[Boatanchors] Hammarlund HQ-170A vs. National NC-300

[Revcom]

Yea, but you don't have as many knobs and the cool pile of gray as with
an HC-10 and HQ-145A tied together!

Rod
K0EQH

----- Original Message -----
From: "rrkrr" <rrkrr at comcast.net>
To: "W8KZW" <w8kzw at arrl.net>
Cc: <boatanchors at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 2:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] Hammarlund HQ-170A vs. National NC-300


> I've owned an HQ-170AC-VHF for over 30 years, and I've always been happy
> with it.  It was designed as a CW/SSB receiver, with the audio passband
> tapered for minimum bandwidth required for communication purposes, so
> it's not likely to please the hi-fi AM aficionados.  The audio passband
> is actually designed to change with the audio gain setting - as detailed
> in the manual.  If aligned correctly the receiver is stable and
> selective.  The VHF preamp uses low noise nuvistor triodes, and works
> quite well on 2m - you can listen to FM repeaters satisfactorily using
> "slope" detection with the AM detector.
>
> The IF circuitry in the HQ-170 and HQ-180 is essentially identical to
> the HC10 IF converter that sells so dearly on the auction sites.  I've
> always been amazed that you can generally get an entire HQ-170 receiver
> a lot cheaper than an HC-10.
>
> I have had problems with the heterodyne oscillator drifting for a long
> time after turn-on on 40 meters, but recently fixed this by replacing a
> capacitor in the resonator.
>
> W8KZW wrote:
> > I have the Hammarlund and an opportunity to acquire the National.  Will
be
> > used with my Ranger, primarily for AM.
> >
> > Which is the preferred radio and why?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > jeff
> > W8KZW
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________