287 instead of the SCR-274N.

The BC-348Q is restored and sports a restored dynamotor, and it runs nicely off a pair of batteries in series.   Very little dynamotor whine.   The antenna was a 50 foot wire run from the radio tent to another tent, and performed well.   I tuned the receiver to CHU Canada on 7850 Kc and quite a few people were said they were "amazed that radio can hear that far"!

The BC-375 was for display only.   The DF setup worked well with the Broadcast Band receiver, but alas, no NDB's could be heard this time.

Even if there weren't issues with the museum's aircraft, there was a temporary flight restriction issued for the Norfolk / Virginia Beach area on Saturday due to President Trump being in the area.  The TFR would have significantly impacted the airshow.

Still, the museum's Grumman Avenger was flying the circuit  all day  qualifying new pilots.   Here's a few videos....

https://www.k3msb.com/temp/Avenger1.MOV
https://www.k3msb.com/temp/Avenger2.MOV
https://www.k3msb.com/temp/Avenger3.MOV

As far as what worked well etc, nothing different that what I reported for the events I participated in earlier this summer.

73 Mark K3MSB

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251009/667e7a82/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1217692 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251009/667e7a82/attachment-0001.png>

From mark.k3msb at gmail.com  Thu Oct  9 12:10:35 2025
From: mark.k3msb at gmail.com (Mark K3MSB)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 12:10:35 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Military Aviation Museum (non) Airshow Reenactment
	AAR -- Correction
In-Reply-To: <CABdVoaDsXgzOSgdMLZ--c3nV66t8AwF2EatiWCC1J=rbFtcyqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABdVoaDsXgzOSgdMLZ--c3nV66t8AwF2EatiWCC1J=rbFtcyqg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABdVoaB6RROMXn_FjVodf3hRhfMW7U=-BxaiNHgtsN9Rv=JU2A@mail.gmail.com>

Good Gravy....

I was at the Military Aviation Museum in VA Beach last weekend.... NOT the
Mid Atlantic Air Museum.....   Sorry for the typo....

Mark K3MSB

On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 7:20?PM Mark K3MSB <mark.k3msb at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Everyone
>
> As mentioned before, the airshow was cancelled about a week before we were
> to attend the event, but the group went anyway and had a great time!   The
> museum was glad we were there and they treated us wonderfully.
>
> Here's a photo of my setup:
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> The DF setup is the same as before, but I brought the SCR-287 instead of
> the SCR-274N.
>
> The BC-348Q is restored and sports a restored dynamotor, and it runs
> nicely off a pair of batteries in series.   Very little dynamotor whine.
>  The antenna was a 50 foot wire run from the radio tent to another tent,
> and performed well.   I tuned the receiver to CHU Canada on 7850 Kc and
> quite a few people were said they were "amazed that radio can hear that
> far"!
>
> The BC-375 was for display only.   The DF setup worked well with the
> Broadcast Band receiver, but alas, no NDB's could be heard this time.
>
> Even if there weren't issues with the museum's aircraft, there was a
> temporary flight restriction issued for the Norfolk / Virginia Beach area
> on Saturday due to President Trump being in the area.  The TFR would have
> significantly impacted the airshow.
>
> Still, the museum's Grumman Avenger was flying the circuit  all day
> qualifying new pilots.   Here's a few videos....
>
> https://www.k3msb.com/temp/Avenger1.MOV
> https://www.k3msb.com/temp/Avenger2.MOV
> https://www.k3msb.com/temp/Avenger3.MOV
>
> As far as what worked well etc, nothing different that what I reported for
> the events I participated in earlier this summer.
>
> 73 Mark K3MSB
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251009/070b720d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1217692 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251009/070b720d/attachment-0001.png>

From jphutch60bj at gmail.com  Thu Oct  9 16:42:14 2025
From: jphutch60bj at gmail.com (jphutch60bj)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 15:42:14 -0500
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC348 IF transformer tuning tool ?
Message-ID: <7f3c80fb-6124-4a0b-ad78-1afd4c5067cd@gmail.com>


Finished replacing Resistors that were out of spec in my second BC348-R

Finished aligning the set for the most part.

BC348 IF tuning tool ?? I have a Straw type tuning tool I use to adjust 
the bottom of the IF transformers.

--> My issue is, it is to fat to adjust the 2nD IF, secondary coil in 
the vicinity of, under,? the power switch! (pic attached)

The tuning tool I use is "standard" off the shelf tool, its basically a 
tough straw with a metal insert.

Anyone have a tool that can sneak through the switch to tweak the IF 
transformer?

A picture, with a description would help.

I? may have to make one out of a chopstick ?

Thanks

JPHutch

.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IMG_2370.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3112393 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251009/53836ef0/attachment-0001.jpe>

From hwhall at compuserve.com  Fri Oct 10 04:07:37 2025
From: hwhall at compuserve.com (hwhall@aol.com)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 08:07:37 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC348 IF transformer tuning tool ?
In-Reply-To: <7f3c80fb-6124-4a0b-ad78-1afd4c5067cd@gmail.com>
References: <7f3c80fb-6124-4a0b-ad78-1afd4c5067cd@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1981911851.1288021.1760083657261@mail.yahoo.com>

Skinny screwdriver with shrink tubing to prevent accidental shorts??

Wayne
WB4OGM

On Thursday, October 9, 2025 at 02:42:54 PM MDT, jphutch60bj <jphutch60bj at gmail.com> wrote: 

Finished replacing Resistors that were out of spec in my second BC348-R

Finished aligning the set for the most part.

BC348 IF tuning tool ?? I have a Straw type tuning tool I use to adjust 
the bottom of the IF transformers.

--> My issue is, it is to fat to adjust the 2nD IF, secondary coil in 
the vicinity of, under,? the power switch! (pic attached)

The tuning tool I use is "standard" off the shelf tool, its basically a 
tough straw with a metal insert.

Anyone have a tool that can sneak through the switch to tweak the IF 
transformer?

A picture, with a description would help.

I? may have to make one out of a chopstick ?

Thanks

JPHutch

.

______________________________________________________________
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

From mark.k3msb at gmail.com  Sat Oct 11 00:39:17 2025
From: mark.k3msb at gmail.com (Mark K3MSB)
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2025 00:39:17 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC348 IF transformer tuning tool ?
In-Reply-To: <7f3c80fb-6124-4a0b-ad78-1afd4c5067cd@gmail.com>
References: <7f3c80fb-6124-4a0b-ad78-1afd4c5067cd@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABdVoaBf+uR-FH1utocFx29_Q_zCCC1b4fehnRMXw3ZDmh7-SA@mail.gmail.com>

Remove the handle and nut securing the switch then move the switch back a
bit to give you some room?

Mark K3MSB

On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 4:42?PM jphutch60bj <jphutch60bj at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Finished replacing Resistors that were out of spec in my second BC348-R
>
> Finished aligning the set for the most part.
>
> BC348 IF tuning tool ?  I have a Straw type tuning tool I use to adjust
> the bottom of the IF transformers.
>
> --> My issue is, it is to fat to adjust the 2nD IF, secondary coil in
> the vicinity of, under,  the power switch! (pic attached)
>
> The tuning tool I use is "standard" off the shelf tool, its basically a
> tough straw with a metal insert.
>
> Anyone have a tool that can sneak through the switch to tweak the IF
> transformer?
>
> A picture, with a description would help.
>
> I  may have to make one out of a chopstick ?
>
> Thanks
>
> JPHutch
>
> .
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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/20251011/959c1bf6/attachment.html>

From scr274 at gmail.com  Sat Oct 11 10:49:28 2025
From: scr274 at gmail.com (Ken Kinderman)
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2025 10:49:28 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] RT-19/ARC-4 Free for shipping - Last Call
Message-ID: <CAKUjTOYDFa+VJkWU5t2K-wD59zoo_y=sYys72YH_cOLPE-CbNw@mail.gmail.com>

Here is a re-post from a few weeks ago. If no takers, it gets jettisoned?


Free for shipping: RT-19/ARC-4 in generally unmolested condition (someone
fiddled with two of the intermediate coils, but no disaster).

No handles, and no rack, but all else is there. Includes the large
rectangular Cannon plug for the rear. The missing handles are the same as
used on the SCR-508/608 units such as the BC-683 etc.

Also Includes:

Tubes

Dynamotor

Plane-to-Plane Channel installation module and dedicated IF transformer,
uninstalled (missing two tubes  in the module (6AC7's I think)

Mint condition C-52A/ARC-4A Control Box and the required round Cannon plug.

Two original ARC-4 703A dual RX/TX crystals (142.56 and 142.02)

A second dynamotor and a box of parts from a cannibalized unit (not me!)

Instruction book

Email me off list for photos

Shipping will be over 55 pounds, approx.
Or come and get it in Tuckahoe New York, 10 miles north of New York City.

73,

Ken
W2EWL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251011/db496ba0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IMG_3545 copy.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 306291 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251011/db496ba0/attachment-0001.jpeg>

From mark.k3msb at gmail.com  Sat Oct 11 12:59:13 2025
From: mark.k3msb at gmail.com (Mark K3MSB)
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2025 12:59:13 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] (no subject)
Message-ID: <CABdVoaBbMOhL41wY_+SnSui=4=e+CqUk93R=rL2nz65n-dvfMA@mail.gmail.com>

I have several of these ARC-5 (generically speaking) style relays and I've
been unable to find out what they are used for.

They are numbered between 812 to 816.  I find nothing close in my SCR-274N
or AN/ARC-5 manuals.

DC Coil resistance is 40 ohms.  SPST.

[image: image.png]

Any ideas?

Mark K3MSB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251011/05a69007/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 261446 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251011/05a69007/attachment-0001.png>

From mark.k3msb at gmail.com  Sat Oct 11 12:59:59 2025
From: mark.k3msb at gmail.com (Mark K3MSB)
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2025 12:59:59 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Relays
In-Reply-To: <CABdVoaBbMOhL41wY_+SnSui=4=e+CqUk93R=rL2nz65n-dvfMA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABdVoaBbMOhL41wY_+SnSui=4=e+CqUk93R=rL2nz65n-dvfMA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABdVoaAyLDOxHW5D0KERiXJavJOcJcqP2HsH=rs8RmMLoNy13Q@mail.gmail.com>

Reposting with a subject......

On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 12:59?PM Mark K3MSB <mark.k3msb at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have several of these ARC-5 (generically speaking) style relays and I've
> been unable to find out what they are used for.
>
> They are numbered between 812 to 816.  I find nothing close in my SCR-274N
> or AN/ARC-5 manuals.
>
> DC Coil resistance is 40 ohms.  SPST.
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Mark K3MSB
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251011/652ac87a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 261446 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251011/652ac87a/attachment-0001.png>

From kargo_cult at msn.com  Sat Oct 11 16:37:29 2025
From: kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2025 20:37:29 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] (no subject)
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB4374FC5DB00AA2650FAEE1D3E4ECA@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

They're not from the modulator, are they ?
-H.



Sent from my Galaxy


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251011/73d16642/attachment.html>

From aaf-radio-1 at aafradio.org  Sat Oct 11 17:25:09 2025
From: aaf-radio-1 at aafradio.org (Michael Hanz)
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2025 17:25:09 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Relays
In-Reply-To: <CABdVoaAyLDOxHW5D0KERiXJavJOcJcqP2HsH=rs8RmMLoNy13Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABdVoaBbMOhL41wY_+SnSui=4=e+CqUk93R=rL2nz65n-dvfMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABdVoaAyLDOxHW5D0KERiXJavJOcJcqP2HsH=rs8RmMLoNy13Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <012f1d05-6997-4514-9a7d-1c62a62b5a99@aafradio.org>

Hi Mark,

Definitely ARC style relays.? The ceramic insulation is pretty 
distinctive.? Not sure of all their uses, but I have a crystal frequency 
selector hulk with ten of them arrayed behind the twenty crystal 
sockets.? One larger DPDT relay selects which bank of ten can get 
selected.? I suspect they're from a postwar ARC set, but I don't collect 
those.

If anyone can use this assembly, let me know.
- Mike KC4TOS



On 10/11/2025 12:59 PM, Mark K3MSB wrote:
> Reposting with a subject......
>
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 12:59?PM Mark K3MSB <mark.k3msb at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     I have several of these ARC-5 (generically speaking) style relays
>     and I've been unable to find out what they are used for.
>
>     They are numbered between 812 to 816.? I find nothing close in my
>     SCR-274N or AN/ARC-5 manuals.
>
>     DC Coil resistance is 40 ohms.? SPST.
>
>     image.png
>
>     Any ideas?
>
>     Mark K3MSB
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

-- 
Michael Hanz - KC4TOS


From aaf-radio-1 at aafradio.org  Sat Oct 11 17:28:02 2025
From: aaf-radio-1 at aafradio.org (Michael Hanz)
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2025 17:28:02 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Relays
In-Reply-To: <012f1d05-6997-4514-9a7d-1c62a62b5a99@aafradio.org>
References: <CABdVoaBbMOhL41wY_+SnSui=4=e+CqUk93R=rL2nz65n-dvfMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABdVoaAyLDOxHW5D0KERiXJavJOcJcqP2HsH=rs8RmMLoNy13Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<012f1d05-6997-4514-9a7d-1c62a62b5a99@aafradio.org>
Message-ID: <b0eb2db5-60c0-4457-b954-543a97f1528d@aafradio.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251011/6e453222/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mCJgnxB9mqYXxxlA.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1225581 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251011/6e453222/attachment-0001.png>

From jphutch60bj at gmail.com  Sun Oct 12 00:09:50 2025
From: jphutch60bj at gmail.com (jphutch60bj)
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2025 23:09:50 -0500
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC348 IF transformer tuning tool ?
In-Reply-To: <CABdVoaBf+uR-FH1utocFx29_Q_zCCC1b4fehnRMXw3ZDmh7-SA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7f3c80fb-6124-4a0b-ad78-1afd4c5067cd@gmail.com>
	<CABdVoaBf+uR-FH1utocFx29_Q_zCCC1b4fehnRMXw3ZDmh7-SA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bd992dc8-3caa-4699-b830-629ef787e387@gmail.com>

That Idea just might work, I'll use another nut to off set the switch.

On 10/10/2025 11:39 PM, Mark K3MSB wrote:
> Remove the handle and nut securing the switch then move the switch 
> back a bit to give you some room?
>
> Mark K3MSB
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 4:42?PM jphutch60bj <jphutch60bj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>     Finished replacing Resistors that were out of spec in my second
>     BC348-R
>
>     Finished aligning the set for the most part.
>
>     BC348 IF tuning tool ?? I have a Straw type tuning tool I use to
>     adjust
>     the bottom of the IF transformers.
>
>     --> My issue is, it is to fat to adjust the 2nD IF, secondary coil in
>     the vicinity of, under,? the power switch! (pic attached)
>
>     The tuning tool I use is "standard" off the shelf tool, its
>     basically a
>     tough straw with a metal insert.
>
>     Anyone have a tool that can sneak through the switch to tweak the IF
>     transformer?
>
>     A picture, with a description would help.
>
>     I? may have to make one out of a chopstick ?
>
>     Thanks
>
>     JPHutch
>
>     .
>
>     ______________________________________________________________
>     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/20251011/f1988a06/attachment.html>

From arc5 at ix.netcom.com  Sun Oct 12 12:31:13 2025
From: arc5 at ix.netcom.com (arc5 at ix.netcom.com)
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2025 11:31:13 -0500
Subject: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] Relays
Message-ID: <c31e8242-836b-43e3-a0aa-627553d477cc@localhost>


Channel select for the ?ARC-5?

VHF sets, IIRC.

Sent from EarthLink Mobile mail

On 10/11/25, 11:59?AM, Mark K3MSB <mark.k3msb at gmail.com> wrote:

Reposting with a subject......

On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 12:59?PM Mark K3MSB <mark.k3msb at gmail.com (mailto:mark.k3msb at gmail.com)> wrote:

> I have several of these ARC-5 (generically speaking) style relays and I've been unable to find out what they are used for.

> They are numbered between 812 to 816. I find nothing close in my SCR-274N or AN/ARC-5 manuals.

> DC Coil resistance is 40 ohms. SPST.

> Any ideas?

> Mark K3MSB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251012/6296c69c/attachment.html>

From kgordon2006 at frontier.com  Sun Oct 12 13:56:15 2025
From: kgordon2006 at frontier.com (kgordon2006 at frontier.com)
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2025 10:56:15 -0700
Subject: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] Relays
In-Reply-To: <1600129534.1158370.1760291189401@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <c31e8242-836b-43e3-a0aa-627553d477cc@localhost>,
	<1600129534.1158370.1760291189401@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <68EBEBBF.18084.F2097BA@kgordon2006.frontier.com>

On 12 Oct 2025 at 17:46, ac2eu--- via ARC5 wrote:


> They look similar , but I think the coil resistance ( 40 ohms) is too low for 24V

That could me, all right. According to my calculations, they would require 600 mA at 24 VDC, 
which would be 14 watts.

At 6 VDC, that would be 150 mA, which seems more reasonable, and 0.9 watts.

But even that seems high for a relay.

I suppose we could compare those figures with other relays...

Might anyone know the specs for the relays that are in the ARC-5 transmitters?

Maybe Mark could measure the coil-resistance of the selector relay in one of his transmitters.

Ken W7EKB

> 
> On Sunday, October 12, 2025 at 12:32:32 PM EDT, <arc5 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>     Channel select for the "ARC-5"
>     VHF sets, IIRC
> 
>     Sent from EarthLink Mobile mail
> 
>     On 10/11/25, 11:59AM, Mark K3MSB <mark.k3msb at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>     Reposting with a subject......
> 
>     On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 12:59PM Mark K3MSB <mark.k3msb at gmail.com > wrote:
> I have several of these ARC-5 (generically speaking) style relays and I've been unable to find out what they 
> are used for.
> 
> They are numbered between 812 to 816. I find nothing close in my SCR-274N or AN/ARC-5 manuals.
> 
> DC Coil resistance is 40 ohms. SPST.
> 
> 
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Mark K3MSB
> 
> ______________________________________________________________ ARC5 
> mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5 Help: 
> http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net This list hosted 
> by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: https://www.qsl.net/donate.html



From hwhall at compuserve.com  Sun Oct 12 16:29:57 2025
From: hwhall at compuserve.com (hwhall@aol.com)
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2025 20:29:57 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] Relays
In-Reply-To: <68EBEBBF.18084.F2097BA@kgordon2006.frontier.com>
References: <c31e8242-836b-43e3-a0aa-627553d477cc@localhost>
	<1600129534.1158370.1760291189401@mail.yahoo.com>
	<68EBEBBF.18084.F2097BA@kgordon2006.frontier.com>
Message-ID: <1548852210.1803217.1760300997240@mail.yahoo.com>

> Might anyone know the specs for the relays that are in the ARC-5 transmitters?

Maintenance manuals for SCR-274-N series (aka Army "ARC-5") say 300 ohms, +/-10%. A transmitter relay on my workbench (part #7252) measured about 315 ohms.

Wayne
WB4OGM

From kgordon2006 at frontier.com  Sun Oct 12 17:14:38 2025
From: kgordon2006 at frontier.com (kgordon2006)
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2025 14:14:38 -0700
Subject: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] Relays
In-Reply-To: <1548852210.1803217.1760300997240@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <300613887.693879.1760303682047@frontier.com>

Great. At 24VDC, that relay draws about 80 mA, or about 2 watts.Maybe those 40 ohm relays are all in series...or something.Len W7EKBSent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: "hwhall at aol.com" <hwhall at compuserve.com> Date: 10/12/25  13:29  (GMT-08:00) To: Mark K3MSB <mark.k3msb at gmail.com>, ARC5 <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>, List Milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>, arc5 at ix.netcom.com, ac2eu at yahoo.com, kgordon2006 at frontier.com Subject: Re: [ARC5] Relays > Might anyone know the specs for the relays that are in the ARC-5 transmitters?Maintenance manuals for SCR-274-N series (aka Army "ARC-5") say 300 ohms, +/-10%. A transmitter relay on my workbench (part #7252) measured about 315 ohms.WayneWB4OGM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251012/7e79e3a1/attachment-0001.html>

From nick at navy-radio.com  Mon Oct 13 12:28:27 2025
From: nick at navy-radio.com (Nick England)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2025 12:28:27 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] RAS-4 receiver - Salt Lake City - FTGH
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR04MB64995D6F6D1A4E5D4F2E3D0AADEDA@BL0PR04MB6499.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BL0PR04MB64995D6F6D1A4E5D4F2E3D0AADEDA@BL0PR04MB6499.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAB55hNd5qL2WdYA1y7-pJ+iP1V1cU-_Qw5eWKJhE6_icZBe0Uw@mail.gmail.com>

Contact Bob Thomas - <thomasrr89kd at gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Robert Thomas <thomasrr89kd at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 12, 2025 at 3:00?PM
Subject: Navy Radio
To: nick at navy-radio.com <nick at navy-radio.com>

I am looking for a home for my dads RAS-4 naval receiver with 7 coil
modules, I'm not selling it, I just want to find someone that would like to
have it. If you know of a museum or any one interested please let me know.

I'm near Salt Lake City. I have an aluminum crate I would donate for
shipping.
I put an ad in the ARRL web site but no joy.

Bob Thomas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251013/6e8d270d/attachment.html>

From n2lxm at juno.com  Tue Oct 14 19:42:44 2025
From: n2lxm at juno.com (n2lxm at juno.com)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 19:42:44 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-216A Microphone Amp
Message-ID: <AABWQ72AMAQBTQ82@smtpout02.vgs.untd.com>

Greetings All,

        While cleaning up my storage area, I come across this Microphone
Amp. Has a Contract date of 6-7-39. No tubes but other wise complete. If
anyone has a need for it, it's yours for the shipping cost. First
response gets it.


                                                          N2LXM
                                                         American
                                                            Patriot 
                                        Proud Father of Two U.S. Marines
                                                         Semper Fy


From mzfb at aol.com  Tue Oct 14 21:04:19 2025
From: mzfb at aol.com (Mike Christie)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 01:04:19 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Milsurplus] Need help with KWM 2
References: <2064435234.3029665.1760490259538.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <2064435234.3029665.1760490259538@mail.yahoo.com>

I have a friend from MY home town in Conn. who just got his general licence and has a KWM 2 that is receiving fine but there is no output. He has replaced the capacitors in the power supply using a kit design for KWM2. ?He has 800 volts at finals and he has proper bias voltages. The relays are pulling in when in the tune mode. He has scope the tune signal at the finals and he has signal there.Is there something else he should be looking for? Is there anyone in the Conn area that could look at the radio he?d be willing to drive to them.ThanksMikeW1ZFB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251015/b9e53708/attachment.html>

From n2lxm at juno.com  Wed Oct 15 08:57:19 2025
From: n2lxm at juno.com (n2lxm at juno.com)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:57:19 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-216A Microphone Amp
Message-ID: <AABWQ9GXWA58KR2S@smtpout01.vgs.untd.com>

Good Morning Hue,
        
        Your were the first to ask. So it's yours. I will get it boxed up
and ready to ship by the weekend.


                  N2LXM
                 American
                    Patriot 
Proud Father of Two U.S. Marines
                  Semper Fy


From scr274 at gmail.com  Wed Oct 15 13:11:32 2025
From: scr274 at gmail.com (Ken Kinderman)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 13:11:32 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Restoration Decals
Message-ID: <CAKUjTOZuDKNwJr5uR+j61mPRDXAQkNZ04nbxVvH0Q9PwhbNQaQ@mail.gmail.com>

White-on-clear waterslide decals for the BC-610 and the R-388. I will send
them postpaid.

Applied onto black wrinkle, they are almost indistinguishable from silk
screen if done right, and used with Solvaset. Several sheets of each with
plenty of spares in case you mess up.

I also had some T-47 decals but used them in a  recent restoration. I had
the panels blasted and re-painted with black wrinkle powder coat. Here is
how they came out...
[image: ART-13 Decals 2 copy.JPG]

73,

Ken
W2EWL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251015/28064ba4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ART-13 Decals 2 copy.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 122197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251015/28064ba4/attachment-0001.jpe>

From mzfb at aol.com  Wed Oct 15 14:41:11 2025
From: mzfb at aol.com (Mike Christie)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 18:41:11 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Milsurplus] Milsurplus Digest, Vol 258, Issue 41 KWM 2 fixed
In-Reply-To: <mailman.31.1760544009.20747.milsurplus@mailman.qth.net>
References: <mailman.31.1760544009.20747.milsurplus@mailman.qth.net>
Message-ID: <2079106568.3337640.1760553671156@mail.yahoo.com>

 My friend got his KWM 2 working with help from Ray Fantini and his video and following the instructions my friend has the set working now. He is checking the voltage and BIAS? settings but otherwise I think he's in good shape now.MikeW1ZFB
    On Wednesday, October 15, 2025 at 12:07:52 PM EDT, <milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net> wrote:   

 Send Milsurplus mailing list submissions to
??? milsurplus at mailman.qth.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
??? http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
??? milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
??? milsurplus-owner at mailman.qth.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Milsurplus digest..."


