HQ-145 Opinions?
 

I am getting a Hammarlund HQ-145 and would like to get some of the
groups opinions on the radio, compared to the competition at the time.
I am looking forward to getting the radio, as a kid in jr. high, my
dream was always an HQ-180!
Thanks in advance
--

HQ-145 Opinions?
 

On May 20, 8:13 pm, "Count Floyd"
wrote:
I am getting a Hammarlund HQ-145 and would like to get some of the
groups opinions on the radio, compared to the competition at the time.
I am looking forward to getting the radio, as a kid in jr. high, my
dream was always an HQ-180!
Thanks in advance
--

Never had a 145 but a close friend bought a new 145X in early 60's,
used it with a Hallicrafters HT-32 & made tons of CW contacts with it.
It was a average cost receiver which was good for most hams!
GL.....
Rich WA2RQY/4

HQ-145 Opinions?
 

Receivers can be rated objectively and subjectively. When you compare the
HQ-145 with the best receivers available, it turns in ordinary performance.
Stability is good for am and below 20 meters. Selectivity is fair.
Calibration is fair.

But, despite the fact that I would not rate the HQ-145 as a top end radio in
performance, I enjoyed owning and using mine. It has a great feel and is
appealing. The HQ-180 is a superior radio, but the HQ-145 was really the
end of the line in the development of the 455 kHz receivers, which started
with the Comet and HQ-120.

I gave mine away to a foreign ham many years ago who needed a receiver and
miss it. Perhaps someday there will be another one in my collection.

73, Colin K7FM

HQ-145 Opinions?
 

"Count Floyd"
wrote in message
news:BJ4mQCBKg9HM-pn2-umr5iZPzNdyp@localhost...
I am getting a Hammarlund HQ-145 and would like to get some
of the
groups opinions on the radio, compared to the competition
at the time.
I am looking forward to getting the radio, as a kid in jr.
high, my
dream was always an HQ-180!
Thanks in advance
--

The HQ-145 was the last in the line that started with
the HQ-129. It has essentially the same circuit but uses
miniature tubes and has a voltage regulator and temperature
compensation.
These receivers have a single RF amp stage so the image
rejection is not high but they have three IF stages so
selectivity is actually pretty good. Also, Hammarlund had a
patented crystal filter which was easily the best of the
bunch. Collins used the same circuit in their receivers.
This series was intended to be a medium-price adjunct to
the Hammarlund catalogue. Their top of the line receiver was
the Super-Pro which was also the most expensive receiver on
the market during most of its life.
In general Hammarlund have very good quality of
construction and good design. The dials are directly driven
(no dial cords) and have a very positive feel.
The HQ-145 is interesting in that Hammarlund, who
indulged in rather small knobs for decades decided to use
extra large ones on this receiver and on the SP-600.
There are instruction manuals on a couple of sites, BAMA
for one.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

HQ-145 Opinions?
 

"Count Floyd"
wrote in message
news:BJ4mQCBKg9HM-pn2-umr5iZPzNdyp@localhost...
I am getting a Hammarlund HQ-145 and would like to get some
of the
groups opinions on the radio, compared to the competition
at the time.
I am looking forward to getting the radio, as a kid in jr.
high, my
dream was always an HQ-180!
Thanks in advance
--
Oh, dear, I need to be more careful. I was writing about
the HQ-140X, not the 145 although some of the stuff applies.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

HQ-145 Opinions?
 

The HQ-145 is dual conversion, which is an upgrade from the HQ-140.
Otherwise, it is pretty much the same.

Colin K7FM

HQ-145 Opinions?
 

On Tue, 20 May 2008 21:22:15 -0700, "COLIN LAMB"
wrote:

The HQ-145 is dual conversion, which is an upgrade from the HQ-140.
Otherwise, it is pretty much the same.



Colin K7FM

I have one which I just recapped (I got a "positive smoke test with
the old filter caps.) It's only double conversion on the higher
bands. Its a decent enough receiver for the era, but it is no HQ-180.

It has a decent crystal filter for the era, but nothing like todays
filters.

