"AComarow" wrote in message

Brian's not eligible to
vote, because he's wrong.

Avery W3AVE
Potomac, Md.

I,m Sorry! I wanna play;(

Oh, okay. But no more bogus R-390 claims.

[drum roll] Now for Brian's nomination(s)...

Avery W3AVE

AComarow wrote:
"AComarow" wrote in message

Brian's not eligible to
vote, because he's wrong.

Avery W3AVE
Potomac, Md.

I,m Sorry! I wanna play;(

Oh, okay. But no more bogus R-390 claims.
^^^^^

"bogus" "_BOGUS_" You dare refer to a claim of the certain and
undeniable beauty of the original R-390 (non-"A") as "*BOGUS*"?

Aroint thee, foul fiend, and return to the depths of Hades, whence
thou camest, and wherein thou shouldst be confined "le olam, om"!

And if you can't tell I'm kidding, I'll spell it out for you.

--
"bing-bong. Brimish Rull regret that mumble maz bem dermumble a mir
mumble mumble bimble late. Passengers mizzing to mumble rimble mumble
are advised to momble mar at murmble. Thank you mor mumble mimbling
Brimble mum. bing-bong." -- Gary "Wolf" Barnes, the Monastery

Subject: SX-28 Scarce? I Don't Think so!!
From: (Mike Andrews)
Date: 1/13/04 7:23 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

AComarow wrote:
Oh, okay. But no more bogus R-390 claims.
^^^^^

"bogus" "_BOGUS_" You dare refer to a claim of the certain and
undeniable beauty of the original R-390 (non-"A") as "*BOGUS*"?

Aroint thee, foul fiend, and return to the depths of Hades, whence
thou camest, and wherein thou shouldst be confined "le olam, om"!

And if you can't tell I'm kidding, I'll spell it out for you.

--
"bing-bong. Brimish Rull regret that mumble maz bem dermumble a mir
mumble mumble bimble late. Passengers mizzing to mumble rimble mumble
are advised to momble mar at murmble. Thank you mor mumble mimbling
Brimble mum. bing-bong." -- Gary "Wolf" Barnes, the Monastery

Okay, okay. Nobody ever said 390 junkies are rational. Look, I owned one. I was
dazzled by the Rube Goldberg machinery behind the front panel. All those gears!
Cams! Moving arms! But since when did defense contractors build for show as
opposed to efficiency and functionality? C'mon. Name one military radio that
looked better than its civilian equivalent. At least the SP-600 didn't look
that much different.

Avery W3AVE

"AComarow" wrote in message
...
"AComarow" wrote in message

Brian's not eligible to
vote, because he's wrong.

Avery W3AVE
Potomac, Md.

I,m Sorry! I wanna play;(

Oh, okay. But no more bogus R-390 claims.

[drum roll] Now for Brian's nomination(s)...

Avery W3AVE

Ahh!! Thank You Avery. I nominate the TMC GPR-90 because it is pretty and
The Hallicrafters SX-11 because of the airplane dial and the eye tube tuning
indicator plus the cool brass thumbscrews on the front. Ta! Da!
--
73 and good DXing
RX:
R-5000, SP-600 JX-6, SX-28
Ant:
100' longwire, Evesdropper Dipole

Brian's Radio Universe
http://webpages.charter.net/brianehill/

Ahh!! Thank You Avery. I nominate the TMC GPR-90 because it is pretty and
The Hallicrafters SX-11 because of the airplane dial and the eye tube tuning
indicator plus the cool brass thumbscrews on the front. Ta! Da!
--
73 and good DXing
RX:
R-5000, SP-600 JX-6, SX-28
Ant:
100' longwire, Evesdropper Dipole

Brian's Radio Universe
http://webpages.charter.net/brianehill/

Two good nominees, IMHO. But if the GPR-90 (which I like, too) is a candidate,
why not Hammarlund's more modern HQ-1XX series of receivers (HQ-145, -170, and
-180)? The layout is pretty similar.

Avery W3AVE

Two good nominees, IMHO. But if the GPR-90 (which I like, too) is a
candidate,
why not Hammarlund's more modern HQ-1XX series of receivers (HQ-145, -170,
and
-180)? The layout is pretty similar.

If you've ever seen a GPR-90 in person, you wouldn't
have to ask. It is MIL-SPEC in construction, the
Hammarlunds are *definitely* not (although I do like
some of them, mainly the ones without the cheap
clock).

I, too, vote for the GPR-90, and any HRO other than
the HRO-7 (it, too, looked cheap!).

73, John - K6QQ

"John Moriarity" wrote in message ...
Two good nominees, IMHO. But if the GPR-90 (which I like, too) is a
candidate,
why not Hammarlund's more modern HQ-1XX series of receivers (HQ-145, -170,
and
-180)? The layout is pretty similar.

If you've ever seen a GPR-90 in person, you wouldn't
have to ask. It is MIL-SPEC in construction, the
Hammarlunds are *definitely* not (although I do like
some of them, mainly the ones without the cheap
clock).

I, too, vote for the GPR-90, and any HRO other than
the HRO-7 (it, too, looked cheap!).

73, John - K6QQ

I owned a GPR-90 for several years and agree about the build
quality--but we're talking esthetics in this thread, so you're not
allowed to bring up unimportant side issues like quality of
construction, performance, reliability...

So just on appearance/esthetics/ergonomics (what really counts,
right?), I have to say again that the basic look and feel of this
radio is interestingly similar to that of the better Hammarlunds.

Avery W3AVE

I like the Collins75A-1 and 51J and the Racal RA71. Heck! I like everything.
But what is the UGLIEST RADIO EVER?

Brian

"AComarow" wrote in message


why not Hammarlund's more modern HQ-1XX series of receivers
(HQ-145, -170, and
-180)? The layout is pretty similar.

Avery W3AVE



I like them but why do they all have to look the same.

Subject: SX-28 Scarce? I Don't Think so!!
From: "Brian Hill" brianehill@charterDOTnet
Date: 1/14/04 8:46 AM Eastern Standard Time


"AComarow" wrote in message


why not Hammarlund's more modern HQ-1XX series of receivers
(HQ-145, -170, and
-180)? The layout is pretty similar.

Avery W3AVE

I like them but why do they all have to look the same.

The only possible answer is that God intended all radios to look like that.
Either that or somewhere deep in the bowels of the engineering department, at
midnight Sunday with no engineers around, that design brutally eliminated the
competition, leaving no evidence but a few whiskers of pot metal and the
pungent aroma of burned insulation....

Avery W3AVE