Today's Topics:

? 1. BC-216A Microphone Amp (n2lxm at juno.com)
? 2. Need help with KWM 2 (Mike Christie)
? 3. Re: BC-216A Microphone Amp (n2lxm at juno.com)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 19:42:44 -0400
From: <n2lxm at juno.com>
To: arc5 at mailman.qth.net
Cc: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-216A Microphone Amp
Message-ID: <AABWQ72AMAQBTQ82 at smtpout02.vgs.untd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Greetings All,

? ? ? ? While cleaning up my storage area, I come across this Microphone
Amp. Has a Contract date of 6-7-39. No tubes but other wise complete. If
anyone has a need for it, it's yours for the shipping cost. First
response gets it.


? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? N2LXM
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? American
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Patriot 
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Proud Father of Two U.S. Marines
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Semper Fy



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 01:04:19 +0000 (UTC)
From: Mike Christie <mzfb at aol.com>
To: "milsurplus at mailman.qth.net" <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: [Milsurplus] Need help with KWM 2
Message-ID: <2064435234.3029665.1760490259538 at mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I have a friend from MY home town in Conn. who just got his general licence and has a KWM 2 that is receiving fine but there is no output. He has replaced the capacitors in the power supply using a kit design for KWM2. ?He has 800 volts at finals and he has proper bias voltages. The relays are pulling in when in the tune mode. He has scope the tune signal at the finals and he has signal there.Is there something else he should be looking for? Is there anyone in the Conn area that could look at the radio he?d be willing to drive to them.ThanksMikeW1ZFB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251015/b9e53708/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:57:19 -0400
From: <n2lxm at juno.com>
To: kargo_cult at msn.com,milsurplus at mailman.qth.net,arc5 at mailman.qth.net
Cc: n2lxm at juno.com
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-216A Microphone Amp
Message-ID: <AABWQ9GXWA58KR2S at smtpout01.vgs.untd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Good Morning Hue,
? ? ? ? 
? ? ? ? Your were the first to ask. So it's yours. I will get it boxed up
and ready to ship by the weekend.


? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? N2LXM
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? American
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Patriot 
Proud Father of Two U.S. Marines
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Semper Fy



------------------------------

______________________________________________________________
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


End of Milsurplus Digest, Vol 258, Issue 41
*******************************************
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251015/533943d7/attachment.html>

From RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu  Wed Oct 15 14:55:54 2025
From: RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu (Ray Fantini)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 18:55:54 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] Milsurplus Digest, Vol 258, Issue 41 KWM 2 fixed
Message-ID: <DM8P220MB047274DAD96BDA5C57684CD6B8E8A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

The art of tuning and setting up a tube radio for operation can be a mystery for anyone who has not grown up with it. So much stuff today is just set the frequency and mode and go from there. Just started a video on the set up and operation of the PRC-74, its not just dial in a frequency and talk. My favorite radio is still the AN/GRC-106 and failing to follow procedures can result in not only damage to the radio but the operator too.

Ray F/KA3EKH


From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of Mike Christie via Milsurplus
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2025 2:41 PM
To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Milsurplus Digest, Vol 258, Issue 41 KWM 2 fixed


My friend got his KWM 2 working with help from Ray Fantini and his video and following the instructions my friend has the set working now. He is checking the voltage and BIAS  settings but otherwise I think he's in good shape now.
Mike
W1ZFB

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251015/97ea204c/attachment-0001.html>

From nick at navy-radio.com  Wed Oct 15 16:46:20 2025
From: nick at navy-radio.com (Nick England)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 16:46:20 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Two TBY on eBay -
Message-ID: <CAB55hNero-SpXzkfZSKuV+AcXFckj1232WaEr5Qsfwj0DMjYfw@mail.gmail.com>

 Not mine, no relation, etc.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/277443289448

https://www.ebay.com/itm/286877544268
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251015/cead9fa5/attachment.html>

From arc5 at ix.netcom.com  Thu Oct 16 10:23:13 2025
From: arc5 at ix.netcom.com (arc5 at ix.netcom.com)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 09:23:13 -0500
Subject: [Milsurplus] Two TBY on eBay -
Message-ID: <6a31306e-e37f-4598-a6a5-433842f2c262@localhost>


Ages ago, I got one of these working on my truck seat and talked to a couple of truckers on Chicken Band. :-D

On 10/15/25, 3:46?PM, Nick England via Milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> wrote:

Not mine, no relation, etc.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/277443289448

https://www.ebay.com/itm/286877544268

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251016/88450c61/attachment.html>

From ka2ivy at verizon.net  Thu Oct 16 10:43:16 2025
From: ka2ivy at verizon.net (Brenda Gentry)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 10:43:16 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Two TBY on eBay -
In-Reply-To: <6a31306e-e37f-4598-a6a5-433842f2c262@localhost>
References: <6a31306e-e37f-4598-a6a5-433842f2c262@localhost>
Message-ID: <3c3e2a3a-cd55-d0be-504e-dd148f3bc2e1@verizon.net>

Just how bad is the TBY with regard to frequency stability and receive 
sensitivity? Various publications decades ago gave the impression they 
were useless. There was a conversion to the transmitter to make it 
crystal controlled, but in general I have never heard anything good 
about it. One very real concern is radiation. The front panel has 
considerable area coated with Radium paint and the rigs are supposedly 
quite spicy.

 ??? B. Gentry, KA2IVY

On 10/16/25 10:23 AM, arc5 at ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Ages ago, I got one of these working on my truck seat and talked to a 
> couple of truckers on Chicken Band.:-D
>
>
> On 10/15/25, 3:46?PM, Nick England via Milsurplus 
> <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> wrote:
>
>
> Not mine, no relation, etc.
>
>
> https://www.ebay.com/itm/277443289448
>
>
> https://www.ebay.com/itm/286877544268
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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/20251016/7c4e61b7/attachment.html>

From RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu  Thu Oct 16 11:30:22 2025
From: RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu (Ray Fantini)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 15:30:22 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] Two TBY on eBay -
In-Reply-To: <3c3e2a3a-cd55-d0be-504e-dd148f3bc2e1@verizon.net>
References: <6a31306e-e37f-4598-a6a5-433842f2c262@localhost>
	<3c3e2a3a-cd55-d0be-504e-dd148f3bc2e1@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <DM8P220MB0472AD93BF4131EE5E1962F1B8E9A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Never used on myself. Read many accounts of how bad they were. Think maybe the problem is the expectations that Hams bring to the table are in error. The Catalogue of Naval Electronic Equipment from 1946 describes the TBY as only being intended for limited range, line of sight. Looking at a box that size and complexity and the multipole issues of frequency control and the like today its regarded as a dog, but in the context of pre war communications where the only alternative would be signal flags or wired telephones it must have been worth the effort. Why else where so many produced?

Ray F/KA3EKH


From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of Brenda Gentry via Milsurplus
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 10:43 AM
To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Two TBY on eBay -



Just how bad is the TBY with regard to frequency stability and receive sensitivity?  Various publications decades ago gave the impression they were useless. There was a conversion to the transmitter to make it crystal controlled, but in general I have never heard anything good about it. One very real concern is radiation. The front panel has considerable area coated with Radium paint and the rigs are supposedly quite spicy.

    B. Gentry, KA2IVY
On 10/16/25 10:23 AM, arc5 at ix.netcom.com<mailto:arc5 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Ages ago, I got one of these working on my truck seat and talked to a couple of truckers on Chicken Band.  :-D



On 10/15/25, 3:46?PM, Nick England via Milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net><mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> wrote:



Not mine, no relation, etc.



https://www.ebay.com/itm/277443289448



https://www.ebay.com/itm/286877544268


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251016/8068f2be/attachment-0001.html>

From mjcal79 at gmail.com  Thu Oct 16 12:47:16 2025
From: mjcal79 at gmail.com (Charlie L.)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 12:47:16 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Ebay TBY
Message-ID: <CA+d3itZnoSkWnCU5q2AmHK5Pp8n8V7MF1x07i74W3=sKN-TNtQ@mail.gmail.com>

Well those went fast, but ha ha, when the note said TBY the first thing
that came to mind was something else:

[image: image.png]

Charlie, W4MEC in NC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251016/c874a56f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2535613 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251016/c874a56f/attachment-0001.png>

From dennis.monticelli at gmail.com  Thu Oct 16 12:43:23 2025
From: dennis.monticelli at gmail.com (Dennis Monticelli)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 09:43:23 -0700
Subject: [Milsurplus] TBY radiation
Message-ID: <CADgAsSR8_9ZzCanHW8jrMDj50=6PL+PpwB=O0ONzcgz3XrvXwQ@mail.gmail.com>

We have several TBY's at our museum. I will pass along a brief summary of
our findings in the hope that collectors will find it useful.

Radiation (off the face) was measured with several different calibrated
instruments.  They are indeed hot, especially the latter models (TBY-8
hotter than TBY-1).  The OSHA allowed personal radiation dose is easily
exceeded if one were to be within a few feet of the faceplate for a period
of many hours.  Of greatest concern is particulates that may be inhaled or
else transferred to the mouth or eyes via hands.  If you look closely at
the lettering with a magnifying glass you will notice that the surface is
not smooth, but sponge-like.  Alpha particles have broken up the paint
structure leaving that surface material friable.  Within the body alpha,
beta, and gamma are all of concern....especially alpha.  At distance the
radiation species of concern is mostly gamma as alpha doesn't travel far at
all and beta doesn't penetrate the skin very far.

OSHA allowances for non-occupational individuals are quite low in terms of
both rate and total annual dose.  It's easy to exceed them with a CAT
scan.  However, occupational allowances are 50 times higher!  No, military
collectors are not an official occupational category :-)

Bottom line is to use caution with TBY's.  A clear coat over the front
panel and tuning drum lettering would go a long way to mitigating the most
dangerous situation....particles lodging in the body.  As for the beta and
gamma:  Well, an 1/8" of aluminium blocks most of the beta but in order to
stop the gamma it takes sheet lead or thick leaded glass, both of which are
commercially available with the latter being pricey.  Otherwise, keep at
least 3 feet away if you're going to be near a TBY for many hours.
Remember that radiation falls off as the square of distance. That
translates into budgeted restoration hours for collectors that have to get
very close for their work.  And please don't use compressed air on them
without being well out in the open and wearing a mask.  Best to not use
compressed air at all.  Finally, I would suggest that TBY's be long-term
stored in a bag in order to contain particulates.

I am not aware of any radiation induced health issues among the code
talkers, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.  We all know about the
terrible situation of the ladies that brushed on Radium 226 infused paint
(direct ingestion).  Knowledge of radiation effects on the body only grew
in the decades following WW2.  Today, the area of most concern is the
increased usage of medical scans.

Dennis AE6C
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251016/b75bd8b3/attachment.html>

From briankn4r at gmail.com  Thu Oct 16 15:03:55 2025
From: briankn4r at gmail.com (Brian Harrison)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 15:03:55 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] TBY radiation
In-Reply-To: <CADgAsSR8_9ZzCanHW8jrMDj50=6PL+PpwB=O0ONzcgz3XrvXwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADgAsSR8_9ZzCanHW8jrMDj50=6PL+PpwB=O0ONzcgz3XrvXwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B772AE42-BC1E-4711-87A4-029D679393A5@gmail.com>

All,

Here is the link to a downloadable pdf entitled "Radium in Military Surplus Commodities? dated 1956:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1919920/

Mentioned are TBX, TBY, MAW-1, BC-778-E ?Gibson Girl?, and US Navy type CQC-23496 Remote Control Indicator System.

Also mentioned are self-luminous aircraft gauges

I ?think? a rule of thumb for US and WW2 Japanese portable field radios is the ?early models? are the ones affected.

For example I read somewhere that TBX 1-4 (black smooth front panel) potentially have radium, and TBX-6 and later units supposedly do not (these later units have a black wrinkle front panel)

Taka Doi says Japanese WW2 Army field radios ?made before 1943? are all suspect.
The worst I have seen personally is a WW2 Japanese Army 94-3A Receiver-Transmitter (in multiple wooden chests, plug-in coils, designed in 1934) - 
The entire front panel is very hot , every control!

I have a small video I need to put out on this.

best,
brian
kn4r
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251016/be1c7fac/attachment.html>

From briankn4r at gmail.com  Thu Oct 16 15:03:55 2025
From: briankn4r at gmail.com (Brian Harrison)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 15:03:55 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] TBY radiation
In-Reply-To: <CADgAsSR8_9ZzCanHW8jrMDj50=6PL+PpwB=O0ONzcgz3XrvXwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADgAsSR8_9ZzCanHW8jrMDj50=6PL+PpwB=O0ONzcgz3XrvXwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B772AE42-BC1E-4711-87A4-029D679393A5@gmail.com>

All,

Here is the link to a downloadable pdf entitled "Radium in Military Surplus Commodities? dated 1956:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1919920/

Mentioned are TBX, TBY, MAW-1, BC-778-E ?Gibson Girl?, and US Navy type CQC-23496 Remote Control Indicator System.

Also mentioned are self-luminous aircraft gauges

I ?think? a rule of thumb for US and WW2 Japanese portable field radios is the ?early models? are the ones affected.

For example I read somewhere that TBX 1-4 (black smooth front panel) potentially have radium, and TBX-6 and later units supposedly do not (these later units have a black wrinkle front panel)

Taka Doi says Japanese WW2 Army field radios ?made before 1943? are all suspect.
The worst I have seen personally is a WW2 Japanese Army 94-3A Receiver-Transmitter (in multiple wooden chests, plug-in coils, designed in 1934) - 
The entire front panel is very hot , every control!

I have a small video I need to put out on this.

best,
brian
kn4r
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251016/be1c7fac/attachment-0003.html>

From RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu  Thu Oct 16 14:05:12 2025
From: RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu (Ray Fantini)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 18:05:12 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] Ebay TBY
In-Reply-To: <CA+d3itZnoSkWnCU5q2AmHK5Pp8n8V7MF1x07i74W3=sKN-TNtQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+d3itZnoSkWnCU5q2AmHK5Pp8n8V7MF1x07i74W3=sKN-TNtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DM8P220MB0472EF27038E4DC3B31A3628B8E9A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

The PBY Catalina used a GO-9 transmitter, the ground version of the GO-9 transmitter was the TBW. The TBX also fits in there somewhere as being a primitive and troublesome radio to operate, at least in military context because I have owned and operated them before and love that radio and then there is the TBY.  Looks all related to me! Wonder if there was a TBZ?


From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of Charlie L.
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 12:47 PM
To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Milsurplus] Ebay TBY


Well those went fast, but ha ha, when the note said TBY the first thing that came to mind was something else:

[cid:image001.png at 01DC3EA5.13AFDA50]

Charlie, W4MEC in NC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251016/47e8ac83/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2535613 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251016/47e8ac83/attachment-0001.png>

From kargo_cult at msn.com  Thu Oct 16 16:23:55 2025
From: kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 20:23:55 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] TBY radiation
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB43749384507C296A6B218374E4E9A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

I think ALL the TBX are hot except the -6 which i think was Coast Guard. I welcome information on this. I had a -6 and like a fool i let my brother sell it.

I didn't know abt the Japanese radium and 1943. Most Japanese you see past this are VHF aircraft or "last ditch". I will have to try to verify this on my own.

I saw a TBY at a hamfair that had been completely repainted. I have no idea how the surface was prepped, but i was appalled to see it. OH, come to think of it, i do have a Navy grey repainted one !
-Hue Miller



Sent from my Galaxy


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251016/ea6f94f6/attachment.html>

From hwhall at compuserve.com  Thu Oct 16 23:41:30 2025
From: hwhall at compuserve.com (hwhall@aol.com)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 03:41:30 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Milsurplus] Mystery Command Set remote dials
References: <928572553.3264206.1760672490570.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <928572553.3264206.1760672490570@mail.yahoo.com>

I have a question about a couple of stray dials here. These appear to be Command Set remote tuning control dials. One (on right in attached composite photo) has the expected knurled thumbscrew for attaching the dial to the control unit. The other two have instead three holes. Note that the thumbscrew dial has the same E5614 number as one with the holes.

The ones with holes have an "ARC" stamping on the reverse side along with different part numbers. The .2-.55 dial says "PART 12555". The .52-1.5 dial says "PART 14041".

I've drawn only blanks looking for these part numbers online & in the ARC and SCR manuals I have downloaded. The closest I found was part 5610 which is .52-1.5 for the R-24 set, and part 5613 which is .2-.55 for the R-23 set.

Any insights out there as to where these belonged? Maybe not Command Set material at all, but where would I start looking?

Thanks!

Wayne
WB4OGM
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Command Set Dials questions sized.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 230512 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251017/51beaa5b/attachment-0001.jpg>

From holden7471 at msn.com  Thu Oct 16 23:52:36 2025
From: holden7471 at msn.com (howard holden)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 03:52:36 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] Ebay TBY
In-Reply-To: <DM8P220MB0472EF27038E4DC3B31A3628B8E9A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <CA+d3itZnoSkWnCU5q2AmHK5Pp8n8V7MF1x07i74W3=sKN-TNtQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<DM8P220MB0472EF27038E4DC3B31A3628B8E9A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <BY5PR14MB4001B2300772A35D9A0CD346C4F6A@BY5PR14MB4001.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>

Yes there was a TBZ, it's a VHF transmitter paired up with an RBZ receiver. We had one at the USS Ling SS-297. FWIW the TBW, (had one of those too at the Ling) has suppressor grid modulated phone. It also uses the suppressor modulator to generate the tone for MCW. The GO-9 does not have phone, and it uses the 800Hz 120VAC to modulate the tone for MCW. That's what GO-9s ran on in the aircraft. I know, I own one and use it constantly mainly on 40M. In mine the PS is configured for 60Hz.

73, Howie WB2AWQ
________________________________
From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> on behalf of Ray Fantini via Milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 11:05 AM
To: Charlie L. <mjcal79 at gmail.com>; milsurplus at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Ebay TBY


The PBY Catalina used a GO-9 transmitter, the ground version of the GO-9 transmitter was the TBW. The TBX also fits in there somewhere as being a primitive and troublesome radio to operate, at least in military context because I have owned and operated them before and love that radio and then there is the TBY.  Looks all related to me! Wonder if there was a TBZ?





From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of Charlie L.
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 12:47 PM
To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Milsurplus] Ebay TBY





Well those went fast, but ha ha, when the note said TBY the first thing that came to mind was something else:



[cid:image001.png at 01DC3EA5.13AFDA50]



Charlie, W4MEC in NC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251017/d77b8fa4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2535613 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251017/d77b8fa4/attachment-0001.png>

From RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu  Fri Oct 17 11:12:56 2025
From: RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu (Ray Fantini)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 15:12:56 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] Ebay TBY now TBW
Message-ID: <DM8P220MB0472C9E7AAFF842CAA0E7B79B8F6A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

I built up and ran a TBW for some time, sold it off a long time ago. Fun transmitter. The 803 output tube was almost indestructible! Did a video of it back in the old SD analog days at :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd4gPNGNYRU

The GO and the TBW always appeared to me to be a light weight version of the shipboard TDE transmitter. Don't know if that's the case or not. For a long time wanted a TDE or TCK for playing around with AM but now days all I can think of is how much that stuff weighs.

Ray F/KA3EKH

From: howard holden <holden7471 at msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 11:53 PM
To: Charlie L. <mjcal79 at gmail.com>; milsurplus at mailman.qth.net; Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Ebay TBY





Yes there was a TBZ, it's a VHF transmitter paired up with an RBZ receiver. We had one at the USS Ling SS-297. FWIW the TBW, (had one of those too at the Ling) has suppressor grid modulated phone. It also uses the suppressor modulator to generate the tone for MCW. The GO-9 does not have phone, and it uses the 800Hz 120VAC to modulate the tone for MCW. That's what GO-9s ran on in the aircraft. I know, I own one and use it constantly mainly on 40M. In mine the PS is configured for 60Hz.

73, Howie WB2AWQ
________________________________
From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net>> on behalf of Ray Fantini via Milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 11:05 AM
To: Charlie L. <mjcal79 at gmail.com<mailto:mjcal79 at gmail.com>>; milsurplus at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>>
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Ebay TBY


The PBY Catalina used a GO-9 transmitter, the ground version of the GO-9 transmitter was the TBW. The TBX also fits in there somewhere as being a primitive and troublesome radio to operate, at least in military context because I have owned and operated them before and love that radio and then there is the TBY.  Looks all related to me! Wonder if there was a TBZ?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251017/c28e5263/attachment.html>

From smithab11 at comcast.net  Fri Oct 17 12:46:19 2025
From: smithab11 at comcast.net (B. Smith)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 12:46:19 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Mystery Command Set remote dials
In-Reply-To: <928572553.3264206.1760672490570@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <928572553.3264206.1760672490570.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
	<928572553.3264206.1760672490570@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f15f3f0a-8cf6-409b-ae9f-a5d713e873fd@comcast.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251017/624fcac4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ARC LF.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 32175 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251017/624fcac4/attachment-0001.jpg>

From smithab11 at comcast.net  Fri Oct 17 12:33:12 2025
From: smithab11 at comcast.net (B. Smith)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 12:33:12 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Mystery Command Set remote dials
In-Reply-To: <928572553.3264206.1760672490570@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <928572553.3264206.1760672490570.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
	<928572553.3264206.1760672490570@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8819fee1-9188-4d0a-84d2-ca5441a86c62@comcast.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251017/e755a215/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ARC LF.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 32175 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251017/e755a215/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ARC LF.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 32175 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251017/e755a215/attachment-0003.jpg>

From holden7471 at msn.com  Fri Oct 17 13:23:51 2025
From: holden7471 at msn.com (howard holden)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 17:23:51 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] Ebay TBY now TBW
In-Reply-To: <DM8P220MB0472C9E7AAFF842CAA0E7B79B8F6A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <DM8P220MB0472C9E7AAFF842CAA0E7B79B8F6A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <BY5PR14MB4001DB6577DDBACFD1D55C59C4F6A@BY5PR14MB4001.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>

Agreed Ray!  And yes the GO/TBW might be based on the TDE, although the TBW and GO are maybe by comparison lightweights. The TDE and TCK also require a MG set.  The 803 is indestructible! They should have never come out with the 813 although it's rated for higher Mhz.


________________________________
From: Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 8:12 AM
To: howard holden <holden7471 at msn.com>; Charlie L. <mjcal79 at gmail.com>; milsurplus at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Ebay TBY now TBW


I built up and ran a TBW for some time, sold it off a long time ago. Fun transmitter. The 803 output tube was almost indestructible! Did a video of it back in the old SD analog days at :



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd4gPNGNYRU



The GO and the TBW always appeared to me to be a light weight version of the shipboard TDE transmitter. Don?t know if that?s the case or not. For a long time wanted a TDE or TCK for playing around with AM but now days all I can think of is how much that stuff weighs.



Ray F/KA3EKH




________________________________

From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net>> on behalf of Ray Fantini via Milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 11:05 AM
To: Charlie L. <mjcal79 at gmail.com<mailto:mjcal79 at gmail.com>>; milsurplus at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>>
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Ebay TBY



The PBY Catalina used a GO-9 transmitter, the ground version of the GO-9 transmitter was the TBW. The TBX also fits in there somewhere as being a primitive and troublesome radio to operate, at least in military context because I have owned and operated them before and love that radio and then there is the TBY.  Looks all related to me! Wonder if there was a TBZ?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251017/118a81bb/attachment.html>

From ka2ivy at verizon.net  Fri Oct 17 13:58:32 2025
From: ka2ivy at verizon.net (Brenda Gentry)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 13:58:32 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Mystery Command Set remote dials
In-Reply-To: <8819fee1-9188-4d0a-84d2-ca5441a86c62@comcast.net>
References: <928572553.3264206.1760672490570.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
	<928572553.3264206.1760672490570@mail.yahoo.com>
	<8819fee1-9188-4d0a-84d2-ca5441a86c62@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <aac51d1c-55d6-c5c0-c66b-e5320fb5bf9f@verizon.net>

I think the control box is for a post-WW2 ARC brand receiver with a loop 
antenna. ARC made and sold them commercially, and there may have been an 
AN/.....? version as well. They were intended for the postwar aviation 
boom that never materialized when non-direction beacons and four course 
radio ranges were still in common use.? It would be a few years before 
the VAR and VOR ranges would start to replace LF navaids. The loop 
antenna looked a lot like the one for a Bendix MN-26, but was somewhat 
smaller. Unlike the Bendix MN-26 and some versions of the BC-433?? I 
don't think it had a course deviation indicator, it was up to the user 
to resolve the 180 degree ambiguity.

