[ARC5] Hallicrafters receivers.

[Fuqua, Bill L]

  They really packed as much as possible into the SX-100 cabinet.
The microphonics were really bad. I upgraded from my HQ-129X to a 
SX-101A, in the 60's. Now, that was  a sturdy, heavy and stable receiver.
Product detector as well.
73
Bill wa4lav

________________________________________
From: arc5-bounces at mailman.qth.net [arc5-bounces at mailman.qth.net] on behalf of Kenneth G. Gordon [kgordon2006 at frontier.com]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 11:00 AM
To: Arc5 at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [ARC5] Hallicrafters receivers.

On 12 May 2013 at 6:45, Joe Connor wrote:


> >>     Hallicrafters sure was a funny company, in
> >> some ways they were right at the cutting edge and in other
> >> ways didn't quite make it.

Boy! You sure have that right! What I could never understand about that
company was that most of their receivers I have used were so darned
unstable, especially mechanically, yet their transmitters were for the most
part quite adequately stable.

Like the SX-100 for instance. It looked good, had fairly decent specs, but
was built so lightly that it was terrible, and if you bumped the table while
listening to a station, it wobbled right off that station. This is NOT acceptable
for a real communications receiver!

In fact, the most stable Halli receiver I have ever used was the SX-28,
possibly because it was built to Signal Corps specs.

Ken W7EKB
______________________________________________________________
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: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html