K3HVG wrote:
Rick,
Owning not a few receivers in my current collection, including all those
spoken of, so far, let me first agree with many of the comments,
including those about the SX-100. Its a beautiful looking receiver but
not without its foibles. A truly nice R-392, SP-600, R-388/51J, et al
currently appear to demand what an HQ-180 would, or more. I'd like to
add to your list the Hammarlund HQ-160. Its not a selectable sideband
receiver, per se, but it is double conversion, general-coverage and,
arguably, a less expensive substitute for the HQ-180. I have a late,
raised-lettering version that works quite well with one of my vintage
operating positions. I have tried several outboard product detectors
with this receiver, to include the Hammarlund HC-10, the CE Sideband
Slicer, and the kit detector from that Canadian fellow. They all work,
although the price of an HC-10 approaches the base price of an
HQ-180A!!! I'd also bet money that you might find yourself liking the
HQ-145A, also a general-coverage, double-conversion receiver with very
respectable performance. Nice thing about later Hammarlund receivers is
that they didn't use many (if at all) paper capacitors. Finally, FYI,
Heath never made an upscale general coverage receiver. Good hunting.

OM,

Thanks for the information.

I've sometimes wondered about earlier versions of Hammarlund receivers:
as a VE, I get questions about "low priced radios" all the time from new
or upgraded hams, and I'd like to have more information on the
Hammarlund line.

Please provide your list of the various Hammarlund receivers and their
good and bad points. With the flea market season starting, this would be
really nice to have while looking at tailgates.

Thanks in advance.

William

(Filter noise from my address for direct replies)

Early Hammarlund Receivers:

The pre-war HQ-120 was a modern bandswitching general coverage receiver.
They are not bad. 455 kc (pre kHz) if and rf amplifier. They were fairly
good. The problem with Hammarlund was that they continued on with design
for the next 20 years and while others went to dual conversion, more
selectivity and product detectors, Hammarlund continued onward with the same
design.

These designs were the HQ-129X, the HQ-140 and even the HQ-150. They all
work well for a 1938 design. Later, the HQ-100 continued on with pretty
much the same design, in a more modern package. They are not bad
receivers - but they are simply in a different league compared to the Drake
R-4 series. The HQ=100 replaced the semi-useful crystal filter with a next
to worthless Q multiplier.

None of the Hammarlunds mentioned are in the same league as the HQ-180 or
the SP-600.

You may want to get a copy of "Shortwave Receivers Past and Present" by Fred
Osterman. It is excellent.

Some inexpensive sleepers might be some of the National receivers. The
NC-2-40 C and D are quite good. They, along with other National receivers,
have push-pull audio and are good on broadcast stations. Some of the later
National receivers have not impressed me. National also made some WW II
receivers which are under appreciated - the RAO series. Many of the older
receivers require replacement of the paper caps, but are mechanically
stable. They were used shipboard 24 hours a day. Dependable workhorses.

73, Colin K7FM