 ?? B. Gentry, KA2IVY

On 10/17/25 12:33 PM, B. Smith via Milsurplus wrote:
> Looks like A.R.C to me
> K4CHE
>
>
> On 10/16/2025 11:41 PM, hwhall--- via Milsurplus wrote:
>> I have a question about a couple of stray dials here. These appear to be Command Set remote tuning control dials. One (on right in attached composite photo) has the expected knurled thumbscrew for attaching the dial to the control unit. The other two have instead three holes. Note that the thumbscrew dial has the same E5614 number as one with the holes.
>>
>> The ones with holes have an "ARC" stamping on the reverse side along with different part numbers. The .2-.55 dial says "PART 12555". The .52-1.5 dial says "PART 14041".
>>
>> I've drawn only blanks looking for these part numbers online & in the ARC and SCR manuals I have downloaded. The closest I found was part 5610 which is .52-1.5 for the R-24 set, and part 5613 which is .2-.55 for the R-23 set.
>>
>> Any insights out there as to where these belonged? Maybe not Command Set material at all, but where would I start looking?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Wayne
>> WB4OGM
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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/20251017/29ac01d6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ARC LF.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 32175 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251017/29ac01d6/attachment-0001.jpg>

From nick at navy-radio.com  Fri Oct 17 15:07:01 2025
From: nick at navy-radio.com (Nick England)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 15:07:01 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Ebay TBY now TBW
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR14MB4001DB6577DDBACFD1D55C59C4F6A@BY5PR14MB4001.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM8P220MB0472C9E7AAFF842CAA0E7B79B8F6A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
	<BY5PR14MB4001DB6577DDBACFD1D55C59C4F6A@BY5PR14MB4001.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAB55hNei2Q+CiZh1VTEwQahGdiVmybXo087q5s2Us=3scApsfQ@mail.gmail.com>

FWIW initial contract dates
GO - Hygrade/Sylvania? - 1933
GO-1 - Western Electric - 1934
GO-3 - Westinghouse - 1937
TBW - Westinghouse - March 1939
TCK - GE - April 1941
TDE - Westinghouse - June 1942

Nick England K4NYW
Chapel Hill NC
www.navy-radio.com


On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 1:23?PM howard holden <holden7471 at msn.com> wrote:

> *Agreed Ray!  And yes the GO/TBW might be based on the TDE, although the
> TBW and GO are maybe by comparison lightweights. The TDE and TCK also
> require a MG set.  The 803 is indestructible! They should have never come
> out with the 813 although it's rated for higher Mhz. *
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>
> *Sent:* Friday, October 17, 2025 8:12 AM
> *To:* howard holden <holden7471 at msn.com>; Charlie L. <mjcal79 at gmail.com>;
> milsurplus at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> *Subject:* Ebay TBY now TBW
>
> I built up and ran a TBW for some time, sold it off a long time ago. Fun
> transmitter. The 803 output tube was almost indestructible! Did a video of
> it back in the old SD analog days at :
>
>
>
> *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd4gPNGNYRU
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd4gPNGNYRU>*
>
>
>
> The GO and the TBW always appeared to me to be a light weight version of
> the shipboard TDE transmitter. Don?t know if that?s the case or not. For a
> long time wanted a TDE or TCK for playing around with AM but now days all I
> can think of is how much that stuff weighs.
>
>
>
> Ray F/KA3EKH
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251017/5c5c6a17/attachment.html>

From RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu  Fri Oct 17 15:25:53 2025
From: RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu (Ray Fantini)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 19:25:53 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] Ebay TBY now TBW
In-Reply-To: <CAB55hNei2Q+CiZh1VTEwQahGdiVmybXo087q5s2Us=3scApsfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DM8P220MB0472C9E7AAFF842CAA0E7B79B8F6A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
	<BY5PR14MB4001DB6577DDBACFD1D55C59C4F6A@BY5PR14MB4001.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAB55hNei2Q+CiZh1VTEwQahGdiVmybXo087q5s2Us=3scApsfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DM8P220MB04723B5B732D322FEA42F433B8F6A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Ok, so that?s how it is. So tell me what was the first Navy transmitter to use the three tube line up of a 837 isolated filament oscillator 807 or 837 Intermediate amplifier and 803 with suppressor modulation?  Along with the idea of separate LF/HF bays? The TCM is something along those lines too.
The 1936 Radio Handbook, no relation to the ARRL handbook has a very similar three tube 803 output transmitter in it and think those tubes hit the market in 1934 or maybe 36 and as a side note always thought the TCK was a newer design then the TDE but what do I know.

Ray F/KA3EKH


From: Nick England <nick at navy-radio.com>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 3:07 PM
To: howard holden <holden7471 at msn.com>
Cc: Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>; Charlie L. <mjcal79 at gmail.com>; milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Ebay TBY now TBW


FWIW initial contract dates
GO - Hygrade/Sylvania? - 1933
GO-1 - Western Electric - 1934
GO-3 - Westinghouse - 1937
TBW - Westinghouse - March 1939
TCK - GE - April 1941
TDE - Westinghouse - June 1942

Nick England K4NYW
Chapel Hill NC
www.navy-radio.com<http://www.navy-radio.com/>


On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 1:23?PM howard holden <holden7471 at msn.com<mailto:holden7471 at msn.com>> wrote:
Agreed Ray!  And yes the GO/TBW might be based on the TDE, although the TBW and GO are maybe by comparison lightweights. The TDE and TCK also require a MG set.  The 803 is indestructible! They should have never come out with the 813 although it's rated for higher Mhz.


________________________________
From: Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu<mailto:RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 8:12 AM
To: howard holden <holden7471 at msn.com<mailto:holden7471 at msn.com>>; Charlie L. <mjcal79 at gmail.com<mailto:mjcal79 at gmail.com>>; milsurplus at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>>
Subject: Ebay TBY now TBW


I built up and ran a TBW for some time, sold it off a long time ago. Fun transmitter. The 803 output tube was almost indestructible! Did a video of it back in the old SD analog days at :



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd4gPNGNYRU



The GO and the TBW always appeared to me to be a light weight version of the shipboard TDE transmitter. Don?t know if that?s the case or not. For a long time wanted a TDE or TCK for playing around with AM but now days all I can think of is how much that stuff weighs.



Ray F/KA3EKH





________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251017/e22737e8/attachment-0001.html>

From kgordon2006 at frontier.com  Fri Oct 17 15:31:17 2025
From: kgordon2006 at frontier.com (kgordon2006 at frontier.com)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 12:31:17 -0700
Subject: [Milsurplus] Ebay TBY now TBW and TCK
In-Reply-To: <CAB55hNei2Q+CiZh1VTEwQahGdiVmybXo087q5s2Us=3scApsfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DM8P220MB0472C9E7AAFF842CAA0E7B79B8F6A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>,
	<BY5PR14MB4001DB6577DDBACFD1D55C59C4F6A@BY5PR14MB4001.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>,
	<CAB55hNei2Q+CiZh1VTEwQahGdiVmybXo087q5s2Us=3scApsfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <68F29985.3118.29372B3E@kgordon2006.frontier.com>

Here is my TCK-4. It is going to take me at least 100 hours of work to get it back in operable 
condition.

https://www.w7ekb.com/Personal/TCK-4/TCK4.jpg

The last owner modified it for RTTY. He also removed the AM modulator and built-in a 
complete HV power supply. It has a pair of 813s in the final amp stage. 

And 866s in the HV power supply. I really don't like 866s. I'll probably replacd those with 
solid-state...or maybe 3B28s.....

Since it has been hacked to death, I won't mind making some upgrades to it. It should make 
a fairly decent linear amp too, but I'll mainly use it on CW. I am considering adding a 3rd 813 
to the final amp stage, for the additional plate dissipation capacity.

The VFO "system" in this thing is certainy interesting.

I wish I had one of the original antenna tuning bits for it. But those are probably unobtainable.

I have all the manuals....

Ken W7EKB


On 17 Oct 2025 at 15:07, Nick England via Milsurplus wrote:

> 
> FWIW initial contract dates
> GO - Hygrade/Sylvania? - 1933
> GO-1 - Western Electric - 1934
> GO-3 - Westinghouse - 1937
> TBW - Westinghouse - March 1939
> TCK - GE - April 1941
> TDE - Westinghouse - June 1942
> 
> Nick England K4NYW
> Chapel Hill NC
> www.navy-radio.com
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 1:23PM howard holden <holden7471 at msn.com> wrote:
> Agreed Ray!? And yes the GO/TBW might be based on the TDE, although the TBW and GO are 
> maybe by comparison lightweights. The TDE and TCK also require a MG set.? The 803 is 
> indestructible! They should have never come out with the 813 although it's rated for higher 
> Mhz.?
> 
> 
> 
> From:?Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>
> Sent:?Friday, October 17, 2025 8:12 AM
> To:?howard holden <holden7471 at msn.com>; Charlie L. <mjcal79 at gmail.com>; 
> milsurplus at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject:?Ebay TBY now TBW
> 
> I built up and ran a TBW for some time, sold it off a long time ago. Fun transmitter. The 803 
> output tube was almost indestructible! Did a video of it back in the old SD analog days at :
> ?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd4gPNGNYRU
> ?
> The GO and the TBW always appeared to me to be a light weight version of the shipboard TDE 
> transmitter. Don?t know if that?s the case or not. For a long time wanted a TDE or TCK for 
> playing around with AM but now days all I can think of is how much that stuff weighs.
> ?
> Ray F/KA3EKH
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



From kgordon2006 at frontier.com  Fri Oct 17 15:40:27 2025
From: kgordon2006 at frontier.com (kgordon2006 at frontier.com)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 12:40:27 -0700
Subject: [Milsurplus] Ebay TBY now TBW and TCM-2
In-Reply-To: <CAB55hNei2Q+CiZh1VTEwQahGdiVmybXo087q5s2Us=3scApsfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DM8P220MB0472C9E7AAFF842CAA0E7B79B8F6A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>,
	<BY5PR14MB4001DB6577DDBACFD1D55C59C4F6A@BY5PR14MB4001.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>,
	<CAB55hNei2Q+CiZh1VTEwQahGdiVmybXo087q5s2Us=3scApsfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <68F29BAB.21031.293F8F31@kgordon2006.frontier.com>

And here is my TCM-2. I was given a brand-new one of these, complete with power supply, 
by MARS many years ago. I eventually passed it on to another user.

https://www.w7ekb.com/Personal/TCM-2/TCM-2_Other.jpg

I really like the TCM-2. It is actually desk-top size. It has possibly more meters, dials, and 
switches per square-inch of panel space for its size than any other mil transmitter I know of.

It is capable of about 300 watts output.

Ken W7EKB

From mzfb at aol.com  Fri Oct 17 16:32:31 2025
From: mzfb at aol.com (Mike Christie)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 20:32:31 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Milsurplus] Milsurplus Digest, Vol 258, Issue 50 TBY
In-Reply-To: <mailman.35.1760716808.4899.milsurplus@mailman.qth.net>
References: <mailman.35.1760716808.4899.milsurplus@mailman.qth.net>
Message-ID: <1335218456.4179111.1760733151303@mail.yahoo.com>

 RayThat was good video! I enjoy going through the procedures of loading & tuning a transmitter being able to see what tubes are doing via the plate current on the meter. Fun stuff!Mike W1ZFB
    On Friday, October 17, 2025 at 12:05:12 PM EDT, milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net> wrote:   

 Send Milsurplus mailing list submissions to
??? milsurplus at mailman.qth.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
??? http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
??? milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
??? milsurplus-owner at mailman.qth.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Milsurplus digest..."


Today's Topics:

? 1. Ebay TBY now TBW (Ray Fantini)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 15:12:56 +0000
From: Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>
To: howard holden <holden7471 at msn.com>, Charlie L.
??? <mjcal79 at gmail.com>,??? "milsurplus at mailman.qth.net"
??? <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: [Milsurplus] Ebay TBY now TBW
Message-ID:
??? <DM8P220MB0472C9E7AAFF842CAA0E7B79B8F6A at DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
??? 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I built up and ran a TBW for some time, sold it off a long time ago. Fun transmitter. The 803 output tube was almost indestructible! Did a video of it back in the old SD analog days at :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd4gPNGNYRU

The GO and the TBW always appeared to me to be a light weight version of the shipboard TDE transmitter. Don't know if that's the case or not. For a long time wanted a TDE or TCK for playing around with AM but now days all I can think of is how much that stuff weighs.

Ray F/KA3EKH

From: howard holden <holden7471 at msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 11:53 PM
To: Charlie L. <mjcal79 at gmail.com>; milsurplus at mailman.qth.net; Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Ebay TBY





Yes there was a TBZ, it's a VHF transmitter paired up with an RBZ receiver. We had one at the USS Ling SS-297. FWIW the TBW, (had one of those too at the Ling) has suppressor grid modulated phone. It also uses the suppressor modulator to generate the tone for MCW. The GO-9 does not have phone, and it uses the 800Hz 120VAC to modulate the tone for MCW. That's what GO-9s ran on in the aircraft. I know, I own one and use it constantly mainly on 40M. In mine the PS is configured for 60Hz.

73, Howie WB2AWQ
________________________________
From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net>> on behalf of Ray Fantini via Milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 11:05 AM
To: Charlie L. <mjcal79 at gmail.com<mailto:mjcal79 at gmail.com>>; milsurplus at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>>
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Ebay TBY


The PBY Catalina used a GO-9 transmitter, the ground version of the GO-9 transmitter was the TBW. The TBX also fits in there somewhere as being a primitive and troublesome radio to operate, at least in military context because I have owned and operated them before and love that radio and then there is the TBY.? Looks all related to me! Wonder if there was a TBZ?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251017/c28e5263/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

______________________________________________________________
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


End of Milsurplus Digest, Vol 258, Issue 50
*******************************************
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251017/52f1fe08/attachment-0001.html>

From holden7471 at msn.com  Fri Oct 17 17:05:02 2025
From: holden7471 at msn.com (howard holden)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 21:05:02 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] Ebay TBY now TBW
In-Reply-To: <DM8P220MB04723B5B732D322FEA42F433B8F6A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <DM8P220MB0472C9E7AAFF842CAA0E7B79B8F6A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
	<BY5PR14MB4001DB6577DDBACFD1D55C59C4F6A@BY5PR14MB4001.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAB55hNei2Q+CiZh1VTEwQahGdiVmybXo087q5s2Us=3scApsfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<DM8P220MB04723B5B732D322FEA42F433B8F6A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <BY5PR14MB40017679E7DE0052A6D21C43C4F6A@BY5PR14MB4001.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>

My GO-9 is dated contract 1940. Not sure where the 837/837/803 combo originated, but it's a good one.  The MF side of the GO-9 and TBW runs an 801, 807, and 803. Ron NU6F runs a TDE, his sounds really nice.

Howie
________________________________
From: Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 12:25 PM
To: Nick England <nick at navy-radio.com>; howard holden <holden7471 at msn.com>
Cc: Charlie L. <mjcal79 at gmail.com>; milsurplus at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: RE: [Milsurplus] Ebay TBY now TBW


Ok, so that?s how it is. So tell me what was the first Navy transmitter to use the three tube line up of a 837 isolated filament oscillator 807 or 837 Intermediate amplifier and 803 with suppressor modulation?  Along with the idea of separate LF/HF bays? The TCM is something along those lines too.

The 1936 Radio Handbook, no relation to the ARRL handbook has a very similar three tube 803 output transmitter in it and think those tubes hit the market in 1934 or maybe 36 and as a side note always thought the TCK was a newer design then the TDE but what do I know.



Ray F/KA3EKH





From: Nick England <nick at navy-radio.com>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 3:07 PM
To: howard holden <holden7471 at msn.com>
Cc: Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>; Charlie L. <mjcal79 at gmail.com>; milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Ebay TBY now TBW





FWIW initial contract dates

GO - Hygrade/Sylvania? - 1933

GO-1 - Western Electric - 1934

GO-3 - Westinghouse - 1937

TBW - Westinghouse - March 1939

TCK - GE - April 1941

TDE - Westinghouse - June 1942


Nick England K4NYW
Chapel Hill NC
www.navy-radio.com<http://www.navy-radio.com/>





On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 1:23?PM howard holden <holden7471 at msn.com<mailto:holden7471 at msn.com>> wrote:

Agreed Ray!  And yes the GO/TBW might be based on the TDE, although the TBW and GO are maybe by comparison lightweights. The TDE and TCK also require a MG set.  The 803 is indestructible! They should have never come out with the 813 although it's rated for higher Mhz.





________________________________

From: Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu<mailto:RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 8:12 AM
To: howard holden <holden7471 at msn.com<mailto:holden7471 at msn.com>>; Charlie L. <mjcal79 at gmail.com<mailto:mjcal79 at gmail.com>>; milsurplus at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>>
Subject: Ebay TBY now TBW



I built up and ran a TBW for some time, sold it off a long time ago. Fun transmitter. The 803 output tube was almost indestructible! Did a video of it back in the old SD analog days at :



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd4gPNGNYRU



The GO and the TBW always appeared to me to be a light weight version of the shipboard TDE transmitter. Don?t know if that?s the case or not. For a long time wanted a TDE or TCK for playing around with AM but now days all I can think of is how much that stuff weighs.



Ray F/KA3EKH





________________________________


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251017/64c4baa5/attachment.html>

From holden7471 at msn.com  Sat Oct 18 12:09:52 2025
From: holden7471 at msn.com (howard holden)
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2025 16:09:52 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] Winter 2025 Classic Exchange CW
Message-ID: <BY5PR14MB40014F4F12EC6E97E90F323FC4E9A@BY5PR14MB4001.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>

The Classic Exchange CW will be: Sunday Oct 26 1300Z to Oct 27 0700Z and Tuesday Oct 28 1300Z to Oct 29 0700Z

Objective:   Encourage the restoration, operation, and enjoyment of radio equipment that was the pride and joy of our ham shacks decades ago.   This includes commercial, home-brew, and military radios.  The state of the art radios of yesteryear are now the classic radios of today!   Get a cup of coffee, watch the filaments glow, dip the plate and peak the load, and enjoy two weekends of classic radio enjoyment!

Entry Categories:   There are two categories, categories count for both CW and phone individually:
 A:  Three or fewer receiver-transmitter pairs
 B:   Four or more receiver-transmitter pairs

Suggested frequencies up or down: NO WARC bands allowed!
1.810, 3.545, 7.035 and 7.100 ? 7.125, 14.045, 21.045, 28.045, 50.095, 144.100

Listen up and down 5 to 10 Kc for crystal controlled stations.

Classic Exchange Spotting Page:  http://qsopartyhub.com/classic-exchange-spots.php

Complete rules at: https://classicexchange.org/announcments/CX_Rules.pdf

Send logs and comments to: logs at classicexchange.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251018/126900a5/attachment.html>

From Kargo_cult at msn.com  Tue Oct 21 01:04:58 2025
From: Kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 05:04:58 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344  vs  BC-348
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB4374CE1579D59C6398FF9E3BE4F2A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

I see in old magazine ads the BC-348 sold consistently for around $10 over the BC-342 price.
What accounts for this difference, do you think ?
That the BC-348 was lighter ? More "attractive" looking ?
The selectivity on the BC-342 had to be better.
The "old style" crystal filter on the older models BC-224 and -348 look to me smarter than either
the BC-342/ 344 or the later models BC-348, but of course at 915 kcs. it's about twice as wide as
at 470 kcs.
-Hue Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251021/f3381331/attachment.html>

From Kargo_cult at msn.com  Tue Oct 21 01:08:03 2025
From: Kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 05:08:03 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] AN/GRR-5
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB4374779646132905BA0AF92EE4F2A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

I am sort of surprised that this receiver seems to have hit the surplus market so soon.
Did its role simply not prove out ?  No place for it ?
I mean, it has 7 pin minis, so it's not ancient, yet it is in the 'Surplus Schematics Handbook' 1959.

I had one years ago, maybe should have kept it, listened to Radio Australia late at night, the
vibrator supply audibly buzzing the whole cabinet.
-Hue Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251021/36efdbe3/attachment.html>

From scr274 at gmail.com  Tue Oct 21 11:19:57 2025
From: scr274 at gmail.com (Ken Kinderman)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 11:19:57 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] R-388 Decals
Message-ID: <CAKUjTOZMHCjdsZKKq7SjXr2okvRFxtRz9jVOrJDtYrTZWaGibw@mail.gmail.com>

Last call.. R-388 Decals.
Next best solution to silk screening. They look great when appllied
properly with Solvaset.
Free + $5 for mailing

Ken
W2EWL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251021/4f11122a/attachment-0001.html>

From RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu  Tue Oct 21 13:58:52 2025
From: RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu (Ray Fantini)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 17:58:52 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344  vs  BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!
Message-ID: <DM8P220MB0472860F3F0B0E0074D7B835B8F2A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Maybe it has to do with total production? Possibly more BC-342/312 were produced and were more available? And there is a big weight and size difference in favor of the BC-348. But the BC-342 did come with a AC power supply and was ready to use without modification.
Anecdotally would also speculate more of the BC-312/342 receivers were dumped on the surplus market being by the end of WW2 they were already obsolete  with new receivers entering military service like the 51J and R-388 products that were needed to support teletype making all that WW2 stuff go away. Oddly the BC-348/ART-13 (ARC-8)combination survived longer in military service seeing use in B-29 and later B-36 along with a bunch of transport and cargo aircraft that maybe not as many were dumped into the surplus market as the obsolete BC-342/312 and that can also account for cost difference.
 I don't think technical specifications had anything to do with it.  By 48/49 Hallicrafters and National  were selling receivers that way exceed anything you would get with a BC-348 or 342 so serious Hams were buying things like SX-71 or Nationals HRO -5A/C or 7 with the war surplus going to the bottom end market for entry level Hams and SWL users.  The HRO-5TA1 was up for sale as soon as 1946 for $217, think that would be like buying a Icom 7800 transceiver today. Lot of money but everyone knows at least one or two Hams who have to have the best!

The GRR-5 is more interesting. Think the thing there is the battel that started  early in WW2 between AM and FM for tactical communications on the battlefield. I would think by the end of WW2 the battel was over and FM was clearly the winner, no heterodynes, clean good quality audio and excellent short range communications. But the Army did proceed with developing contracts for things like the AN/GRC-9 for HF/AM tactical communications and later sets like the AN/GRC-19 both systems served well into the sixties. That along with things like Broadcast nets where general orders or otherwise one way communications can take place were perceived as having some value. The British PCR receivers were a good example of that. I somehow see the GRR-5 and PCR in some way related in there use? And like the PCR cannot see the GRR-5 having any real value as a CW receiver or otherwise  but as a network monitoring receiver for things like time information it had its place. GRR-5 receivers were mounted in operations and teletype centers for years beyond any of the other radios like the R-392 and T-195 were in service. Least that's my speculation, the GRR-5 was part of the great GRC-19 generation, where as the GRC-19 configuration survived a little longer in military service because it was capable of running teletype the GRR-5 had little reason to be around as long.

Least that's my speculation, let's see where I am right or wrong.

Ray F/KA3EKH





From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of Hubert Miller
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 1:05 AM
To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344 vs BC-348


I see in old magazine ads the BC-348 sold consistently for around $10 over the BC-342 price.
What accounts for this difference, do you think ?
That the BC-348 was lighter ? More "attractive" looking ?
The selectivity on the BC-342 had to be better.
The "old style" crystal filter on the older models BC-224 and -348 look to me smarter than either
the BC-342/ 344 or the later models BC-348, but of course at 915 kcs. it's about twice as wide as
at 470 kcs.
-Hue Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251021/c86243b8/attachment.html>

From old_radio at aol.com  Tue Oct 21 15:11:48 2025
From: old_radio at aol.com (Jim Whartenby)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 19:11:48 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344  vs  BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!
In-Reply-To: <DM8P220MB0472860F3F0B0E0074D7B835B8F2A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <DM8P220MB0472860F3F0B0E0074D7B835B8F2A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <901235148.5356023.1761073908631@mail.yahoo.com>

According to:?https://www.worldradiohistory.com/UK/Short-Wave-UK/00s/SWM-2001-05.pdf#search=%22glenn%20miller%22? page23, There were 129,000 BC-348 were made during WW2.? That is a lot more then I guessed!? The article contains test data from May, 2001with performance that is perhaps not as good as more modern receivers but still pretty respectable for AM reception.Jim

Logic: Method used to arrive at the wrong conclusion, with confidence.? Murphy 

    On Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 12:59:16 PM CDT, Ray Fantini via Milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> wrote:   

  
Maybe it has to do with total production? Possibly more BC-342/312 were produced and were more available? And there is a big weight and size difference in favor of the BC-348. But the BC-342 did come with a AC power supply and was ready to use without modification.
 