I agree it is in the chain of HQs 120, 129, 140, 150 each of which was
a small incremental advance of its predecessor (I'm not really
familiar with the HQ-150 and I don't know the differences between it
and the physically similar HQ-140. I suspect the rationale for the
HQ-145 was to have a receiver in that price niche with the electical
characteristics of the HQ-140 (and perhaps the 150) and the styling of
the line with the cast aluminum panel introduced in 1957 with the
HQ-100 (of which I had one of the very first ones when I was a
teenager. It was ordered for Christmas 1956 and advertised about three
months earlier. I think I had one of the first 10 of these. The HQs
100, 145, and 180 were general coverage with band spread in the ham
bands, and the 110 and 170 were ham band only as they existed at the
time. I believe there was also a transmitter and an amplifier with
that panel/cabinet design, but I was in college then and didn't see
much ham gear.

Aside from the replaced filter caps, my HQ-145 is in very nice
electrical and physical shape. I have not used it in actual
communications. Someday I'll find a nice Viking Adventurer...one of
the transmitters I had as a kid, and pair it up with the HQ.



Jon W3JT

HQ-145 Opinions?
 

The HQ-150 is a glorified HQ-140. It has a Q multiplier (in addition to the
crystal filter) and a 100 kHz calibrator. It is single conversion. My
opinion is that the HQ-145 is better than the others for general coverage -
except the HQ-180 and the SP-600.

Hammarlund did make a couple of transmitters - the HX-50 and HX-500. They
were a different style and probably more suited to the HQ-170 or other
receiver that specialized in receiving sideband.

I have Johnson Adventurer and it is a good "no-frills" cw rig and would
match up with the 145 nicely.

73, Colin K7FM

HQ-145 Opinions?
 

On 5/21/08 1:33 PM, in article ,
"Jon Teske" wrote:

On Tue, 20 May 2008 21:22:15 -0700, "COLIN LAMB"
wrote:

The HQ-145 is dual conversion, which is an upgrade from the HQ-140.
Otherwise, it is pretty much the same.



Colin K7FM

I have one which I just recapped (I got a "positive smoke test with
the old filter caps.) It's only double conversion on the higher
bands. Its a decent enough receiver for the era, but it is no HQ-180.

It has a decent crystal filter for the era, but nothing like todays
filters.

I agree it is in the chain of HQs 120, 129, 140, 150 each of which was
a small incremental advance of its predecessor (I'm not really
familiar with the HQ-150 and I don't know the differences between it
and the physically similar HQ-140. I suspect the rationale for the
HQ-145 was to have a receiver in that price niche with the electical
characteristics of the HQ-140 (and perhaps the 150) and the styling of
the line with the cast aluminum panel introduced in 1957 with the
HQ-100 (of which I had one of the very first ones when I was a
teenager. It was ordered for Christmas 1956 and advertised about three
months earlier. I think I had one of the first 10 of these. The HQs
100, 145, and 180 were general coverage with band spread in the ham
bands, and the 110 and 170 were ham band only as they existed at the
time. I believe there was also a transmitter and an amplifier with
that panel/cabinet design, but I was in college then and didn't see
much ham gear.

Aside from the replaced filter caps, my HQ-145 is in very nice
electrical and physical shape. I have not used it in actual
communications. Someday I'll find a nice Viking Adventurer...one of
the transmitters I had as a kid, and pair it up with the HQ.



Jon W3JT



Any good ham can whip up a good quality 10-20W transmitter in a few hours
from their QST junkbox. Go for it.

HQ-145 Opinions?
 

On May 20, 5:13 pm, "Count Floyd"
wrote:
I am getting a Hammarlund HQ-145 and would like to get some of the
groups opinions on the radio, compared to the competition at the time.
I am looking forward to getting the radio, as a kid in jr. high, my
dream was always an HQ-180!
Thanks in advance
--

Sorry but I thought it was a mediocre radio. When you open it up you
as yourself "What did they do with the other half of the radio"? You
would be much better off with one of their older pre miniature tube
radios such as the HQ0150,140 or 120. Of the more modern radios the
HQ-110 was not too bad though.

Tony