Anecdotally would also speculate more of the BC-312/342 receivers were dumped on the surplus market being by the end of WW2 they were already obsolete ?with new receivers entering military service like the 51J and R-388 products that were needed to support teletype making all that WW2 stuff go away. Oddly the BC-348/ART-13 (ARC-8)combination survived longer in military service seeing use in B-29 and later B-36 along with a bunch of transport and cargo aircraft that maybe not as many were dumped into the surplus market as the obsolete BC-342/312 and that can also account for cost difference. ?
 
?I don?t think technical specifications had anything to do with it. ?By 48/49 Hallicrafters and National ?were selling receivers that way exceed anything you would get with a BC-348 or 342 so serious Hams were buying things like SX-71 or Nationals HRO -5A/C or 7 with the war surplus going to the bottom end market for entry level Hams and SWL users. ?The HRO-5TA1 was up for sale as soon as 1946 for $217, think that would be like buying a Icom 7800 transceiver today. Lot of money but everyone knows at least one or two Hams who have to have the best!
 
 ?
 
The GRR-5 is more interesting. Think the thing there is the battel that started? early in WW2 between AM and FM for tactical communications on the battlefield. I would think by the end of WW2 the battel was over and FM was clearly the winner, no heterodynes, clean good quality audio and excellent short range communications. But the Army did proceed with developing contracts for things like the AN/GRC-9 for HF/AM tactical communications and later sets like the AN/GRC-19 both systems served well into the sixties. That along with things like Broadcast nets where general orders or otherwise one way communications can take place were perceived as having some value. The British PCR receivers were a good example of that. I somehow see the GRR-5 and PCR in some way related in there use? And like the PCR cannot see the GRR-5 having any real value as a CW receiver or otherwise ?but as a network monitoring receiver for things like time information it had its place. GRR-5 receivers were mounted in operations and teletype centers for years beyond any of the other radios like the R-392 and T-195 were in service. Least that?s my speculation, the GRR-5 was part of the great GRC-19 generation, where as the GRC-19 configuration survived a little longer in military service because it was capable of running teletype the GRR-5 had little reason to be around as long.
 
 ?
 
Least that?s my speculation, let?s see where I am right or wrong.
 
 ?
 
Ray F/KA3EKH
 
 ?
 
 ?
 
?
 
 ?
 
 ?
 
From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net>On Behalf Of Hubert Miller
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 1:05 AM
To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344 vs BC-348
 
 ?
 
 ?
 
I see in old magazine ads the BC-348 sold consistently for around $10 over the BC-342 price.
 
What accounts for this difference, do you think ?
 
That the BC-348 was lighter ? More ?attractive? looking ?
 
The selectivity on the BC-342 had to be better.
 
The ?old style? crystal filter on the older models BC-224 and -348 look to me smarter than either
 
the BC-342/ 344 or the later models BC-348, but of course at 915 kcs. it?s about twice as wide as
 
at 470 kcs.
 
-Hue Miller 
 ______________________________________________________________
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/20251021/77c40e7c/attachment-0001.html>

From k5urg at yahoo.com  Tue Oct 21 15:45:20 2025
From: k5urg at yahoo.com (Francesco Ledda)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 14:45:20 -0500
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344  vs  BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!
In-Reply-To: <DM8P220MB0472860F3F0B0E0074D7B835B8F2A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <DM8P220MB0472860F3F0B0E0074D7B835B8F2A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <38004193-76A0-4868-837D-CA8F386AEACC@yahoo.com>

Years ago, I read an Army book about communication doctrine. The book mentioned the GRR-5 as being used as a monitoring receiver and not being utilized as part of a dedicated communication system.

Best, Francesco K5URG

Sent from my iPad

> On Oct 21, 2025, at 12:59, Ray Fantini via Milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> wrote:
> 
> ?
> Maybe it has to do with total production? Possibly more BC-342/312 were produced and were more available? And there is a big weight and size difference in favor of the BC-348. But the BC-342 did come with a AC power supply and was ready to use without modification.
> Anecdotally would also speculate more of the BC-312/342 receivers were dumped on the surplus market being by the end of WW2 they were already obsolete  with new receivers entering military service like the 51J and R-388 products that were needed to support teletype making all that WW2 stuff go away. Oddly the BC-348/ART-13 (ARC-8)combination survived longer in military service seeing use in B-29 and later B-36 along with a bunch of transport and cargo aircraft that maybe not as many were dumped into the surplus market as the obsolete BC-342/312 and that can also account for cost difference.  
>  I don?t think technical specifications had anything to do with it.  By 48/49 Hallicrafters and National  were selling receivers that way exceed anything you would get with a BC-348 or 342 so serious Hams were buying things like SX-71 or Nationals HRO -5A/C or 7 with the war surplus going to the bottom end market for entry level Hams and SWL users.  The HRO-5TA1 was up for sale as soon as 1946 for $217, think that would be like buying a Icom 7800 transceiver today. Lot of money but everyone knows at least one or two Hams who have to have the best!
>  
> The GRR-5 is more interesting. Think the thing there is the battel that started  early in WW2 between AM and FM for tactical communications on the battlefield. I would think by the end of WW2 the battel was over and FM was clearly the winner, no heterodynes, clean good quality audio and excellent short range communications. But the Army did proceed with developing contracts for things like the AN/GRC-9 for HF/AM tactical communications and later sets like the AN/GRC-19 both systems served well into the sixties. That along with things like Broadcast nets where general orders or otherwise one way communications can take place were perceived as having some value. The British PCR receivers were a good example of that. I somehow see the GRR-5 and PCR in some way related in there use? And like the PCR cannot see the GRR-5 having any real value as a CW receiver or otherwise  but as a network monitoring receiver for things like time information it had its place. GRR-5 receivers were mounted in operations and teletype centers for years beyond any of the other radios like the R-392 and T-195 were in service. Least that?s my speculation, the GRR-5 was part of the great GRC-19 generation, where as the GRC-19 configuration survived a little longer in military service because it was capable of running teletype the GRR-5 had little reason to be around as long.
>  
> Least that?s my speculation, let?s see where I am right or wrong.
>  
> Ray F/KA3EKH
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of Hubert Miller
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 1:05 AM
> To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344 vs BC-348
>  
>  
> I see in old magazine ads the BC-348 sold consistently for around $10 over the BC-342 price.
> What accounts for this difference, do you think ?
> That the BC-348 was lighter ? More ?attractive? looking ?
> The selectivity on the BC-342 had to be better.
> The ?old style? crystal filter on the older models BC-224 and -348 look to me smarter than either
> the BC-342/ 344 or the later models BC-348, but of course at 915 kcs. it?s about twice as wide as
> at 470 kcs.
> -Hue Miller
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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/20251021/091caa6a/attachment.html>

From jvendely at cfl.rr.com  Tue Oct 21 16:10:53 2025
From: jvendely at cfl.rr.com (John Vendely)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 16:10:53 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344 vs BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!
In-Reply-To: <38004193-76A0-4868-837D-CA8F386AEACC@yahoo.com>
References: <DM8P220MB0472860F3F0B0E0074D7B835B8F2A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
	<38004193-76A0-4868-837D-CA8F386AEACC@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e1262c21-3c76-42f3-bd0f-05a62dca33d4@cfl.rr.com>

Yes, Francesco is correct.??The AN/GRR-5 had multiple, if somewhat 
obscure roles as a monitoring receiver.? For example, battalion ops 
centers, firing batteries, and fire units were issued them to monitor 
intelligence nets and observation post nets which were on HF AM.? Other 
units used them to monitor warning nets, such as antiaircraft warning 
nets.? ?And of course, the GRR-5 was often pressed into service in a 
variety of improvised receive-only applications.

Incidentally, the BC-342 had an extended post-WWII life as the 
R-336/GRC-26.? THese were updated BC-342s with a substantially modified 
L.O. with considerably improved stability and an IF output to make them 
suitable for FSK operation.? THey were the receiver used in the earliest 
version of the AN/GRC-26 RATT vans (with the BC-610 transmitter and FSK 
converters).? Despite the worthwhile improvements, they were still a bit 
marginal for this application, and in the late 1940s the R-336s were 
replaced with the superior R-388.

On 10/21/2025 3:45 PM, Francesco Ledda via Milsurplus wrote:
> Years ago, I read an Army book about communication doctrine. The book 
> mentioned the GRR-5 as being used as a monitoring receiver and not 
> being utilized as part of a dedicated communication system.
>
> Best, Francesco K5URG
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Oct 21, 2025, at 12:59, Ray Fantini via Milsurplus 
>> <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> wrote:
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Maybe it has to do with total production? Possibly more BC-342/312 
>> were produced and were more available? And there is a big weight and 
>> size difference in favor of the BC-348. But the BC-342 did come with 
>> a AC power supply and was ready to use without modification.
>>
>> Anecdotally would also speculate more of the BC-312/342 receivers 
>> were dumped on the surplus market being by the end of WW2 they were 
>> already obsolete ?with new receivers entering military service like 
>> the 51J and R-388 products that were needed to support teletype 
>> making all that WW2 stuff go away. Oddly the BC-348/ART-13 
>> (ARC-8)combination survived longer in military service seeing use in 
>> B-29 and later B-36 along with a bunch of transport and cargo 
>> aircraft that maybe not as many were dumped into the surplus market 
>> as the obsolete BC-342/312 and that can also account for cost 
>> difference.
>>
>> ?I don?t think technical specifications had anything to do with it. 
>> ?By 48/49 Hallicrafters and National ?were selling receivers that way 
>> exceed anything you would get with a BC-348 or 342 so serious Hams 
>> were buying things like SX-71 or Nationals HRO -5A/C or 7 with the 
>> war surplus going to the bottom end market for entry level Hams and 
>> SWL users. ?The HRO-5TA1 was up for sale as soon as 1946 for $217, 
>> think that would be like buying a Icom 7800 transceiver today. Lot of 
>> money but everyone knows at least one or two Hams who have to have 
>> the best!
>>
>> The GRR-5 is more interesting. Think the thing there is the battel 
>> that started? early in WW2 between AM and FM for tactical 
>> communications on the battlefield. I would think by the end of WW2 
>> the battel was over and FM was clearly the winner, no heterodynes, 
>> clean good quality audio and excellent short range communications. 
>> But the Army did proceed with developing contracts for things like 
>> the AN/GRC-9 for HF/AM tactical communications and later sets like 
>> the AN/GRC-19 both systems served well into the sixties. That along 
>> with things like Broadcast nets where general orders or otherwise one 
>> way communications can take place were perceived as having some 
>> value. The British PCR receivers were a good example of that. I 
>> somehow see the GRR-5 and PCR in some way related in there use? And 
>> like the PCR cannot see the GRR-5 having any real value as a CW 
>> receiver or otherwise ?but as a network monitoring receiver for 
>> things like time information it had its place. GRR-5 receivers were 
>> mounted in operations and teletype centers for years beyond any of 
>> the other radios like the R-392 and T-195 were in service. Least 
>> that?s my speculation, the GRR-5 was part of the great GRC-19 
>> generation, where as the GRC-19 configuration survived a little 
>> longer in military service because it was capable of running teletype 
>> the GRR-5 had little reason to be around as long.
>>
>> Least that?s my speculation, let?s see where I am right or wrong.
>>
>> Ray F/KA3EKH
>>
>> *From:*milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net 
>> <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> *On Behalf Of *Hubert Miller
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 21, 2025 1:05 AM
>> *To:* milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>> *Subject:* [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344 vs BC-348
>>
>> I see in old magazine ads the BC-348 sold consistently for around $10 
>> over the BC-342 price.
>>
>> What accounts for this difference, do you think ?
>>
>> That the BC-348 was lighter ? More ?attractive? looking ?
>>
>> The selectivity on the BC-342 had to be better.
>>
>> The ?old style? crystal filter on the older models BC-224 and -348 
>> look to me smarter than either
>>
>> the BC-342/ 344 or the later models BC-348, but of course at 915 kcs. 
>> it?s about twice as wide as
>>
>> at 470 kcs.
>>
>> -Hue Miller
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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/20251021/6727166c/attachment-0001.html>

From kargo_cult at msn.com  Tue Oct 21 16:17:54 2025
From: kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 20:17:54 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] GRR-5
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB43744D33A7850F7CCE8DC1FDE4F2A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

I believe, don't have supporting docs to hand, the GRR-5 was an "alert receiver", same use as the ? BC-728 ? SCR-593 ? "air warning receiver" seen in a WW2 photo or 2.



Sent from my Galaxy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251021/6dd8a8e0/attachment.html>

From kargo_cult at msn.com  Tue Oct 21 17:05:11 2025
From: kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 21:05:11 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344  vs  BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB437427B5F9EF86918F60EF81E4F2A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

I had no idea the 348 was produced in such numbers. That explains why you ALWAYS see them on Ebay. ( I remember around 1981 in Seattle, at 'Amateur Radio Supply', a NIB unused BC-348 for $125. That was too rich for me then, but - - somebody bought it. )

If supply vs demand simply applies, the 342/ 344 should have been priced higher. It was not. So there are other factors. The front panel on the 348 is alu, so it's a lot easier to add controls, meter and so on. Some opinions are, it looks better too.

I seem to recall speaking with someone at G&G NYC long ago. The person said they were reimporting them from France and restoring HFO wiring from dual diversity to independent use. I think France used them into the 1960s. I spoke with G&G must have been, 1973. I ordered one 348 and one 342, but nothing, zero transpired and many months later i got a letter asking if i still wanted to place the order, which i did not. Perhaps this was the, or a, period when the owner was out ill.

About this time i got an ARR-15, which was an overlaul and came in a large cardboard barrel. It had been a MARS giveaway. Unfortunately, i semi hacked it. I was pretty ignorant. Still am, i guess, but about different areas now, like eschatology.

I had one of the France BC-342. Was noteworthy because a front panel marking altho English, was misspelled "DIAL LINGHT".  I recall seeing surplus 342 but not 348 offered in French radio magazines from early 1970s.

The latest 348 manual i have is TM 11-6920, 1955, and it's just the J, N, P manual reprinted.

The 342 was certainly used in Korea War and i'm sure i have a photo or 2.

I did not set out at all to gather 348s but i have the BC-224-A and also an R-849 which is K.W. and has the squelch box on top for K.W. radio jeep use with ART-13.

I prefer the early no - LF band models. The LF band is useless to me and i like the slightly better bandspread.

Steve Bartkowski many years ago told me he saw a 348 where the LF band had been rewound to tune our AM broadcast band. I don't understand how that could be, without some screeching mess happening.
-Hue Miller



Sent from my Galaxy


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251021/6e3033ad/attachment-0001.html>

From sgm460122 at yahoo.com  Tue Oct 21 17:27:38 2025
From: sgm460122 at yahoo.com (Rich MC Clung)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 21:27:38 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Milsurplus] GRR-5
References: <2082641695.2954352.1761082058576.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <2082641695.2954352.1761082058576@mail.yahoo.com>

I was stationed in Germany in the late 60?s. Our Battallion COMMO had a AN/GRR-5. It was used for time hacks and for monitoring the Division Air Warning Net and the NCB Attack Net.
RICH ? ?WA6KNW?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251021/89e12139/attachment.html>

From mjcal79 at gmail.com  Wed Oct 22 13:00:51 2025
From: mjcal79 at gmail.com (Charlie L.)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 13:00:51 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] NCB Attack Net.
Message-ID: <CA+d3itbbnSWiwCMr6dMvW6Bn3LmxaGJkBASBU+mPhLW4t2ZiMA@mail.gmail.com>

Did ABC officially get changed to NCB?

Charlie in NC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251022/462cf07e/attachment.html>

From RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu  Wed Oct 22 13:59:54 2025
From: RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu (Ray Fantini)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 17:59:54 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344  vs  BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!
Message-ID: <DM8P220MB047279FF7C82178AA046FE05B8F3A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Cannot make intelligent speculation on production numbers but being the BC-342/312 and its evil twin sister the 314 had to be produced in equal or higher numbers being it was the stock receiver with a number of vehicular mounted sets and field use sets for ground communications for a long time.
I can say for a fact that in the past several years I have had many people express interest and want to buy BC-348 receivers and no one want BC-342/312 receivers.  I can get $100 to $200 for a clean front panel working BC-348 receiver and would have to work to get $100 for the 342 if at all.

Attached is a picture of a bunch of BC-348 receivers going acrost the bench.

Ray F/KA3EKH





From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of Hubert Miller
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 5:05 PM
To: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Cc: ARC5 <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344 vs BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!


I had no idea the 348 was produced in such numbers. That explains why you ALWAYS see them on Ebay. ( I remember around 1981 in Seattle, at 'Amateur Radio Supply', a NIB unused BC-348 for $125. That was too rich for me then, but - - somebody bought it. )

If supply vs demand simply applies, the 342/ 344 should have been priced higher. It was not. So there are other factors. The front panel on the 348 is alu, so it's a lot easier to add controls, meter and so on. Some opinions are, it looks better too.

I seem to recall speaking with someone at G&G NYC long ago. The person said they were reimporting them from France and restoring HFO wiring from dual diversity to independent use. I think France used them into the 1960s. I spoke with G&G must have been, 1973. I ordered one 348 and one 342, but nothing, zero transpired and many months later i got a letter asking if i still wanted to place the order, which i did not. Perhaps this was the, or a, period when the owner was out ill.

About this time i got an ARR-15, which was an overlaul and came in a large cardboard barrel. It had been a MARS giveaway. Unfortunately, i semi hacked it. I was pretty ignorant. Still am, i guess, but about different areas now, like eschatology.

I had one of the France BC-342. Was noteworthy because a front panel marking altho English, was misspelled "DIAL LINGHT".  I recall seeing surplus 342 but not 348 offered in French radio magazines from early 1970s.

The latest 348 manual i have is TM 11-6920, 1955, and it's just the J, N, P manual reprinted.

The 342 was certainly used in Korea War and i'm sure i have a photo or 2.

I did not set out at all to gather 348s but i have the BC-224-A and also an R-849 which is K.W. and has the squelch box on top for K.W. radio jeep use with ART-13.

I prefer the early no - LF band models. The LF band is useless to me and i like the slightly better bandspread.

Steve Bartkowski many years ago told me he saw a 348 where the LF band had been rewound to tune our AM broadcast band. I don't understand how that could be, without some screeching mess happening.
-Hue Miller





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251022/73ecdcea/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bc348.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2178945 bytes
Desc: bc348.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251022/73ecdcea/attachment-0001.jpg>

From old_radio at aol.com  Wed Oct 22 14:48:34 2025
From: old_radio at aol.com (Jim Whartenby)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 18:48:34 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344  vs  BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!
In-Reply-To: <DM8P220MB047279FF7C82178AA046FE05B8F3A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <DM8P220MB047279FF7C82178AA046FE05B8F3A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <1641594916.5775338.1761158914115@mail.yahoo.com>

Ray
Every Army aircraft that had a liaison radio had an HF receiver.? How many B-17s, B24s, B-29 and DC-3 aircraft were produced during WW2?? I believe that the larger Navy transport aircraft also used the BC-348, the smaller aircraft used the ARB.

The romance for the BC-348 is most likely that they were noticed more often in war movies and they are the lighter of the two styles of RCA receivers designed for use by the Army in WW2.? When was the last time you saw the insides of an Army communications van, truck or trailer shown in a war movie?? By my recollection, none.

ARB was 26.8? pounds but since this radio was remote controlled, the frequency dial was lacking in precision.
The BC-348 was 40 pounds and the?BC-312 was 58 pounds

Regards,
Jim
Logic: Method used to arrive at the wrong conclusion, with confidence.? Murphy 

    On Wednesday, October 22, 2025 at 01:00:38 PM CDT, Ray Fantini via Milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> wrote:   

  
Cannot make intelligent speculation on production numbers but being the BC-342/312 and its evil twin sister the 314 had to be produced in equal or higher numbers being it was the stock receiver with a number of vehicular mounted sets and field use sets for ground communications for a long time. 
 
I can say for a fact that in the past several years I have had many people express interest and want to buy BC-348 receivers and no one want BC-342/312 receivers.? I can get $100 to $200 for a clean front panel working BC-348 receiver and would have to work to get $100 for the 342 if at all. 
 
 ?
 
Attached is a picture of a bunch of BC-348 receivers going acrost the bench.
 
 ?
 
Ray F/KA3EKH
 
 ?
 
 ?
 
 ?
 
 ?
 
 ?
 
From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net>On Behalf Of Hubert Miller
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 5:05 PM
To: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Cc: ARC5 <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344 vs BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!
 
 ?
 
 ?
 
I had no idea the 348 was produced in such numbers. That explains why you ALWAYS see them on Ebay. ( I remember around 1981 in Seattle, at 'Amateur Radio Supply', a NIB unused BC-348 for $125. That was too rich for me then, but - - somebody bought it. )?
 
 ?
 
If supply vs demand simply applies, the 342/ 344 should have been priced higher. It was not. So there are other factors. The front panel on the 348 is alu, so it's a lot easier to add controls, meter and so on. Some opinions are, it looks better too.
 
 ?
 
I seem to recall speaking with someone at G&G NYC long ago. The person said they were reimporting them from France and restoring HFO wiring from dual diversity to independent use. I think France used them into the 1960s. I spoke with G&G must have been, 1973. I ordered one 348 and one 342, but nothing, zero transpired and many months later i got a letter asking if i still wanted to place the order, which i did not. Perhaps this was the, or a, period when the owner was out ill.
 
 ?
 
About this time i got an ARR-15, which was an overlaul and came in a large cardboard barrel. It had been a MARS giveaway. Unfortunately, i semi hacked it. I was pretty ignorant. Still am, i guess, but about different areas now, like eschatology.?
 
 ?
 
I had one of the France BC-342. Was noteworthy because a front panel marking altho English, was misspelled "DIAL LINGHT".? I recall seeing surplus 342 but not 348 offered in French radio magazines from early 1970s.?
 
 ?
 
The latest 348 manual i have is TM 11-6920, 1955, and it's just the J, N, P manual reprinted.?
 
 ?
 
The 342 was certainly used in Korea War and i'm sure i have a photo or 2.
 
 ?
 
I did not set out at all to gather 348s but i have the BC-224-A and also an R-849 which is K.W. and has the squelch box on top for K.W. radio jeep use with ART-13.?
 
 ?
 
I prefer the early no - LF band models. The LF band is useless to me and i like the slightly better bandspread.?
 
 ?
 
Steve Bartkowski many years ago told me he saw a 348 where the LF band had been rewound to tune our AM broadcast band. I don't understand how that could be, without some screeching mess happening.?
 
-Hue Miller
 
 ?
 
 ?
 
 ?
 
 ?
 
 ?
 ______________________________________________________________
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/20251022/c2a1181b/attachment.html>

From kargo_cult at msn.com  Wed Oct 22 14:58:49 2025
From: kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 18:58:49 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344  vs  BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB4374670CF23CE4212E3002C2E4F3A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

The 312 and 344 seem to have been  produced in less numbers than the 224 and 348, if you just judge by remaining numbers. Unless a whole lot of the ground receivers went "somewhere".

I have never ever seen a 224 - 348 rec sell for $200. I would say way south of $100 for sure, at a hamfair swap out here on the Left Coast. Maybe on Ebay.

Looks like first step for any civilian user: "Remove those toilet seat covers".

I am sort of surprised the GRR-5 was still in Army use even when it appeared in the Surplus Schematics Handbook. But Jimmy Horn said when he was in the Navy and the APX-6 was still in use and classified, he saw one in the window of a CA surplus store.
-Hue Miller
Sent from my Galaxy


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251022/b05e735b/attachment-0001.html>

From mzfb at aol.com  Wed Oct 22 15:00:39 2025
From: mzfb at aol.com (Mike Christie)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 19:00:39 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Milsurplus] Milsurplus Digest, Vol 258,
	Issue 63 Ray Fantini BC 348
In-Reply-To: <mailman.8921.1761156023.2991.milsurplus@mailman.qth.net>
References: <mailman.8921.1761156023.2991.milsurplus@mailman.qth.net>
Message-ID: <1043706677.5805111.1761159639872@mail.yahoo.com>

 RayI have several BC 348 that I've work on and currently work on BC 348 H model with everything original to include the Dynamotor. I'm in the process of recapping it but I have issue with the BFO, it is working but has alot audio distortion out to the speaker. Audio and IF are good and its sounds great on AM just on sideband its rough. My 348 Q sounds great on sideband and I have a BC 312 which also sounds good on sideband using the BFO I've changed the cap in the oscillator can but no change. Got any Ideas?Mike W1ZFB    On Wednesday, October 22, 2025 at 02:02:02 PM EDT, milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net> wrote:   

 Send Milsurplus mailing list submissions to
??? milsurplus at mailman.qth.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
??? http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
??? milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
??? milsurplus-owner at mailman.qth.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Milsurplus digest..."


Today's Topics:

? 1. NCB Attack Net. (Charlie L.)
? 2. BC-342 / 344? vs? BC-348 and the GRR-5 too! (Ray Fantini)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 13:00:51 -0400
From: "Charlie L." <mjcal79 at gmail.com>
To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Milsurplus] NCB Attack Net.
Message-ID:
??? <CA+d3itbbnSWiwCMr6dMvW6Bn3LmxaGJkBASBU+mPhLW4t2ZiMA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Did ABC officially get changed to NCB?

Charlie in NC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251022/462cf07e/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 17:59:54 +0000
From: Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>
To: Hubert Miller <kargo_cult at msn.com>, "Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net"
??? <Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344? vs? BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!
Message-ID:
??? <DM8P220MB047279FF7C82178AA046FE05B8F3A at DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
??? 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Cannot make intelligent speculation on production numbers but being the BC-342/312 and its evil twin sister the 314 had to be produced in equal or higher numbers being it was the stock receiver with a number of vehicular mounted sets and field use sets for ground communications for a long time.
I can say for a fact that in the past several years I have had many people express interest and want to buy BC-348 receivers and no one want BC-342/312 receivers.? I can get $100 to $200 for a clean front panel working BC-348 receiver and would have to work to get $100 for the 342 if at all.

Attached is a picture of a bunch of BC-348 receivers going acrost the bench.

Ray F/KA3EKH





From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of Hubert Miller
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 5:05 PM
To: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Cc: ARC5 <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344 vs BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!


I had no idea the 348 was produced in such numbers. That explains why you ALWAYS see them on Ebay. ( I remember around 1981 in Seattle, at 'Amateur Radio Supply', a NIB unused BC-348 for $125. That was too rich for me then, but - - somebody bought it. )

If supply vs demand simply applies, the 342/ 344 should have been priced higher. It was not. So there are other factors. The front panel on the 348 is alu, so it's a lot easier to add controls, meter and so on. Some opinions are, it looks better too.

I seem to recall speaking with someone at G&G NYC long ago. The person said they were reimporting them from France and restoring HFO wiring from dual diversity to independent use. I think France used them into the 1960s. I spoke with G&G must have been, 1973. I ordered one 348 and one 342, but nothing, zero transpired and many months later i got a letter asking if i still wanted to place the order, which i did not. Perhaps this was the, or a, period when the owner was out ill.

About this time i got an ARR-15, which was an overlaul and came in a large cardboard barrel. It had been a MARS giveaway. Unfortunately, i semi hacked it. I was pretty ignorant. Still am, i guess, but about different areas now, like eschatology.

I had one of the France BC-342. Was noteworthy because a front panel marking altho English, was misspelled "DIAL LINGHT".? I recall seeing surplus 342 but not 348 offered in French radio magazines from early 1970s.

The latest 348 manual i have is TM 11-6920, 1955, and it's just the J, N, P manual reprinted.

The 342 was certainly used in Korea War and i'm sure i have a photo or 2.

I did not set out at all to gather 348s but i have the BC-224-A and also an R-849 which is K.W. and has the squelch box on top for K.W. radio jeep use with ART-13.

I prefer the early no - LF band models. The LF band is useless to me and i like the slightly better bandspread.

Steve Bartkowski many years ago told me he saw a 348 where the LF band had been rewound to tune our AM broadcast band. I don't understand how that could be, without some screeching mess happening.
-Hue Miller





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251022/73ecdcea/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bc348.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2178945 bytes
Desc: bc348.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251022/73ecdcea/attachment.jpg>

------------------------------

______________________________________________________________
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


End of Milsurplus Digest, Vol 258, Issue 63
*******************************************
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251022/508b2bd2/attachment.html>

From RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu  Wed Oct 22 15:52:18 2025
From: RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu (Ray Fantini)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 19:52:18 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344  vs  BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR20MB4374670CF23CE4212E3002C2E4F3A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
References: <PH0PR20MB4374670CF23CE4212E3002C2E4F3A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <DM8P220MB04728DFC13EDDADDD500E540B8F3A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

I buy at Ham fest, would never try to get a reasonable price from Hams at a Ham fest.  Online sales, collectors and people who want clean working examples are where its at. Between Hamvention and other sales I pick up BC-348 carcasses for $5 to $20 and have bought clean radios anywhere from $40 to $100
If you are trying to sell your clean, or restored military radios at Ham fest  your in for a disappointment in today?s world of Bofang using appliance operating Hams. Better off selling here, or at some of the events where military vehicle or radio people gather.
As far as the Bay goes I just did a search on completed sales for BC-348 receivers and they range in price from $300 down to $125 for clean examples and hacked or poor examples  going from $250 down to $76 and that?s not including shipping.

I am not in this to buy and sell, just like rebuilding using and dealing with this stuff. Lost and spent way more money then I will ever get back but so what. Have been having fun along the way. Think if someone were to look at this stuff as a investment that may be an issue.
But what do I know!

Ray F/KA3EKH

From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of Hubert Miller
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 2:59 PM
To: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344 vs BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!


The 312 and 344 seem to have been  produced in less numbers than the 224 and 348, if you just judge by remaining numbers. Unless a whole lot of the ground receivers went "somewhere".

I have never ever seen a 224 - 348 rec sell for $200. I would say way south of $100 for sure, at a hamfair swap out here on the Left Coast. Maybe on Ebay.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251022/73cd8d8d/attachment-0001.html>

From joldenburg2 at new.rr.com  Wed Oct 22 21:12:46 2025
From: joldenburg2 at new.rr.com (joldenburg2 at new.rr.com)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 01:12:46 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344  vs  BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!
Message-ID: <039eb4a244bb65fe2d10c865609342613dec21cb@webmail>

I remember reading that it was procedure to pull radio equipment after
a mission and replace it with a fresh checked unit to avoid comm
problems due to tube failure because of vibration. That and B29s high
losses make for a lot of radios 

Jon AB9AH
"I have always preferred diversions to duties; this strange taste has
clung to me all through my life." Clarence Darrow

	-----------------------------------------From: "Jim Whartenby via
Milsurplus" 
To: "milsurplus at mailman.qth.net"
Cc: 
Sent: Tuesday October 21 2025 2:12:19PM
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344 vs BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!

   According to: 
[1]https://www.worldradiohistory.com/UK/Short-Wave-UK/00s/SWM-2001-05.pdf#search=%22glenn%20miller%22
[2] page23, There were 129,000 BC-348 were made during WW2. That is a
lot more then I guessed! The article contains test data from May,
2001with performance that is perhaps not as good as more modern
receivers but still pretty respectable for AM reception. Jim 

    Logic: Method used to arrive at the wrong conclusion, with
confidence. Murphy     

     On Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 12:59:16 PM CDT, Ray Fantini via
Milsurplus  wrote:   

	Maybe it has to do with total production? Possibly more BC-342/312
were produced and were more available? And there is a big weight and
size difference in favor of the BC-348. But the BC-342 did come with a
AC power supply and was ready to use without modification. 

	Anecdotally would also speculate more of the BC-312/342 receivers
were dumped on the surplus market being by the end of WW2 they were
already obsolete with new receivers entering military service like the
51J and R-388 products that were needed to support teletype making all
that WW2 stuff go away. Oddly the BC-348/ART-13 (ARC-8)combination
survived longer in military service seeing use in B-29 and later B-36
along with a bunch of transport and cargo aircraft that maybe not as
many were dumped into the surplus market as the obsolete BC-342/312
and that can also account for cost difference.  

	 I don?t think technical specifications had anything to do with it.
By 48/49 Hallicrafters and National were selling receivers that way
exceed anything you would get with a BC-348 or 342 so serious Hams
were buying things like SX-71 or Nationals HRO -5A/C or 7 with the war
surplus going to the bottom end market for entry level Hams and SWL
users. The HRO-5TA1 was up for sale as soon as 1946 for $217, think
that would be like buying a Icom 7800 transceiver today. Lot of money
but everyone knows at least one or two Hams who have to have the best!


	The GRR-5 is more interesting. Think the thing there is the battel
that started early in WW2 between AM and FM for tactical
communications on the battlefield. I would think by the end of WW2 the
battel was over and FM was clearly the winner, no heterodynes, clean
good quality audio and excellent short range communications. But the
Army did proceed with developing contracts for things like the
AN/GRC-9 for HF/AM tactical communications and later sets like the
AN/GRC-19 both systems served well into the sixties. That along with
things like Broadcast nets where general orders or otherwise one way
communications can take place were perceived as having some value. The
British PCR receivers were a good example of that. I somehow see the
GRR-5 and PCR in some way related in there use? And like the PCR
cannot see the GRR-5 having any real value as a CW receiver or
otherwise but as a network monitoring receiver for things like time
information it had its place. GRR-5 receivers were mounted in
operations and teletype centers for years beyond any of the other
radios like the R-392 and T-195 were in service. Least that?s my
speculation, the GRR-5 was part of the great GRC-19 generation, where
as the GRC-19 configuration survived a little longer in military
service because it was capable of running teletype the GRR-5 had
little reason to be around as long. 

	Least that?s my speculation, let?s see where I am right or wrong.


	Ray F/KA3EKH 

	FROM: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net  ON BEHALF OF Hubert Miller
SENT: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 1:05 AM
TO: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
SUBJECT: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344 vs BC-348   

	I see in old magazine ads the BC-348 sold consistently for around $10
over the BC-342 price. 

	What accounts for this difference, do you think ? 

	That the BC-348 was lighter ? More ?attractive? looking ? 

	The selectivity on the BC-342 had to be better. 

	The ?old style? crystal filter on the older models BC-224 and
-348 look to me smarter than either 

	the BC-342/ 344 or the later models BC-348, but of course at 915 kcs.
it?s about twice as wide as 

	at 470 kcs. 

	-Hue Miller    
______________________________________________________________
 Milsurplus mailing list
 Home:  [3]http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus [4]
 Help:  [5]http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm [6]
 Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net

 This list hosted by:  [7]http://www.qsl.net [8]
 Please help support this email list: 
[9]http://www.qsl.net/donate.html [10]    

Links:
------
[1]
https://www.worldradiohistory.com/UK/Short-Wave-UK/00s/SWM-2001-05.pdf#search=%22glenn%20miller%22
[2]
https://www.worldradiohistory.com/UK/Short-Wave-UK/00s/SWM-2001-05.pdf#search=%22glenn%20miller%22
[3] http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
[4] http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
[5] http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
[6] http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
[7] http://www.qsl.net
[8] http://www.qsl.net
[9] http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
[10] http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251023/ead67e13/attachment.html>

From hwhall at compuserve.com  Thu Oct 23 03:26:28 2025
From: hwhall at compuserve.com (hwhall@aol.com)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 07:26:28 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Milsurplus] ANB-H-1A receivers, repairable?
References: <1781192240.443611.1761204388789.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1781192240.443611.1761204388789@mail.yahoo.com>

Has anyone perhaps figured out how to open up an ANB-H-1A headset receiver (these are the metal-body versions) so as to try to repair them?? I have one that is open-circuit.

Wayne
WB4OGM

From mzfb at aol.com  Thu Oct 23 05:40:55 2025
From: mzfb at aol.com (Mike Christie)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 09:40:55 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Milsurplus] Milsurplus Digest, Vol 258, Issue 65 BC 348 H Fixed
In-Reply-To: <mailman.8932.1761162756.2991.milsurplus@mailman.qth.net>
References: <mailman.8932.1761162756.2991.milsurplus@mailman.qth.net>
Message-ID: <1613188344.6020765.1761212455103@mail.yahoo.com>

 Found the problem with the distorted audio when the CW oscillator is turned on. apparently the previous owner had done some work and removed one leg of the gimmick that comes off of the CW oscillator and never put it back. As soon as I restored that wrap around the line, coming from the CW oscillator, the audio cleared right up.MikeW1ZFB
    On Wednesday, October 22, 2025 at 03:52:50 PM EDT, milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net> wrote:   

 Send Milsurplus mailing list submissions to
??? milsurplus at mailman.qth.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
??? http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
??? milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
??? milsurplus-owner at mailman.qth.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Milsurplus digest..."


Today's Topics:

? 1. Re: Milsurplus Digest, Vol 258,??? Issue 63 Ray Fantini BC 348
? ? ? (Mike Christie)
? 2. Re: BC-342 / 344? vs? BC-348 and the GRR-5 too! (Ray Fantini)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 19:00:39 +0000 (UTC)
From: Mike Christie <mzfb at aol.com>
To: "milsurplus at mailman.qth.net" <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Milsurplus Digest, Vol 258,??? Issue 63 Ray
??? Fantini BC 348
Message-ID: <1043706677.5805111.1761159639872 at mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

 RayI have several BC 348 that I've work on and currently work on BC 348 H model with everything original to include the Dynamotor. I'm in the process of recapping it but I have issue with the BFO, it is working but has alot audio distortion out to the speaker. Audio and IF are good and its sounds great on AM just on sideband its rough. My 348 Q sounds great on sideband and I have a BC 312 which also sounds good on sideband using the BFO I've changed the cap in the oscillator can but no change. Got any Ideas?Mike W1ZFB? ? On Wednesday, October 22, 2025 at 02:02:02 PM EDT, milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net> wrote:? 

 Send Milsurplus mailing list submissions to
??? milsurplus at mailman.qth.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
??? http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
??? milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
??? milsurplus-owner at mailman.qth.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Milsurplus digest..."


Today's Topics:

? 1. NCB Attack Net. (Charlie L.)
? 2. BC-342 / 344? vs? BC-348 and the GRR-5 too! (Ray Fantini)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 13:00:51 -0400
From: "Charlie L." <mjcal79 at gmail.com>
To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Milsurplus] NCB Attack Net.
Message-ID:
??? <CA+d3itbbnSWiwCMr6dMvW6Bn3LmxaGJkBASBU+mPhLW4t2ZiMA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Did ABC officially get changed to NCB?

Charlie in NC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251022/462cf07e/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 17:59:54 +0000
From: Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>
To: Hubert Miller <kargo_cult at msn.com>, "Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net"
??? <Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344? vs? BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!
Message-ID:
??? <DM8P220MB047279FF7C82178AA046FE05B8F3A at DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
??? 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Cannot make intelligent speculation on production numbers but being the BC-342/312 and its evil twin sister the 314 had to be produced in equal or higher numbers being it was the stock receiver with a number of vehicular mounted sets and field use sets for ground communications for a long time.
I can say for a fact that in the past several years I have had many people express interest and want to buy BC-348 receivers and no one want BC-342/312 receivers.? I can get $100 to $200 for a clean front panel working BC-348 receiver and would have to work to get $100 for the 342 if at all.

Attached is a picture of a bunch of BC-348 receivers going acrost the bench.

Ray F/KA3EKH





From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of Hubert Miller
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 5:05 PM
To: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Cc: ARC5 <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344 vs BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!


I had no idea the 348 was produced in such numbers. That explains why you ALWAYS see them on Ebay. ( I remember around 1981 in Seattle, at 'Amateur Radio Supply', a NIB unused BC-348 for $125. That was too rich for me then, but - - somebody bought it. )

If supply vs demand simply applies, the 342/ 344 should have been priced higher. It was not. So there are other factors. The front panel on the 348 is alu, so it's a lot easier to add controls, meter and so on. Some opinions are, it looks better too.

I seem to recall speaking with someone at G&G NYC long ago. The person said they were reimporting them from France and restoring HFO wiring from dual diversity to independent use. I think France used them into the 1960s. I spoke with G&G must have been, 1973. I ordered one 348 and one 342, but nothing, zero transpired and many months later i got a letter asking if i still wanted to place the order, which i did not. Perhaps this was the, or a, period when the owner was out ill.

About this time i got an ARR-15, which was an overlaul and came in a large cardboard barrel. It had been a MARS giveaway. Unfortunately, i semi hacked it. I was pretty ignorant. Still am, i guess, but about different areas now, like eschatology.

I had one of the France BC-342. Was noteworthy because a front panel marking altho English, was misspelled "DIAL LINGHT".? I recall seeing surplus 342 but not 348 offered in French radio magazines from early 1970s.

The latest 348 manual i have is TM 11-6920, 1955, and it's just the J, N, P manual reprinted.

The 342 was certainly used in Korea War and i'm sure i have a photo or 2.

I did not set out at all to gather 348s but i have the BC-224-A and also an R-849 which is K.W. and has the squelch box on top for K.W. radio jeep use with ART-13.

I prefer the early no - LF band models. The LF band is useless to me and i like the slightly better bandspread.

Steve Bartkowski many years ago told me he saw a 348 where the LF band had been rewound to tune our AM broadcast band. I don't understand how that could be, without some screeching mess happening.
-Hue Miller





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251022/73ecdcea/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bc348.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2178945 bytes
Desc: bc348.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251022/73ecdcea/attachment.jpg>

------------------------------

______________________________________________________________
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


End of Milsurplus Digest, Vol 258, Issue 63
*******************************************
? 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251022/508b2bd2/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 19:52:18 +0000
From: Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>
To: Hubert Miller <kargo_cult at msn.com>, "Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net"
??? <Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344? vs? BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!
Message-ID:
??? <DM8P220MB04728DFC13EDDADDD500E540B8F3A at DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
??? 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I buy at Ham fest, would never try to get a reasonable price from Hams at a Ham fest.? Online sales, collectors and people who want clean working examples are where its at. Between Hamvention and other sales I pick up BC-348 carcasses for $5 to $20 and have bought clean radios anywhere from $40 to $100
If you are trying to sell your clean, or restored military radios at Ham fest? your in for a disappointment in today?s world of Bofang using appliance operating Hams. Better off selling here, or at some of the events where military vehicle or radio people gather.
As far as the Bay goes I just did a search on completed sales for BC-348 receivers and they range in price from $300 down to $125 for clean examples and hacked or poor examples? going from $250 down to $76 and that?s not including shipping.

I am not in this to buy and sell, just like rebuilding using and dealing with this stuff. Lost and spent way more money then I will ever get back but so what. Have been having fun along the way. Think if someone were to look at this stuff as a investment that may be an issue.
But what do I know!

Ray F/KA3EKH

From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of Hubert Miller
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 2:59 PM
To: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344 vs BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!


The 312 and 344 seem to have been? produced in less numbers than the 224 and 348, if you just judge by remaining numbers. Unless a whole lot of the ground receivers went "somewhere".

I have never ever seen a 224 - 348 rec sell for $200. I would say way south of $100 for sure, at a hamfair swap out here on the Left Coast. Maybe on Ebay.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251022/73cd8d8d/attachment.html>

------------------------------

______________________________________________________________
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


End of Milsurplus Digest, Vol 258, Issue 65
*******************************************
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251023/73f5514e/attachment-0001.html>

From arc5 at ix.netcom.com  Thu Oct 23 08:50:19 2025
From: arc5 at ix.netcom.com (arc5 at ix.netcom.com)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 07:50:19 -0500
Subject: [Milsurplus] RAS-4 receiver - Salt Lake City - FTGH
Message-ID: <93dc42ae-7ef9-42a9-bb47-afdcb9efb660@localhost>



Been trying to give a working RAS-5 complete with rack, coils and holder, power, speaker etc.

for over a year. No taker.

We?re going ?gentle into that good night.?

I?d rather "rage, rage at the dying of the light,"

But can?t think who to rage at? ?

On 10/13/25, 11:28?AM, Nick England via Milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> wrote:

Contact Bob Thomas - <thomasrr89kd at gmail.com (mailto:thomasrr89kd at gmail.com)>

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Robert Thomas <thomasrr89kd at gmail.com (mailto:thomasrr89kd at gmail.com)>

Date: Sun, Oct 12, 2025 at 3:00?PM

Subject: Navy Radio

To: nick at navy-radio.com (mailto:nick at navy-radio.com) <nick at navy-radio.com (mailto:nick at navy-radio.com)>

I am looking for a home for my dads RAS-4 naval receiver with 7 coil modules,?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251023/bcab3d78/attachment.html>

From RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu  Thu Oct 23 10:47:45 2025
From: RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu (Ray Fantini)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 14:47:45 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 312  vs  BC-348
Message-ID: <DM8P220MB0472D4C16B6F6744DE70400BB8F0A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

approximately 4,735 B-17s were lost out of the 12,731 built, a total of 414 B-29s were lost, with the majority (267) due to mechanical failures, engine fires, and operational accidents, while 147 were lost to enemy fire from Japanese anti-aircraft guns and fighters. At least that?s what Wiki tells me. The percentage of losses for the B-17 exceed the B-29 by a factor of ten. B-24 were higher then that, Wiki dose not have production number for the Liberator but says 3,500 B-24 Liberators were lost with the highest percentage rate for the war. Over 73 were lost in a single raid against oil fields in Ploie?ti, Romania alone.
Think around 7,000 B-24 were built, 13,000 B-17, 4000 B-29 and just under 10,000 B-25 Mitchells, 5,000 B-26 Marauder and not taking into account transport and cargo aircraft that?s around 39,000 aircraft that would have BC-348 receivers.
Looking at that would assume that I was wrong about BC-342/312 numbers in comparison to BC-348 production numbers and would tend to think that the overall production number of 120,000 receivers may be correct.

Estimated production numbers for the BC-342/312 receivers produced for the SCR-299, SCR-399, and SCR-499 radio sets built between 1942 and 1945 is 14,706  units but that?s not taking into account receivers produced for the SCR-287 (BC-342/312 receiver and BC-375 transmitter) installations. Western Historic Radio says the GE received a contract to build 100,000 BC-375 transmitters, if just 20,000 were used in aircraft how many went to SCR-287 installations and required BC-342/312 receivers?  And don?t forget one of my favorites just due to its three hundred pounds of radio for less than ten watts the SCR-245(BC-312 and BC-223)  Before FM replaced the SCR-245 in armor and recon that was a go to set.
I have a SCR-245 in the cue for restoration and use as a possible 3885 base at Hamvention next year but have not gotten to it yet.
Just a crazy speculation but going to say maybe 75,000 or more BC-342/312 and 314 receivers were built? Don?t know myself.

Wiki also tells me that 1,450,000 command sets (receivers and transmitters) were produced in WW2 along with 47,000 SCR-300 and 130,000 SCR-536 (BC-611) radios.
Man that?s a lot of radios!

Ray F/KA3EKH



From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of joldenburg2 at new.rr.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 9:13 PM
To: 'Jim Whartenby' <old_radio at aol.com>
Cc: 'milsurplus at mailman.qth.net' <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344 vs BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!


I remember reading that it was procedure to pull radio equipment after a mission and replace it with a fresh checked unit  to avoid comm problems due to tube failure  because of vibration. That and B29s high losses  make for a lot of radios


Jon  AB9AH

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251023/a1fb6a73/attachment-0001.html>

From nick at navy-radio.com  Thu Oct 23 11:13:43 2025
From: nick at navy-radio.com (Nick England)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 11:13:43 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 312 vs BC-348
In-Reply-To: <DM8P220MB0472D4C16B6F6744DE70400BB8F0A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <DM8P220MB0472D4C16B6F6744DE70400BB8F0A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <CAB55hNftkh_Z58BLjNypBbRf1D8S8ZVCOEQsqdGcY3A+e7fMhg@mail.gmail.com>

18,000 B-24
10,000 C-47



Nick England K4NYW
Chapel Hill NC
www.navy-radio.com


On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 10:47?AM Ray Fantini via Milsurplus <
milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> wrote:

> approximately 4,735 B-17s were lost out of the 12,731 built, a total of
> 414 B-29s were lost, with the majority (267) due to mechanical failures,
> engine fires, and operational accidents, while 147 were lost to enemy fire
> from Japanese anti-aircraft guns and fighters. At least that?s what Wiki
> tells me. The percentage of losses for the B-17 exceed the B-29 by a factor
> of ten. B-24 were higher then that, Wiki dose not have production number
> for the Liberator but says 3,500 B-24 Liberators were lost with the highest
> percentage rate for the war. Over 73 were lost in a single raid against oil
> fields in Ploie?ti, Romania alone.
>
> Think around 7,000 B-24 were built, 13,000 B-17, 4000 B-29 and just under
> 10,000 B-25 Mitchells, 5,000 B-26 Marauder and not taking into account
> transport and cargo aircraft that?s around 39,000 aircraft that would have
> BC-348 receivers.
>
> Looking at that would assume that I was wrong about BC-342/312 numbers in
> comparison to BC-348 production numbers and would tend to think that the
> overall production number of 120,000 receivers may be correct.
>
>
>
> Estimated production numbers for the BC-342/312 receivers produced for the
> SCR-299, SCR-399, and SCR-499 radio sets built between 1942 and 1945 is
> 14,706  units but that?s not taking into account receivers produced for the
> SCR-287 (BC-342/312 receiver and BC-375 transmitter) installations. Western
> Historic Radio says the GE received a contract to build 100,000 BC-375
> transmitters, if just 20,000 were used in aircraft how many went to SCR-287
> installations and required BC-342/312 receivers?  And don?t forget one of
> my favorites just due to its three hundred pounds of radio for less than
> ten watts the SCR-245(BC-312 and BC-223)  Before FM replaced the SCR-245 in
> armor and recon that was a go to set.
>
> I have a SCR-245 in the cue for restoration and use as a possible 3885
> base at Hamvention next year but have not gotten to it yet.
>
> Just a crazy speculation but going to say maybe 75,000 or more BC-342/312
> and 314 receivers were built? Don?t know myself.
>
>
>
> Wiki also tells me that 1,450,000 command sets (receivers and
> transmitters) were produced in WW2 along with 47,000 SCR-300 and 130,000
> SCR-536 (BC-611) radios.
>
> Man that?s a lot of radios!
>
>
>
> Ray F/KA3EKH
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <
> milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> *On Behalf Of *joldenburg2 at new.rr.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 22, 2025 9:13 PM
> *To:* 'Jim Whartenby' <old_radio at aol.com>
> *Cc:* 'milsurplus at mailman.qth.net' <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344 vs BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!
>
>
>
>
>
> I remember reading that it was procedure to pull radio equipment after a
> mission and replace it with a fresh checked unit  to avoid comm problems
> due to tube failure  because of vibration. That and B29s high losses  make
> for a lot of radios
>
>
>
>
>
> Jon  AB9AH
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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/20251023/891d26b8/attachment.html>

From RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu  Thu Oct 23 11:37:58 2025
From: RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu (Ray Fantini)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 15:37:58 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 312 vs BC-348
In-Reply-To: <CAB55hNftkh_Z58BLjNypBbRf1D8S8ZVCOEQsqdGcY3A+e7fMhg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DM8P220MB0472D4C16B6F6744DE70400BB8F0A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
	<CAB55hNftkh_Z58BLjNypBbRf1D8S8ZVCOEQsqdGcY3A+e7fMhg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DM8P220MB04725C34F7AB52258FA655DEB8F0A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

OK, let?s try it again!


B-17       13,000
B-24       18,000
B-25       10,000
B-26       5,000
B-29       4,000

C-47       10,000
C-54       1,500

That?s    61,500 aircraft that would be using a BC-348 receiver along with a mix of T-375, ART-13 and ATD transmitters. Better yet, just imagine the numbers of 1625, 807, 813 tubes for all that or the number of 6K7 or 6SK7 tubes that had to be produced!


Ray F/KA3EKH


From: Nick England <nick at navy-radio.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 11:14 AM
To: Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>
Cc: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 312 vs BC-348


18,000 B-24
10,000 C-47




Nick England K4NYW
Chapel Hill NC
www.navy-radio.com<http://www.navy-radio.com/>


On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 10:47?AM Ray Fantini via Milsurplus <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>> wrote:
approximately 4,735 B-17s were lost out of the 12,731 built, a total of 414 B-29s were lost, with the majority (267) due to mechanical failures, engine fires, and operational accidents, while 147 were lost to enemy fire from Japanese anti-aircraft guns and fighters. At least that?s what Wiki tells me. The percentage of losses for the B-17 exceed the B-29 by a factor of ten. B-24 were higher then that, Wiki dose not have production number for the Liberator but says 3,500 B-24 Liberators were lost with the highest percentage rate for the war. Over 73 were lost in a single raid against oil fields in Ploie?ti, Romania alone.
Think around 7,000 B-24 were built, 13,000 B-17, 4000 B-29 and just under 10,000 B-25 Mitchells, 5,000 B-26 Marauder and not taking into account transport and cargo aircraft that?s around 39,000 aircraft that would have BC-348 receivers.
Looking at that would assume that I was wrong about BC-342/312 numbers in comparison to BC-348 production numbers and would tend to think that the overall production number of 120,000 receivers may be correct.

Estimated production numbers for the BC-342/312 receivers produced for the SCR-299, SCR-399, and SCR-499 radio sets built between 1942 and 1945 is 14,706  units but that?s not taking into account receivers produced for the SCR-287 (BC-342/312 receiver and BC-375 transmitter) installations. Western Historic Radio says the GE received a contract to build 100,000 BC-375 transmitters, if just 20,000 were used in aircraft how many went to SCR-287 installations and required BC-342/312 receivers?  And don?t forget one of my favorites just due to its three hundred pounds of radio for less than ten watts the SCR-245(BC-312 and BC-223)  Before FM replaced the SCR-245 in armor and recon that was a go to set.
I have a SCR-245 in the cue for restoration and use as a possible 3885 base at Hamvention next year but have not gotten to it yet.
Just a crazy speculation but going to say maybe 75,000 or more BC-342/312 and 314 receivers were built? Don?t know myself.

Wiki also tells me that 1,450,000 command sets (receivers and transmitters) were produced in WW2 along with 47,000 SCR-300 and 130,000 SCR-536 (BC-611) radios.
Man that?s a lot of radios!

Ray F/KA3EKH



From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net>> On Behalf Of joldenburg2 at new.rr.com<mailto:joldenburg2 at new.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 9:13 PM
To: 'Jim Whartenby' <old_radio at aol.com<mailto:old_radio at aol.com>>
Cc: 'milsurplus at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>' <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net<mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>>
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 344 vs BC-348 and the GRR-5 too!


I remember reading that it was procedure to pull radio equipment after a mission and replace it with a fresh checked unit  to avoid comm problems due to tube failure  because of vibration. That and B29s high losses  make for a lot of radios


Jon  AB9AH

______________________________________________________________
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/20251023/5f22d139/attachment-0001.html>

From mjcal79 at gmail.com  Thu Oct 23 11:47:51 2025
From: mjcal79 at gmail.com (Charlie L.)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 11:47:51 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] "At least that?s what Wiki tells me."
Message-ID: <CA+d3itZCmvTEDoJuGrk01KKJ1Pi3GGOMQWiUmi+Mar4DrUUk3g@mail.gmail.com>

Wiki and AI answers can be really inaccurate, do a bit more research to be
sure on most things.  I forgot the nomenclature for the RDF in a B17, and
was too lazy to go into my garage and look for it.  AI told me there was no
RDF in a B17, radar was used for navigation and bombing.  OK, if they get
that one wrong, just how accurate are they about anything?  For giggles and
grins, Ask AI how to fix a problem in  a receiver if you include some of
the symptoms in the question.

Charlie in NC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251023/501ac9f0/attachment.html>

From scr287 at att.net  Thu Oct 23 11:55:49 2025
From: scr287 at att.net (Jack Antonio)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 11:55:49 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 312 vs BC-348
In-Reply-To: <DM8P220MB04725C34F7AB52258FA655DEB8F0A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <DM8P220MB0472D4C16B6F6744DE70400BB8F0A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
	<CAB55hNftkh_Z58BLjNypBbRf1D8S8ZVCOEQsqdGcY3A+e7fMhg@mail.gmail.com>
	<DM8P220MB04725C34F7AB52258FA655DEB8F0A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <6f9e36aa-2efd-47a0-b8a2-b1dfe6922325@att.net>

With the end of the war, many aircraft contracts were cancelled.
I wonder how many BC-348s were ordered and delivered, waiting for
airplanes never to be built.

Jack Antonio
WA7DIA


On 10/23/2025 11:37 AM, Ray Fantini via Milsurplus wrote:
> OK, let?s try it again!
> 
> B-17?????? 13,000
> 
> B-24?????? 18,000
> 
> B-25?????? 10,000
> 
> B-26?????? 5,000
> 
> B-29?????? 4,000
> 
> C-47?????? 10,000
> 
> C-54?????? 1,500
> 
> That?s ?? 61,500 aircraft that would be using a BC-348 receiver along 

From mjcal79 at gmail.com  Thu Oct 23 11:56:53 2025
From: mjcal79 at gmail.com (Charlie L.)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 11:56:53 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC348 prices
Message-ID: <CA+d3itadUAS2sma+8YpZQmq6yCwGgeKVUBz8jSL57orLFB4H4Q@mail.gmail.com>

There was a fairly extensive ER article a few years ago about the BC348.
The author included pricing after the war into the late 40's early 50's.
It actually went up in price as it became more popular as ham's discovered
how good of a RX it was,  and many could be had in original packaging from
the manufacturer, never having been opened.  The main thing I found funny
about the 348 and 342/312, is the 348 being significantly lighter.  I
remember the first 312 I ever picked up after only handling 348's, and my
first thought was if they only put this one in a tank.

Charlie in NC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251023/9ed742f6/attachment.html>

From frledda at att.net  Thu Oct 23 12:06:03 2025
From: frledda at att.net (Francesco Ledda)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 11:06:03 -0500
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 312 vs BC-348
In-Reply-To: <DM8P220MB04725C34F7AB52258FA655DEB8F0A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <DM8P220MB04725C34F7AB52258FA655DEB8F0A@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <50CE7DCA-4474-4042-B7A4-EE550D939D37@att.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251023/fcbbc44c/attachment.html>

From kargo_cult at msn.com  Thu Oct 23 16:20:57 2025
From: kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 20:20:57 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] RAS-4 receiver - Salt Lake City - FTGH
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB4374363CE79F9C3EC9E0FF4FE4F0A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>


Depends too whether it is modified or not. I looked at a photo of the free RAS estate item and the receiver is modified enough that it is a "worker", usable of course, but not as a collectible. A fellow in WA was thinking abt getting it but the shipping is well > $200. In the course of a lifetime that's just a fotgettable blip, but still. The complete coilsets IS something, tho. The HB PS looks good but has no cash value apart from the radio.

Now re disposing of the other RAS set complete, i am thinking, the antiqueradios.com is a better venue. I am also thinking maybe, just maybe, in these times, many people don't want something so large and involved. The dreaded "inflection point" ? Maybe so, altho i dread that.

I also have a receiver RAS-4 to move out. I think i found a Nat'l HRO PS for it. It's a fine looking machine, but i was never into HROs, just too many separate items. I had a AMR-1, which i sort of regret moving out, but it was SO large with its transit cases. I still have the KST which is a very good looking beast but will probly go. I have 2 Japanese "HRO" and i think that's all i will keep in HROs.

Just curious: anyone here have the HF anti-image preselector for the RAS ?
-Hue Miller


Sent from my Galaxy


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251023/f070c96a/attachment-0001.html>

From kargo_cult at msn.com  Thu Oct 23 16:22:50 2025
From: kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 20:22:50 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC-342 / 312 vs BC-348
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB4374C96BC176D4DE4E27BAE6E4F0A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>


Not to mention all the large USN planes that carried the BC-348 !
-Hue Miller


Sent from my Galaxy


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251023/e1a43b68/attachment.html>

From jvendely at cfl.rr.com  Fri Oct 24 17:17:01 2025
From: jvendely at cfl.rr.com (John Vendely)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 17:17:01 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC348 prices
In-Reply-To: <CA+d3itadUAS2sma+8YpZQmq6yCwGgeKVUBz8jSL57orLFB4H4Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+d3itadUAS2sma+8YpZQmq6yCwGgeKVUBz8jSL57orLFB4H4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1c1ebe5e-c1bc-4ae6-86af-75fa12e56b26@cfl.rr.com>

Surplus prices for the BC-312/342 and the BC-348 were all fairly high at 
one time.? I have an old Fair Radio catalog from the early 60s which 
lists the BC-312 at $80.? This was not cheep.? According to an online 
government CPI inflation calculator, that's an astonishing $766 in 2025 
monopoly money...

73,

John K9WT

On 10/23/2025 11:56 AM, Charlie L. wrote:
> There was a fairly extensive ER article a few years ago about the 
> BC348.? The author included pricing after the war into the late 40's 
> early 50's.? It actually went up in price as it became more popular as 
> ham's discovered how good of a RX it was,? and many could be had in 
> original packaging from the manufacturer, never having been opened.? 
> The main thing I found funny about the 348 and 342/312, is the 348 
> being significantly lighter.? I remember the first 312 I ever picked 
> up after only handling 348's, and my first thought was if they only 
> put this one in a tank.
>
> Charlie in NC
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

From kargo_cult at msn.com  Fri Oct 24 17:49:20 2025
From: kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 21:49:20 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] BC348 prices
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB43749AB6639D334D211CBA43E4F1A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

Well, that does explain how G&G was able to make it work financially, reimporting BC-342 from France.
-Hue Miller



Sent from my Galaxy


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251024/b743b80c/attachment.html>

From kargo_cult at msn.com  Fri Oct 24 17:55:35 2025
From: kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 21:55:35 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] FW: [spyradiosets] National HRO's Dropped Behind Enemy
 Lines in WW2???
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB437464A6DDE09E7ECAFC492FE4F1A@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

Forwarded for possible interest of a few.



Sent from my Gala


Subject: Re: [spyradiosets] National HRO's Dropped Behind Enemy Lines in WW2???


This is obviously untrue.
The HRO was NOT an inexpensive receiver and is not at all something you can move around easily. It is ludicrous to think it being paradropped.
I have 2 sets used in North America, one in Quebec and one New York. They are both R2 RS20 equipment.
I think in continental  Europe German agents used the SE series and in UK and Ireland both SE suitcase sets and the plug-in single tube adapter for the home radio. My statement here is based on my reading, so not fantasy. In the 2  North America examples, i talked with the men who owned the equipment after those events. But - - i still don't know how this low power transmitter was expected to leap the Atlantic. Was there a relay station in the Carribean or Mexico ?

Correction: the agent in New York, Erich Gimpel, who wrote his more or less accurate memoir 'Agent 146', from what i can surmise from his account, used the 6L6 tube plug-in for the civilian home radio. The question still puzzles me: how to reach Germany with this ? It's not like a ham radio contest, where you try and try and well, maybe you are successful. The second exceptional case was the Duquesne spy ring, whose radio equipment was higher powered amateur radio equipment. This ring was rolled up just before the USA entered WW2. I was very surprised to read that there were no death sentences resulting; in fact, the actual sentences seem rather lenient. Contrast that to how the USSR would have dealt with these characters.

Erich Gimpel was pardoned at war end and returned to Germany. But he visited the USA, possibly more than once  to speak at conventions of the "Sharkhunters", the US based organization of "U -  Boat history enthusiasts". So that exceptional opportunity to interview Gimpel about actual fascinating details of his mission are now lost. I became aware of Sharkhunters well past the time when Gimpel was visiting the USA. Altho the U-Boat subject is interesting to me, i looked at the Sharkhunters book catalog and concluded, this organization was one of those of people in love with the Third Reich military, and that is not me, and i declined to associate with it.

My cousin Albrecht Saelzler of Mannheim Germany was a U - Boat Funker ( radio Operator ) based out of Norway. As a youth i did not know this and it wouldn't have impressed me at all in those times. My brother did visit Germany in 1974 and stayed with them at cousin's house. Brother did not ask a lot of questions but the impression i got is that in the late war, i emphasize "late war",  you did not have so many of the dramatic sea battles, long depth charge bombings, shattering light bulbs and sudden leaks springing, but instead that the U Boat men knew the score and were, at least a good part, much less Gung Ho and just wanted to outlast the war.
-Hue Miller

_._,_._,_
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251024/e9d1a2f9/attachment-0001.html>

From holden7471 at msn.com  Sat Oct 25 12:06:05 2025
From: holden7471 at msn.com (howard holden)
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2025 16:06:05 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] Classic Exchange Winter 2025 Phone
Message-ID: <BY5PR14MB400155BB262B4B4D07CE35D3C4F2A@BY5PR14MB4001.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>

The Classic Exchange Phone Fall 2025 will take place Sunday Nov  2  1400Z to Nov 3 0800Z and Tuesday Nov 4 1400Z to Nov 5 0800Z

Objective:   Encourage the restoration, operation, and enjoyment of radio equipment that was the pride and joy of our ham shacks decades ago.   This includes commercial, home-brew, and military radios.  The state of the art radios of yesteryear are now the classic radios of today!   Get a cup of coffee, watch the filaments glow, dip the plate and peak the load, and enjoy two weekends of classic radio enjoyment!

Entry Categories:   There are two categories, categories count for both CW and phone individually:
 A:  Three or fewer receiver-transmitter pairs
 B:   Four or more receiver-transmitter pairs

Suggested frequencies up and down for QRM: NO WARC bands allowed!
AM: 1.890, 3.860, 7.270, 21.400, 29.000, 50.400, and 144.300 Mhz
SSB: 1.920, 3.840, 7.250, 14.260, 21.380, 28.600, 50.125, 144.200 Mhz
Listen up and down 5 to 10 Kc for crystal-controlled stations.

Classic Exchange Spotting Page: http://qsopartyhub.com/classic-exchange-spots.php

Complete rules at: https://classicexchange.org/announcments/CX_Rules.pdf

Send logs and comments to: logs at classicexchange.org

Questions: contact Mark, K3MSB, myscupper at gmail.com

Or contact me, Howie: WB2AWQ at arrl.net


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251025/de4cdbb5/attachment.html>

From brooke at pacific.net  Sat Oct 25 15:42:15 2025
From: brooke at pacific.net (Brooke)
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2025 12:42:15 -0700
Subject: [Milsurplus] Milsurplus Digest, Vol 258, Issue 73
In-Reply-To: <mailman.9196.1761342948.2991.milsurplus@mailman.qth.net>
References: <mailman.9196.1761342948.2991.milsurplus@mailman.qth.net>
Message-ID: <e5a6816b-809e-44a9-c705-e78e535a9434@pacific.net>

Hi Hue:

"the agent in New York, Erich Gimpel, who wrote his more or less accurate memoir 'Agent 146', from what i can surmise 
from his account, used the 6L6 tube plug-in for the civilian home radio. The question still puzzles me: how to reach 
Germany with this ?"

Was there a German embassy in New York?

-- 
Have Fun,

Brooke Clarke
https://www.PRC68.com
axioms:
1. The extent to which you can fix or improve something will be limited by how well you understand how it works.
2. Everybody, with no exceptions, holds false beliefs.

-------- Original Message --------
> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 21:55:35 +0000
> From: Hubert Miller<kargo_cult at msn.com>
> To:"Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net"  <Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> Cc: PSARA google group<psara_seattle at googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [Milsurplus] FW: [spyradiosets] National HRO's Dropped Behind
> 	Enemy Lines in WW2???
> Message-ID:
> 	<PH0PR20MB437464A6DDE09E7ECAFC492FE4F1A at PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Forwarded for possible interest of a few.
>
>
>
> Sent from my Gala
>
>
> Subject: Re: [spyradiosets] National HRO's Dropped Behind Enemy Lines in WW2???
>
>
> This is obviously untrue.
> The HRO was NOT an inexpensive receiver and is not at all something you can move around easily. It is ludicrous to think it being paradropped.
> I have 2 sets used in North America, one in Quebec and one New York. They are both R2 RS20 equipment.
> I think in continental  Europe German agents used the SE series and in UK and Ireland both SE suitcase sets and the plug-in single tube adapter for the home radio. My statement here is based on my reading, so not fantasy. In the 2  North America examples, i talked with the men who owned the equipment after those events. But - - i still don't know how this low power transmitter was expected to leap the Atlantic. Was there a relay station in the Carribean or Mexico ?
>
> Correction: the agent in New York, Erich Gimpel, who wrote his more or less accurate memoir 'Agent 146', from what i can surmise from his account, used the 6L6 tube plug-in for the civilian home radio. The question still puzzles me: how to reach Germany with this ? It's not like a ham radio contest, where you try and try and well, maybe you are successful. The second exceptional case was the Duquesne spy ring, whose radio equipment was higher powered amateur radio equipment. This ring was rolled up just before the USA entered WW2. I was very surprised to read that there were no death sentences resulting; in fact, the actual sentences seem rather lenient. Contrast that to how the USSR would have dealt with these characters.
>
> Erich Gimpel was pardoned at war end and returned to Germany. But he visited the USA, possibly more than once  to speak at conventions of the "Sharkhunters", the US based organization of "U -  Boat history enthusiasts". So that exceptional opportunity to interview Gimpel about actual fascinating details of his mission are now lost. I became aware of Sharkhunters well past the time when Gimpel was visiting the USA. Altho the U-Boat subject is interesting to me, i looked at the Sharkhunters book catalog and concluded, this organization was one of those of people in love with the Third Reich military, and that is not me, and i declined to associate with it.
>
> My cousin Albrecht Saelzler of Mannheim Germany was a U - Boat Funker ( radio Operator ) based out of Norway. As a youth i did not know this and it wouldn't have impressed me at all in those times. My brother did visit Germany in 1974 and stayed with them at cousin's house. Brother did not ask a lot of questions but the impression i got is that in the late war, i emphasize "late war",  you did not have so many of the dramatic sea battles, long depth charge bombings, shattering light bulbs and sudden leaks springing, but instead that the U Boat men knew the score and were, at least a good part, much less Gung Ho and just wanted to outlast the war.
> -Hue Miller

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251025/ee4f9147/attachment-0001.html>

From kargo_cult at msn.com  Sat Oct 25 15:57:05 2025
From: kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2025 19:57:05 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] Milsurplus Digest, Vol 258, Issue 73
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB43740B7106A6D7EFD8F62C3BE4FEA@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

No, i'm sure once war was declared, the embassador was recalled. This story unrolled pretty late in the war.
-H



Sent from my Galaxy


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251025/b29c33f4/attachment.html>

From hwhall at compuserve.com  Sat Oct 25 17:51:10 2025
From: hwhall at compuserve.com (hwhall@aol.com)
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2025 21:51:10 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Milsurplus] [ARC5] ANB-H-1A receivers, repairable?
References: <1781192240.443611.1761204388789@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <404594705.523468.1761429070916@mail.yahoo.com>

Thought I'd share what I've found thus far. Peeled off the shiny trim ring, drilled out six tiny brass rivets & all that has revealed the mini-speaker cone. Not sure what to do next. Seems like there has to be a sort of speaker basket analog to hold the cone, voice coil, etc. inside the outer shell. There's a rivet head or two on the outer shell that may be responsible for holding a "basket" in place.

This one is no doubt going to be non-repairable by the time the learning process is over with it.

Wayne
WB4OGM

On Thursday, October 23, 2025 at 02:16:08 AM MDT, 1oldlens1 <1oldlens1 at ix.netcom.com> wrote: 

I am quite familiar with the kind you mean. Some have bakelite diaphragms and some metallic (probably aluminum) unfortunately both are held by presses rings or collars.? I am not remembering rhe correct terms but you will I think understand what I mean.? These can be pried off to open the cases but I don't know of a sure fire method of restoring them.? It occurs to me that the rings could be cut in half, to remove them without bending or distorting them and replaced using superglue or other cement.
? ?If the phone measures open its most likely the transformer.? The elements ate 8 ohm Miniature speakers transformed to 300 ohms for the military version. Permo-flux made commercial versions in both low and medium impedance including stereo versions.? The internal transformers are very small. If the voice coil is open I think its a list cause.
? ?It has also become difficult to find replacement headbands, ear pads, cards, etc.? These are very high quality phones designed at the Harvard acoustics lab to obtain high articulation in aircraft communication systems.? ANBH stands for Army-Navy-British-Headphone.? I am describing the ANBH-1. The earlier ANBH uses a different and smaller element.? I have not been able to find a way of disassembling them without destroying them.?

Sent from my Galaxy
Richard Knoppow?
Los Angeles
WB6KBL


-------- Original message --------
From: hwhall--- via ARC5 <arc5 at mailman.qth.net> 
Date: 10/23/25 12:26 AM (GMT-08:00) 
To: ARC-5 List <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>, Milsurplus Listserv <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> 
Subject: [ARC5] ANB-H-1A receivers, repairable? 

Has anyone perhaps figured out how to open up an ANB-H-1A headset receiver (these are the metal-body versions) so as to try to repair them?? I have one that is open-circuit.

Wayne
WB4OGM
______________________________________________________________
ARC5 mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net


This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net

Please help support this email list: https://www.qsl.net/donate.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ANB-H-1A disassembly progress.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 226318 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251025/16d6f915/attachment-0001.jpg>

From scr274 at gmail.com  Sat Oct 25 22:33:54 2025
From: scr274 at gmail.com (Ken Kinderman)
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2025 22:33:54 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Quartz crystals at war - the book
Message-ID: <06570342-3353-48CF-80F2-4891C8312EC1@gmail.com>

Someone recently mentioned a book about the procurement of quartz during World War 2. Can anyone help me pull up the title? It has to be an interesting story because linked to Roosevelt's policy of cozying up to Brazil and other South American countries that were also being romanced by the Germans looking for strategic materials... quartz for radios and lignum vitae for shaft bearings on Liberty Ships, among others.

(still need to look at that YouTube video)

Thanks,

Ken
W2EWL

From r390a.urr at gmail.com  Sat Oct 25 23:42:02 2025
From: r390a.urr at gmail.com (Dave Merrill)
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2025 21:42:02 -0600
Subject: [Milsurplus] Quartz crystals at war - the book
In-Reply-To: <06570342-3353-48CF-80F2-4891C8312EC1@gmail.com>
References: <06570342-3353-48CF-80F2-4891C8312EC1@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGRTi8ViHP1C-M9orRusFDcboWMvF1RJFbxjG06X3C6LOX03Ug@mail.gmail.com>

?Crystal Clear ? The Struggle for Reliable Communications Technology in
World War II? by Richard J Thompson Jr.

--... ...-- Dave N9ZC

On Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 8:34?PM Ken Kinderman <scr274 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Someone recently mentioned a book about the procurement of quartz during
> World War 2. Can anyone help me pull up the title? It has to be an
> interesting story because linked to Roosevelt's policy of cozying up to
> Brazil and other South American countries that were also being romanced by
> the Germans looking for strategic materials... quartz for radios and lignum
> vitae for shaft bearings on Liberty Ships, among others.
>
> (still need to look at that YouTube video)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ken
> W2EWL
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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/20251025/0f3607d4/attachment.html>

From ark at ar88.net  Sat Oct 25 23:55:50 2025
From: ark at ar88.net (Al Klase)
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2025 23:55:50 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Quartz crystals at war - the book
In-Reply-To: <06570342-3353-48CF-80F2-4891C8312EC1@gmail.com>
References: <06570342-3353-48CF-80F2-4891C8312EC1@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <350a724b-0ff9-4653-b522-831a0b06ab3b@ar88.net>

Ken,

I think you're looking for "Crystal Clear: The Struggle for Reliable 
Communications Technology in World War II
Google same.

AL


On 10/25/2025 10:33 PM, Ken Kinderman wrote:
> Someone recently mentioned a book about the procurement of quartz during World War 2. Can anyone help me pull up the title? It has to be an interesting story because linked to Roosevelt's policy of cozying up to Brazil and other South American countries that were also being romanced by the Germans looking for strategic materials... quartz for radios and lignum vitae for shaft bearings on Liberty Ships, among others.
>
> (still need to look at that YouTube video)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ken
> W2EWL
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

-- 
ARK Sig Block Al Klase - N3FRQ
Jersey City, NJ
http://www.skywaves.ar88.net/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251025/e305a124/attachment.html>

From nick at navy-radio.com  Sun Oct 26 14:41:27 2025
From: nick at navy-radio.com (Nick England)
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2025 14:41:27 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] ABK and BN IFF aboard PT-658
In-Reply-To: <CAB55hNf_-gxW5ADMgBu7bSFHC0uAOXCsa53fVgU2vUBY4QboMA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAB55hNf_-gxW5ADMgBu7bSFHC0uAOXCsa53fVgU2vUBY4QboMA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAB55hNd4MEjs2hA=ea+z1_Fd6vfx5bD4gVYpam3Mfbk09Zp4-Q@mail.gmail.com>

> In case you are interested - manuals and photos at
> https://www.navy-radio.com/iff-abk-bn/index.htm
>
> Cheers,
> Nick England K4NYW
> www.navy-radio.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251026/16bec594/attachment.html>

From ersmar at verizon.net  Sun Oct 26 14:56:54 2025
From: ersmar at verizon.net (Gene Smar)
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2025 18:56:54 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Milsurplus] Quartz crystals at war - the book
In-Reply-To: <CAGRTi8ViHP1C-M9orRusFDcboWMvF1RJFbxjG06X3C6LOX03Ug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <06570342-3353-48CF-80F2-4891C8312EC1@gmail.com>
	<CAGRTi8ViHP1C-M9orRusFDcboWMvF1RJFbxjG06X3C6LOX03Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1338221626.624972.1761505014972@mail.yahoo.com>

Google "A History of the Quartz Crystal Industry in the USA" from IEEE for another in-depth read on the subject.?
73 de?Gene Smar AD3F?

Sent from my Radio Shack TRS-80 model 100 laptop 
 
  On Sat, Oct 25, 2025 at 11:42 PM, Dave Merrill<r390a.urr at gmail.com> wrote:   ______________________________________________________________
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/20251026/cae82aa0/attachment.html>

From mjcal79 at gmail.com  Sun Oct 26 16:45:08 2025
From: mjcal79 at gmail.com (Charlie L.)
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2025 16:45:08 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Crystals at war
Message-ID: <CA+d3itZL-FA9s3GHRAWLkpA_c2LjFycStB6+DNpR3jh5X8qTBA@mail.gmail.com>

The first book in the 3 book series I have is :

https://history.army.mil/portals/143/Images/Publications/catalog/10-16.pdf

I think this link is to the entire book too.  In it you will find out about
the fact that crystals were a mom and pop biz before WW II and the Army did
not know how to relay a message until they learned how to do it from ham
ops.  The reason for the handset mounted on the back of a Sherman is
explained there too, and how AT&T in the middle 1930's, discovered the
problem with crystals going bad that they did not tell anybody about until
it was figured out again by someone else  late in the war..

The other 2 volumes were, 'The Test' and 'The Outcome'  I found this set
about 12 years ago on the ABE books site, very inexpensive back then even
them being the first printing, , but not so today.  All 3 are online.

Charlie, W4MEC in NC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251026/7dd553a9/attachment.html>

From wrcromwell at gmail.com  Mon Oct 27 08:20:23 2025
From: wrcromwell at gmail.com (Bill Cromwell)
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 08:20:23 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] RAS-4 documents
Message-ID: <5016A710-347F-49FD-A6EC-F19A0D2A61F8@gmail.com>

Hi,

My new RAS-4 is on the way here. I looked on BAMA for manuals but struck out. I am sure I will need the documents eventually even if the radio is plug n play right out of the box.

Can anybody tell me where to find the manuals or send a digital copy?

73,

Bill  KU8H

From RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu  Mon Oct 27 10:14:45 2025
From: RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu (Ray Fantini)
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 14:14:45 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] RAS-4 documents
In-Reply-To: <5016A710-347F-49FD-A6EC-F19A0D2A61F8@gmail.com>
References: <5016A710-347F-49FD-A6EC-F19A0D2A61F8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DM8P220MB04724D7F7D33CEE658D1B894B8FCA@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

I have a RAS that I use as a monitor or any time I attempt to learn CW, also used t for a long time with my TBW back when I was running that. Huge receiver that fills an entire rack! Somewhat based on the HRO jr. but with a 175 kHz IF so it can accommodate a low frequency coil pack.  The IF is subject to strong image problems due to the low IF frequency and learning how to read the frequency can be a challenge but just like the HRO that its based on when working with a good set of tubes its noise flour is extremely low  and sensitivity very good for a receiver of that era. A properly working HRO still preforms tasks such as CW or AM reception that's equal to modern receivers, least that's been my experience. Forget it for side band and maybe above twenty meters its sensitivity drops but so what, never operate up there anyway. The original design did not include a noise limiter and static crashes can be a problem but there is a modification kit the replaces the original detector and its some form of weird impulse circuit or something that no one understands and was the subject of a thread a while back and if that's installed it solves that problem.
My receiver suffered a lot of leaky capacitors that had the result of killing the G2 voltage on several tube and worst of all swamped the AVC circuit so finally replaced all of the old wax capacitors. I have the original rack mount power supply and am amazed that after eighty five years the two electrolytics are still solid and don't leak. Don't know how they built them back then but they are still holding up. Also remember that the external speaker on that receiver is in the output tubes plate line between the plate and B+ so if you use the external speaker you need an external plate transformer, the headphone jack on the front of the receiver makes use of an internal transformer with a six hundred ohm output  but the speaker output on the back is at high level just like a lot of the older prewar radios.
BAMA has the manual free for download, it about 10 Mb so too big to attach, I am including a JPG that I did some time back that's useful for working on the radio. Don't get to caught up on what version of RAS it is because as far as I know the RAS is basically the same between all versions, lot like the TCS family of radios.

Ray F/KA3EKH



-----Original Message-----
From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of Bill Cromwell
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2025 8:20 AM
To: Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Milsurplus] RAS-4 documents


My new RAS-4 is on the way here. I looked on BAMA for manuals but struck out. I am sure I will need the documents eventually even if the radio is plug n play right out of the box.

Can anybody tell me where to find the manuals or send a digital copy?

73,

Bill  KU8H
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RAS.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1461180 bytes
Desc: RAS.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251027/1effdf17/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IMG_1495.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1144428 bytes
Desc: IMG_1495.JPG
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251027/1effdf17/attachment-0001.jpe>

From nick at navy-radio.com  Mon Oct 27 10:38:18 2025
From: nick at navy-radio.com (Nick England)
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 10:38:18 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] RAS-4 documents
In-Reply-To: <5016A710-347F-49FD-A6EC-F19A0D2A61F8@gmail.com>
References: <5016A710-347F-49FD-A6EC-F19A0D2A61F8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAB55hNep9Uh2eejjuE5FN4HTnMO6pr1j+OShzw=ZF3uvojqHBg@mail.gmail.com>

I don?t know about differences but the Navy electronics catalog says all
models are the same except for nameplate and contract number.

There is a RAS-2 manual here
http://bama.edebris.com/manuals/national/ras2/

My notes say I have a RAS-5 manual that I can scan. Let me know if you need
it.

Nick England K4NYW
Chapel Hill NC
www.navy-radio.com


On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 8:20?AM Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> My new RAS-4 is on the way here. I looked on BAMA for manuals but struck
> out. I am sure I will need the documents eventually even if the radio is
> plug n play right out of the box.
>
> Can anybody tell me where to find the manuals or send a digital copy?
>
> 73,
>
> Bill  KU8H
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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/20251027/05e7b629/attachment.html>

From nick at navy-radio.com  Mon Oct 27 11:03:36 2025
From: nick at navy-radio.com (Nick England)
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 11:03:36 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] RAS-4 documents
In-Reply-To: <CAB55hNep9Uh2eejjuE5FN4HTnMO6pr1j+OShzw=ZF3uvojqHBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5016A710-347F-49FD-A6EC-F19A0D2A61F8@gmail.com>
	<CAB55hNep9Uh2eejjuE5FN4HTnMO6pr1j+OShzw=ZF3uvojqHBg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAB55hNejo_Mb4mstoFusB2p9tXcBGQG_mrJYfQMjnHOSNAknrw@mail.gmail.com>

I just looked at mine and the RAS-2 manual is exactly the same as the RAS-5
manual except for contract number. Except for the cover page, the pages are
identical. The manual cover pages say RAS-2 and RAS-5 are identical to RAS
and all the internal pages just say RAS.
I?d bet the RAS-4 manual is the same too.

Nick England K4NYW
Chapel Hill NC
www.navy-radio.com


On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 10:38?AM Nick England <nick at navy-radio.com> wrote:

> I don?t know about differences but the Navy electronics catalog says all
> models are the same except for nameplate and contract number.
>
> There is a RAS-2 manual here
> http://bama.edebris.com/manuals/national/ras2/
>
> My notes say I have a RAS-5 manual that I can scan. Let me know if you
> need it.
>
> Nick England K4NYW
> Chapel Hill NC
> www.navy-radio.com
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 8:20?AM Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> My new RAS-4 is on the way here. I looked on BAMA for manuals but struck
>> out. I am sure I will need the documents eventually even if the radio is
>> plug n play right out of the box.
>>
>> Can anybody tell me where to find the manuals or send a digital copy?
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Bill  KU8H
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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/20251027/00dc24f0/attachment.html>

From smithab11 at comcast.net  Mon Oct 27 13:03:29 2025
From: smithab11 at comcast.net (B. Smith)
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 13:03:29 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] RAS-4 documents
In-Reply-To: <5016A710-347F-49FD-A6EC-F19A0D2A61F8@gmail.com>
References: <5016A710-347F-49FD-A6EC-F19A0D2A61F8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <79aaf81d-4b85-4cdc-831e-f031e9d148ea@comcast.net>

I've enjoyed my RAS. It is a great general purpose receiver with an 
excellent BFO for SSB and CW. I also tweaked my #4 coil set to cover 160 
meters.? While I had the set on the bench I evaluated the oscillator to 
see if it has enough drive for one of those miniature frequency 
counters. See link below.
K4CHE
http://k4che.com/Tempvideo/RAS/RAS%20K4CHE.mp4

On 10/27/2025 8:20 AM, Bill Cromwell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My new RAS-4 is on the way here. I looked on BAMA for manuals but struck out. I am sure I will need the documents eventually even if the radio is plug n play right out of the box.
>
> Can anybody tell me where to find the manuals or send a digital copy?
>
> 73,
>
> Bill  KU8H
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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


From scr274 at gmail.com  Tue Oct 28 11:18:43 2025
From: scr274 at gmail.com (Ken Kinderman)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 11:18:43 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Let's appreciate crystals
Message-ID: <CAKUjTOZ329NCUBiy08jx_b9AFWmwPw_DjkX3GT3wrWQqT8dZ3A@mail.gmail.com>

Just watched "Crystals Go to War" on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHenisSTUQY

Never again will I take the humble FT-243, DC-10 and their cousins for
granted. I suppose if we thought about it, we would appreciate the labor-
and skill-intensive process, but this film drives it home.

These guys and gals were heroes...

- hand selecting and hand grading the quartz

- dipping the raw stone into oil to identify the axes, hours at a time:
bare hands, no gloves

- further grading with the casual use of X-rays: I notice only one young
lady with a bare minimum protective apron

- crystal dust

- bare hands in hot soapy water all day

- fingers inches away from razor thin, diamond edged, spinning saw blades

- skillfully evaluating the quartz slices for imperfections and maximum
yield

- acid fumes

- constant exposure to watery abrasive slurry

- only once did I see protective gloves: a young lady removing blanks from
the "acid bath"

- coaxing the blanks, one by one, onto frequency.

- putting little metal labels on with tiny screws, no doubt "girls work"

I will think twice the next time I abandon an oddball frequency crystal as
unusable. Each one is a gem.



73,

Ken

W2EWL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251028/4185828e/attachment.html>

From kb8tq at n1k.org  Tue Oct 28 11:55:43 2025
From: kb8tq at n1k.org (Bob Camp)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 11:55:43 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Let's appreciate crystals
In-Reply-To: <CAKUjTOZ329NCUBiy08jx_b9AFWmwPw_DjkX3GT3wrWQqT8dZ3A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKUjTOZ329NCUBiy08jx_b9AFWmwPw_DjkX3GT3wrWQqT8dZ3A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9EC34915-D012-42A3-8CA9-7EBB77DAC1C6@n1k.org>

Hi

If you worked in a crystal plant 20 or 30 years later, you would see folks doing a lot of the same things. The methods they used had not changed as much as you might think. The big change was going to synthetic quartz rather than natural for the ?feed? into the process. Yes, the crystal packages did change a bit over the years ?.

Bob

> On Oct 28, 2025, at 11:18?AM, Ken Kinderman <scr274 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Just watched "Crystals Go to War" on youtube.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHenisSTUQY
> 
> Never again will I take the humble FT-243, DC-10 and their cousins for granted. I suppose if we thought about it, we would appreciate the labor- and skill-intensive process, but this film drives it home.
> 
> These guys and gals were heroes...
> 
> - hand selecting and hand grading the quartz
> 
> - dipping the raw stone into oil to identify the axes, hours at a time: bare hands, no gloves
> 
> - further grading with the casual use of X-rays: I notice only one young lady with a bare minimum protective apron
> 
> - crystal dust
> 
> - bare hands in hot soapy water all day
> 
> - fingers inches away from razor thin, diamond edged, spinning saw blades
> 
> - skillfully evaluating the quartz slices for imperfections and maximum yield
> 
> - acid fumes
> 
> - constant exposure to watery abrasive slurry
> 
> - only once did I see protective gloves: a young lady removing blanks from the "acid bath"
> 
> - coaxing the blanks, one by one, onto frequency.
> 
> - putting little metal labels on with tiny screws, no doubt "girls work"
> 
> I will think twice the next time I abandon an oddball frequency crystal as unusable. Each one is a gem.
> 
>  
> 73,
> 
> Ken
> 
> W2EWL
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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/20251028/3c9617bc/attachment-0001.html>

From mjcal79 at gmail.com  Tue Oct 28 12:21:52 2025
From: mjcal79 at gmail.com (Charlie L.)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 12:21:52 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Crystals and Midland
Message-ID: <CA+d3itap7qFD2y33X=9_a5sAmPOLi2TG-H94hiDBMcXJSAyCiQ@mail.gmail.com>

I bought a manual for a piece of test equipment I had that was  used in
crystal production,  purchased from Tucker's as they were shutting down.
In the manual was a typewritten set of instructions by the Midland Company,
yes the CB maker, that was detailed in how to make sure the crystals being
ground were being ground properly to freq, how to test them and fine tune
them.  Midland made all their radio  crystal in house, and these were the
metal holders like HC6 where the leads were attached directly to the
crystal itself, so I am thinking that while the process is labor intensive,
by the 60's there was a lot of automation to it making it a bit less labor
intensive, and something a company did not farm out..

Charlie, W4MEC in NC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251028/4713b2ff/attachment.html>

From kargo_cult at msn.com  Tue Oct 28 15:18:53 2025
From: kargo_cult at msn.com (Hubert Miller)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 19:18:53 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] Let's appreciate crystals
Message-ID: <PH0PR20MB4374E2AFA6F50CA19FF8930AE4FDA@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

I recall a couple decades back a crystal lapping machine was being offered for sale here in the Portland OR area. It was something i felt should be saved, but not by me. I don't know where it was from or where it went. Maybe, i'm thinking, it could have been from 'Radio Specialty Company' of Portland, but that's only a guess.
I also recall about a decade ago, maybe a little more, there were more than one Radio Shack DX-150 receivers being offered somewhere east of the Mississippi, that came out of some unnamed crystal grinding shop. The receivers were described as being in somewhat "beat" condition, which did surprise me. Also that such a pedestrian radio was used, altho that does make sense. I suppose this was just for first  "roughing in" the crystal frequency.
-Hue Miller



Sent from my Galaxy


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251028/ec607a9f/attachment.html>

From kb8tq at n1k.org  Tue Oct 28 16:39:44 2025
From: kb8tq at n1k.org (Bob Camp)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 16:39:44 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Let's appreciate crystals
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR20MB4374E2AFA6F50CA19FF8930AE4FDA@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
References: <PH0PR20MB4374E2AFA6F50CA19FF8930AE4FDA@PH0PR20MB4374.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <C96303A7-EFE4-4A72-B420-490FBF7C6C62@n1k.org>

Hi

As you ?lap? the crystals, you monitor the frequencies of the batch. It?s a ?lower precision? step early in the process. 

The radios used typically are ?whatever we could get?. In some shops that might be a big long row of some fairly nice surplus radios. (a group of SP-600 comes to mind ?). 

The problem is that they are being used in a part of the factory that is full of lapping compound. It gets everywhere. Packing your radio full of it is not a great thing. Anything that will grind down quartz will also do a fine job grinding down metal. Eventually anything that depends on mechanical precision (tuning capacitors ?) in the radio is going to degrade quite a bit. 

Best to pass up any ?deal? you get on one of these radios. The rebuild process is really insane.

Bob

> On Oct 28, 2025, at 3:18?PM, Hubert Miller <Kargo_cult at msn.com> wrote:
> 
> I recall a couple decades back a crystal lapping machine was being offered for sale here in the Portland OR area. It was something i felt should be saved, but not by me. I don't know where it was from or where it went. Maybe, i'm thinking, it could have been from 'Radio Specialty Company' of Portland, but that's only a guess. 
> I also recall about a decade ago, maybe a little more, there were more than one Radio Shack DX-150 receivers being offered somewhere east of the Mississippi, that came out of some unnamed crystal grinding shop. The receivers were described as being in somewhat "beat" condition, which did surprise me. Also that such a pedestrian radio was used, altho that does make sense. I suppose this was just for first  "roughing in" the crystal frequency.
> -Hue Miller
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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/20251028/30c156b7/attachment-0001.html>

From hwhall at compuserve.com  Tue Oct 28 19:09:30 2025
From: hwhall at compuserve.com (hwhall@aol.com)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 23:09:30 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Milsurplus] Let's appreciate crystals
In-Reply-To: <9EC34915-D012-42A3-8CA9-7EBB77DAC1C6@n1k.org>
References: <CAKUjTOZ329NCUBiy08jx_b9AFWmwPw_DjkX3GT3wrWQqT8dZ3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<9EC34915-D012-42A3-8CA9-7EBB77DAC1C6@n1k.org>
Message-ID: <909641288.1295814.1761692970640@mail.yahoo.com>

I'd guess that the lab-grown crystals were a lot easier to orient for cutting & may not have needed to be x-rayed as much or at all. The natural position of the axes should be apparent & twinning not an issue (presumably controlled for). So, maybe folks like those who are intense enough to try to make vacuum tubes would think about making their own crystals...

Wayne
WB4OGM

On Tuesday, October 28, 2025 at 09:56:09 AM MDT, Bob Camp <kb8tq at n1k.org> wrote: 

Hi

If you worked in a crystal plant 20 or 30 years later, you would see folks doing a lot of the same things. The methods they used had not changed as much as you might think. The big change was going to synthetic quartz rather than natural for the ?feed? into the process. Yes, the crystal packages did change a bit over the years ?.

Bob

> On Oct 28, 2025, at 11:18?AM, Ken Kinderman <scr274 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Just watched "Crystals Go to War" on youtube.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHenisSTUQY
> Never again will I take the humble FT-243, DC-10 and their cousins for granted. I suppose if we thought about it, we would appreciate the labor- and skill-intensive process, but this film drives it home. 
> These guys and gals were heroes... 
> - hand selecting and hand grading the quartz
> - dipping the raw stone into oil to identify the axes, hours at a time: bare hands, no gloves
> - further grading with the casual use of X-rays: I notice only one young lady with a bare minimum protective apron
> - crystal dust
> - bare hands in hot soapy water all day
> - fingers inches away from razor thin, diamond edged, spinning saw blades 
> - skillfully evaluating the quartz slices for imperfections and maximum yield
> - acid fumes
> - constant exposure to watery abrasive slurry
> - only once did I see protective gloves: a young lady removing blanks from the "acid bath"
> - coaxing the blanks, one by one, onto frequency.
> - putting little metal labels on with tiny screws, no doubt "girls work"
> I will think twice the next time I abandon an oddball frequency crystal as unusable. Each one is a gem.
> ?
> 73,
> Ken
> W2EWL

From hwhall at compuserve.com  Tue Oct 28 19:11:34 2025
From: hwhall at compuserve.com (hwhall@aol.com)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 23:11:34 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Milsurplus] Crystals and Midland
In-Reply-To: <CA+d3itap7qFD2y33X=9_a5sAmPOLi2TG-H94hiDBMcXJSAyCiQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+d3itap7qFD2y33X=9_a5sAmPOLi2TG-H94hiDBMcXJSAyCiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2115124795.1288239.1761693094228@mail.yahoo.com>

Wondering if that manual will be scanned & available to read. I think it might be interesting.

Wayne
WB4OGM

On Tuesday, October 28, 2025 at 10:22:12 AM MDT, Charlie L. <mjcal79 at gmail.com> wrote: 

I bought a manual for a piece of test equipment I had that was? used in crystal production,? purchased from Tucker's as they were shutting down.? In the manual was a typewritten set of instructions by the Midland Company, yes the CB maker, that was detailed in how to make sure the crystals being ground were being ground properly to freq, how to test them and fine tune them.? Midland made all their radio? crystal in house, and these were the metal holders like HC6 where the leads were attached directly to the crystal itself, so I am thinking that while the process is labor intensive, by the 60's there was a lot of automation to it making it a bit less labor intensive, and something a company did not farm out..

Charlie, W4MEC in NC


From kb8tq at n1k.org  Tue Oct 28 21:26:59 2025
From: kb8tq at n1k.org (Bob Camp)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 21:26:59 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Let's appreciate crystals
In-Reply-To: <909641288.1295814.1761692970640@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <CAKUjTOZ329NCUBiy08jx_b9AFWmwPw_DjkX3GT3wrWQqT8dZ3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<9EC34915-D012-42A3-8CA9-7EBB77DAC1C6@n1k.org>
	<909641288.1295814.1761692970640@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <B8AC0F02-81DF-4DE4-AE1A-54797F8F9129@n1k.org>

Hi

The ?big deal? with synthetic quartz was its lack of twinning. You need the entire blank to be left handed or right handed. If it?s ?some of each? the piezo polarity will shift and cancel out. Natural quartz was not very consistent. The result there was that you lost a noticeable percentage of what you cut. 

During WWII something over a hundred small outfits made crystals. It was very much something a lot of folks got into. After the war, very few of them survived. 

Bob

> On Oct 28, 2025, at 7:09?PM, hwhall at aol.com <hwhall at compuserve.com> wrote:
> 
> I'd guess that the lab-grown crystals were a lot easier to orient for cutting & may not have needed to be x-rayed as much or at all. The natural position of the axes should be apparent & twinning not an issue (presumably controlled for). So, maybe folks like those who are intense enough to try to make vacuum tubes would think about making their own crystals...
> 
> Wayne
> WB4OGM
> 
> On Tuesday, October 28, 2025 at 09:56:09 AM MDT, Bob Camp <kb8tq at n1k.org> wrote: 
> 
> Hi
> 
> If you worked in a crystal plant 20 or 30 years later, you would see folks doing a lot of the same things. The methods they used had not changed as much as you might think. The big change was going to synthetic quartz rather than natural for the ?feed? into the process. Yes, the crystal packages did change a bit over the years ?.
> 
> Bob
> 
>> On Oct 28, 2025, at 11:18?AM, Ken Kinderman <scr274 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Just watched "Crystals Go to War" on youtube.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHenisSTUQY
>> Never again will I take the humble FT-243, DC-10 and their cousins for granted. I suppose if we thought about it, we would appreciate the labor- and skill-intensive process, but this film drives it home. 
>> These guys and gals were heroes... 
>> - hand selecting and hand grading the quartz
>> - dipping the raw stone into oil to identify the axes, hours at a time: bare hands, no gloves
>> - further grading with the casual use of X-rays: I notice only one young lady with a bare minimum protective apron
>> - crystal dust
>> - bare hands in hot soapy water all day
>> - fingers inches away from razor thin, diamond edged, spinning saw blades 
>> - skillfully evaluating the quartz slices for imperfections and maximum yield
>> - acid fumes
>> - constant exposure to watery abrasive slurry
>> - only once did I see protective gloves: a young lady removing blanks from the "acid bath"
>> - coaxing the blanks, one by one, onto frequency.
>> - putting little metal labels on with tiny screws, no doubt "girls work"
>> I will think twice the next time I abandon an oddball frequency crystal as unusable. Each one is a gem.
>>  
>> 73,
>> Ken
>> W2EWL


From r390a.urr at gmail.com  Tue Oct 28 21:38:03 2025
From: r390a.urr at gmail.com (Dave Merrill)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 19:38:03 -0600
Subject: [Milsurplus] Let's appreciate crystals
In-Reply-To: <B8AC0F02-81DF-4DE4-AE1A-54797F8F9129@n1k.org>
References: <CAKUjTOZ329NCUBiy08jx_b9AFWmwPw_DjkX3GT3wrWQqT8dZ3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<9EC34915-D012-42A3-8CA9-7EBB77DAC1C6@n1k.org>
	<909641288.1295814.1761692970640@mail.yahoo.com>
	<B8AC0F02-81DF-4DE4-AE1A-54797F8F9129@n1k.org>
Message-ID: <CAGRTi8VaK4qKmQAo1m4ptpXXmyGecLWBOAVyL5CyjnkDB_PzWg@mail.gmail.com>

One of the many companies was the Good-All Mfg. Co. of Ogallala, Nebraska.

Some years ago my wife and I were passing through Nebraska and stopped in
Ogallala for lunch. We discovered there was a local history museum in an
old Victorian house once occupied by the town doctor, so of course we paid
a visit.

Upstairs, tucked away in a small room, was a display case with items that
had been made by local companies. My eye caught a familiar object: an
FT-243 crystal unit marked 'Good-All.'

They had been a small-time maker of paper capacitors and became one of the
hundreds of crystal manufacturers once WWII loomed.  IIRC, a card in the
case made the dubious claim that Good-All had discovered the method of
finishing crystal blanks to their desired frequency by etching with acid.
It's more likely that the QCS shared the technology with all the companies
making crystals for the war effort.

I've managed to find a few FT-243 crystals for the BC-1335 that bear their
name.

--... ...-- Dave N9ZC

On Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 7:27?PM Bob Camp <kb8tq at n1k.org> wrote:

> Hi
>
> The ?big deal? with synthetic quartz was its lack of twinning. You need
> the entire blank to be left handed or right handed. If it?s ?some of each?
> the piezo polarity will shift and cancel out. Natural quartz was not very
> consistent. The result there was that you lost a noticeable percentage of
> what you cut.
>
> During WWII something over a hundred small outfits made crystals. It was
> very much something a lot of folks got into. After the war, very few of
> them survived.
>
> Bob
>
> > On Oct 28, 2025, at 7:09?PM, hwhall at aol.com <hwhall at compuserve.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'd guess that the lab-grown crystals were a lot easier to orient for
> cutting & may not have needed to be x-rayed as much or at all. The natural
> position of the axes should be apparent & twinning not an issue (presumably
> controlled for). So, maybe folks like those who are intense enough to try
> to make vacuum tubes would think about making their own crystals...
> >
> > Wayne
> > WB4OGM
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 28, 2025 at 09:56:09 AM MDT, Bob Camp <kb8tq at n1k.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > If you worked in a crystal plant 20 or 30 years later, you would see
> folks doing a lot of the same things. The methods they used had not changed
> as much as you might think. The big change was going to synthetic quartz
> rather than natural for the ?feed? into the process. Yes, the crystal
> packages did change a bit over the years ?.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >> On Oct 28, 2025, at 11:18?AM, Ken Kinderman <scr274 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Just watched "Crystals Go to War" on youtube.
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHenisSTUQY
> >> Never again will I take the humble FT-243, DC-10 and their cousins for
> granted. I suppose if we thought about it, we would appreciate the labor-
> and skill-intensive process, but this film drives it home.
> >> These guys and gals were heroes...
> >> - hand selecting and hand grading the quartz
> >> - dipping the raw stone into oil to identify the axes, hours at a time:
> bare hands, no gloves
> >> - further grading with the casual use of X-rays: I notice only one
> young lady with a bare minimum protective apron
> >> - crystal dust
> >> - bare hands in hot soapy water all day
> >> - fingers inches away from razor thin, diamond edged, spinning saw
> blades
> >> - skillfully evaluating the quartz slices for imperfections and maximum
> yield
> >> - acid fumes
> >> - constant exposure to watery abrasive slurry
> >> - only once did I see protective gloves: a young lady removing blanks
> from the "acid bath"
> >> - coaxing the blanks, one by one, onto frequency.
> >> - putting little metal labels on with tiny screws, no doubt "girls work"
> >> I will think twice the next time I abandon an oddball frequency crystal
> as unusable. Each one is a gem.
> >>
> >> 73,
> >> Ken
> >> W2EWL
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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/20251028/ac64ff99/attachment-0001.html>

From hwhall at compuserve.com  Tue Oct 28 21:54:56 2025
From: hwhall at compuserve.com (hwhall@aol.com)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 01:54:56 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Milsurplus] Let's appreciate crystals
In-Reply-To: <B8AC0F02-81DF-4DE4-AE1A-54797F8F9129@n1k.org>
References: <CAKUjTOZ329NCUBiy08jx_b9AFWmwPw_DjkX3GT3wrWQqT8dZ3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<9EC34915-D012-42A3-8CA9-7EBB77DAC1C6@n1k.org>
	<909641288.1295814.1761692970640@mail.yahoo.com>
	<B8AC0F02-81DF-4DE4-AE1A-54797F8F9129@n1k.org>
Message-ID: <1396554949.1324451.1761702896550@mail.yahoo.com>

Back in the very early radio days, there were hams who were making their own crystals. How many? I don't know but the radio magazines of the time had articles on how to do it.

Speaking of crystals, it would also be a cottage industry if someone produced the crystals that were so common in microphones & record players.

Wayne
WB4OGM

On Tuesday, October 28, 2025 at 07:27:10 PM MDT, Bob Camp <kb8tq at n1k.org> wrote: 

Hi

The ?big deal? with synthetic quartz was its lack of twinning. You need the entire blank to be left handed or right handed. If it?s ?some of each? the piezo polarity will shift and cancel out. Natural quartz was not very consistent. The result there was that you lost a noticeable percentage of what you cut. 

During WWII something over a hundred small outfits made crystals. It was very much something a lot of folks got into. After the war, very few of them survived. 

Bob

> On Oct 28, 2025, at 7:09?PM, hwhall at aol.com <hwhall at compuserve.com> wrote:
> 
> I'd guess that the lab-grown crystals were a lot easier to orient for cutting & may not have needed to be x-rayed as much or at all. The natural position of the axes should be apparent & twinning not an issue (presumably controlled for). So, maybe folks like those who are intense enough to try to make vacuum tubes would think about making their own crystals...
> 
> Wayne
> WB4OGM
> 
> On Tuesday, October 28, 2025 at 09:56:09 AM MDT, Bob Camp <kb8tq at n1k.org> wrote: 
> 
> Hi
> 
> If you worked in a crystal plant 20 or 30 years later, you would see folks doing a lot of the same things. The methods they used had not changed as much as you might think. The big change was going to synthetic quartz rather than natural for the ?feed? into the process. Yes, the crystal packages did change a bit over the years ?.
> 
> Bob
> 
>> On Oct 28, 2025, at 11:18?AM, Ken Kinderman <scr274 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Just watched "Crystals Go to War" on youtube.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHenisSTUQY
>> Never again will I take the humble FT-243, DC-10 and their cousins for granted. I suppose if we thought about it, we would appreciate the labor- and skill-intensive process, but this film drives it home. 
>> These guys and gals were heroes... 
>> - hand selecting and hand grading the quartz
>> - dipping the raw stone into oil to identify the axes, hours at a time: bare hands, no gloves
>> - further grading with the casual use of X-rays: I notice only one young lady with a bare minimum protective apron
>> - crystal dust
>> - bare hands in hot soapy water all day
>> - fingers inches away from razor thin, diamond edged, spinning saw blades 
>> - skillfully evaluating the quartz slices for imperfections and maximum yield
>> - acid fumes
>> - constant exposure to watery abrasive slurry
>> - only once did I see protective gloves: a young lady removing blanks from the "acid bath"
>> - coaxing the blanks, one by one, onto frequency.
>> - putting little metal labels on with tiny screws, no doubt "girls work"
>> I will think twice the next time I abandon an oddball frequency crystal as unusable. Each one is a gem.
>>? 
>> 73,
>> Ken
>> W2EWL


From ka2ivy at verizon.net  Tue Oct 28 22:22:53 2025
From: ka2ivy at verizon.net (Brenda Gentry)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 22:22:53 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Fwd: Re:  Let's appreciate crystals
In-Reply-To: <4ef9b072-11a7-2599-c149-b810926b56c1@verizon.net>
References: <4ef9b072-11a7-2599-c149-b810926b56c1@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <bb6492f9-30df-a4d1-9e98-af8c4f3bd7a9@verizon.net>

Microphones and phono cartridges use Rochelle salt crystals to produce 
an output.? Rochelle salt slabs are? somewhat flexible and generate 
fairly good voltages, but don't resonate very well so their use for 
frequency control in not likely to work. Quartz is much harder and 
resonates very well, but would be too stiff for a cartridge or 
microphone. I have never heard of a phono cartridge using quartz.? I do 
believe there are a couple people who make Rochelle salt crystals and 
rebuild phono cartridges and microphones. Certain musicians feel that 
Rochelle salt crystal microphones are best for their art.

 ????? B. Gentry, KA2IVY

On 10/28/25 9:54 PM, hwhall--- via Milsurplus wrote:
> Back in the very early radio days, there were hams who were making 
> their own crystals. How many? I don't know but the radio magazines of 
> the time had articles on how to do it.
>
> Speaking of crystals, it would also be a cottage industry if someone 
> produced the crystals that were so common in microphones & record players.
>
> Wayne
> WB4OGM
>
> On Tuesday, October 28, 2025 at 07:27:10 PM MDT, Bob Camp 
> <kb8tq at n1k.org> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> The ?big deal? with synthetic quartz was its lack of twinning. You 
> need the entire blank to be left handed or right handed. If it?s ?some 
> of each? the piezo polarity will shift and cancel out. Natural quartz 
> was not very consistent. The result there was that you lost a 
> noticeable percentage of what you cut.
>
> During WWII something over a hundred small outfits made crystals. It 
> was very much something a lot of folks got into. After the war, very 
> few of them survived.
>
> Bob
>
>
>>> On Oct 28, 2025, at 11:18?AM, Ken Kinderman <scr274 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just watched "Crystals Go to War" on youtube.
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHenisSTUQY
>>> Never again will I take the humble FT-243, DC-10 and their cousins 
>>> for granted. I suppose if we thought about it, we would appreciate 
>>> the labor- and skill-intensive process, but this film drives it home.
>>> These guys and gals were heroes...
>>> - hand selecting and hand grading the quartz
>>> - dipping the raw stone into oil to identify the axes, hours at a 
>>> time: bare hands, no gloves
>>> - further grading with the casual use of X-rays: I notice only one 
>>> young lady with a bare minimum protective apron
>>> - crystal dust
>>> - bare hands in hot soapy water all day
>>> - fingers inches away from razor thin, diamond edged, spinning saw 
>>> blades
>>> - skillfully evaluating the quartz slices for imperfections and 
>>> maximum yield
>>> - acid fumes
>>> - constant exposure to watery abrasive slurry
>>> - only once did I see protective gloves: a young lady removing 
>>> blanks from the "acid bath"
>>> - coaxing the blanks, one by one, onto frequency.
>>> - putting little metal labels on with tiny screws, no doubt "girls work"
>>> I will think twice the next time I abandon an oddball frequency 
>>> crystal as unusable. Each one is a gem.
>>> 73,
>>> Ken
>>> W2EWL
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

From n4fs at eozinc.com  Wed Oct 29 00:20:33 2025
From: n4fs at eozinc.com (Mike Feher)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:20:33 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] Let's appreciate crystals
In-Reply-To: <1396554949.1324451.1761702896550@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <CAKUjTOZ329NCUBiy08jx_b9AFWmwPw_DjkX3GT3wrWQqT8dZ3A@mail.gmail.com>	<9EC34915-D012-42A3-8CA9-7EBB77DAC1C6@n1k.org>	<909641288.1295814.1761692970640@mail.yahoo.com>	<B8AC0F02-81DF-4DE4-AE1A-54797F8F9129@n1k.org>
	<1396554949.1324451.1761702896550@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <03fa01dc488b$5ea26fb0$1be74f10$@eozinc.com>

Piezo electric transducers are still being produced in large quantities for sonobouys for ASW use. If the market was there, it would not be difficult to make them for other applications. 73 - Mike 

Mike B. Feher, N4FS
89 Arnold Blvd.
Howell NJ 07731
908-902-3831

-----Original Message-----
From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of hwhall--- via Milsurplus
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2025 9:55 PM
To: Bob Camp <kb8tq at n1k.org>
Cc: Military Surplus net List <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Let's appreciate crystals

Back in the very early radio days, there were hams who were making their own crystals. How many? I don't know but the radio magazines of the time had articles on how to do it.

Speaking of crystals, it would also be a cottage industry if someone produced the crystals that were so common in microphones & record players.

Wayne
WB4OGM


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

From hwhall at compuserve.com  Wed Oct 29 04:11:45 2025
From: hwhall at compuserve.com (hwhall@aol.com)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 08:11:45 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Milsurplus] Let's appreciate crystals
In-Reply-To: <03fa01dc488b$5ea26fb0$1be74f10$@eozinc.com>
References: <CAKUjTOZ329NCUBiy08jx_b9AFWmwPw_DjkX3GT3wrWQqT8dZ3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<9EC34915-D012-42A3-8CA9-7EBB77DAC1C6@n1k.org>
	<909641288.1295814.1761692970640@mail.yahoo.com>
	<B8AC0F02-81DF-4DE4-AE1A-54797F8F9129@n1k.org>
	<1396554949.1324451.1761702896550@mail.yahoo.com>
	<03fa01dc488b$5ea26fb0$1be74f10$@eozinc.com>
Message-ID: <565605506.1365333.1761725505665@mail.yahoo.com>

I think y'all think I was thinking of mass production. I was thinking of cottage industry, "artisanal piezos". Small quantities because it's a small market. There's people trying to cobble up substitutes but they're not working well.

Wayne
WB4OGM

On Tuesday, October 28, 2025 at 10:20:51 PM MDT, Mike Feher <n4fs at eozinc.com> wrote: 

Piezo electric transducers are still being produced in large quantities for sonobouys for ASW use. If the market was there, it would not be difficult to make them for other applications. 73 - Mike 

Mike B. Feher, N4FS
89 Arnold Blvd.
Howell NJ 07731
908-902-3831

-----Original Message-----
From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of hwhall--- via Milsurplus
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2025 9:55 PM
To: Bob Camp <kb8tq at n1k.org>
Cc: Military Surplus net List <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Let's appreciate crystals

Back in the very early radio days, there were hams who were making their own crystals. How many? I don't know but the radio magazines of the time had articles on how to do it.

Speaking of crystals, it would also be a cottage industry if someone produced the crystals that were so common in microphones & record players.

Wayne
WB4OGM


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

______________________________________________________________
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

From mjcal79 at gmail.com  Wed Oct 29 08:53:29 2025
From: mjcal79 at gmail.com (Charlie L.)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 08:53:29 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] QST, Dec 34, and Jan 35 and crystals
Message-ID: <CA+d3itZxxVB3AhBz-cTMUHKLL5GpvG2jjxcxRnwdBudCgenCBg@mail.gmail.com>

I believe it is these two editions of QST that contain articles about
rolling your own crystals.  In the article is info on how to inspect and
select Brazilian quartz, how to look at the crystal to determine the angle
to cut, even for overtones, a design of a saw to cut the slivers which used
nothing but a copper toothless disc, and that secret of the ages, the
formula for determining the thickness of the cut to get close to the target
freq.  I have this little gadget, pic attached, that you could use for
testing that consists of a way to clamp the quartz in the holder, maybe
this was a testers crystal making aid, don't know but sure looks like a
quick way to test the element.

Charlie in NC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251029/7a868e7c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IMG_7500[1].JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 185192 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251029/7a868e7c/attachment-0002.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IMG_7499[1].JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 258578 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251029/7a868e7c/attachment-0003.jpe>

From mgpaulonis at gmail.com  Wed Oct 29 11:59:06 2025
From: mgpaulonis at gmail.com (Matt P)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 10:59:06 -0500
Subject: [Milsurplus] AN/GRC-9 CD-1086 Male Power connectors
Message-ID: <CA+bzP5wewDJS=De357kcf5vrO3En6WK1vxZXMi7rnX9QAL6rnA@mail.gmail.com>

While I wait for a few remaining parts to finish my SCR-274N, I am looking
to collect the remaining parts for my AN/GRC-9 setup. I have a 115/230 V
power supply and nearly all of the pieces to set up a station, however
still need the Male Power Connector to make up a CD-1086 interconnecting
power cord. Would anyone in the group happen to have one of these plugs
knocking around that they could part with?

Regards,
Matt
W2NS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251029/68845c7c/attachment.html>

From RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu  Thu Oct 30 15:52:32 2025
From: RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu (Ray Fantini)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 19:52:32 +0000
Subject: [Milsurplus] AN/PRC-74 video
Message-ID: <DM8P220MB0472CA40FA650B600BD3B414B8FBA@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Finished the video of the PRC-74 radios that I have been working on, and say it in the video but will also say it here that maybe the PRC-74 was the best backpack radio to come out of the sixties. At least for HF use.
You can see it at:

https://youtu.be/99pk6AMEk4s

Use to not think much of them but after lots of work come to realize that there simple construction, all solid state design and sensitivity has won me over. Radios like the TRC-77 and its crystal controlled weirdness, the PRC-47 and its weight and power demands and the PRC-70 with its faults like wanting to destroy itself when the battery dies and the sardine can construction that's a real pain to work on along with newer sets like the PRC-104 with the idea of sacrifice everything in the name of making it as small as possible.
The 74 has its faults, weird PA transistors and too many crystals but makes up for it by being easy to work on and with the exception of only a hand full of components that are not obtainable the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages, just try replacing LSI devices or working without twenty four test jigs on some of the modern stuff.

Ray F/KA3EKH



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251030/021b399f/attachment.html>

From clare.owens at gmail.com  Thu Oct 30 17:23:50 2025
From: clare.owens at gmail.com (Clare Owens)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 17:23:50 -0400
Subject: [Milsurplus] [MMRCG] AN/PRC-74 video
In-Reply-To: <DM8P220MB0472CA40FA650B600BD3B414B8FBA@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <DM8P220MB0472CA40FA650B600BD3B414B8FBA@DM8P220MB0472.NAMP220.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <CAFdOJ7Ne5xbN6NC_-VNMYrFd0bdd8erWjh4DM_Fe=SL0zYusSA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ray,

Yet another very well recorded and documented video.  Thank you for taking
the time to make a really thorough tutorial, which I will use when I get my
'74.

73,

Clare  N2RJB



On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 3:52?PM Ray Fantini via groups.io <RAFANTINI=
salisbury.edu at groups.io> wrote:

> Finished the video of the PRC-74 radios that I have been working on, and
> say it in the video but will also say it here that maybe the PRC-74 was the
> best backpack radio to come out of the sixties. At least for HF use.
>
> You can see it at:
>
>
>
> https://youtu.be/99pk6AMEk4s
>
>
>
> Use to not think much of them but after lots of work come to realize that
> there simple construction, all solid state design and sensitivity has won
> me over. Radios like the TRC-77 and its crystal controlled weirdness, the
> PRC-47 and its weight and power demands and the PRC-70 with its faults like
> wanting to destroy itself when the battery dies and the sardine can
> construction that?s a real pain to work on along with newer sets like the
> PRC-104 with the idea of sacrifice everything in the name of making it as
> small as possible.
>
> The 74 has its faults, weird PA transistors and too many crystals but
> makes up for it by being easy to work on and with the exception of only a
> hand full of components that are not obtainable the benefits far outweigh
> the disadvantages, just try replacing LSI devices or working without twenty
> four test jigs on some of the modern stuff.
>
>
>
> Ray F/KA3EKH
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _._,_._,_
> ------------------------------
> Groups.io Links:
>
> You receive all messages sent to this group.
>
> View/Reply Online (#4751) <https://groups.io/g/MMRCG/message/4751> | Reply
> to Group <MMRCG at groups.io?subject=Re:%20%5BMMRCG%5D%20AN%2FPRC-74%20video>
> | Reply to Sender
> <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu?subject=Private:%20Re:%20%5BMMRCG%5D%20AN%2FPRC-74%20video>
> | Mute This Topic <https://groups.io/mt/116036848/482367> | New Topic
> <https://groups.io/g/MMRCG/post>
> Your Subscription <https://groups.io/g/MMRCG/editsub/482367> | Contact
> Group Owner <MMRCG+owner at groups.io> | Unsubscribe
> <https://groups.io/g/MMRCG/unsub> [clare.owens at gmail.com]
> _._,_._,_
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251030/70c3273a/attachment-0001.html>

From mgpaulonis at gmail.com  Thu Oct 30 18:48:16 2025
From: mgpaulonis at gmail.com (Matt P)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 17:48:16 -0500
Subject: [Milsurplus] AN/PRC-74 video
In-Reply-To: <mailman.9759.1761859456.2991.milsurplus@mailman.qth.net>
References: <mailman.9759.1761859456.2991.milsurplus@mailman.qth.net>
Message-ID: <CA+bzP5wOANUQZgHDt025zUPPLK2gYfH1udkwszW-T8_tk9o00g@mail.gmail.com>

Great video Ray, can't wait to get into my '74: still have a couple others
in the queue.

Matt
W2NS

>
> Finished the video of the PRC-74 radios that I have been working on, and
> say it in the video but will also say it here that maybe the PRC-74 was the
> best backpack radio to come out of the sixties. At least for HF use.
> You can see it at:
>
> https://youtu.be/99pk6AMEk4s
>
> Use to not think much of them but after lots of work come to realize that
> there simple construction, all solid state design and sensitivity has won
> me over. Radios like the TRC-77 and its crystal controlled weirdness, the
> PRC-47 and its weight and power demands and the PRC-70 with its faults like
> wanting to destroy itself when the battery dies and the sardine can
> construction that's a real pain to work on along with newer sets like the
> PRC-104 with the idea of sacrifice everything in the name of making it as
> small as possible.
> The 74 has its faults, weird PA transistors and too many crystals but
> makes up for it by being easy to work on and with the exception of only a
> hand full of components that are not obtainable the benefits far outweigh
> the disadvantages, just try replacing LSI devices or working without twenty
> four test jigs on some of the modern stuff.
>
> Ray F/KA3EKH
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20251030/4a8477ee/attachment.html>

