[Boatanchors] Hammarlund Pro 310 Rcvr on eBay

[Geoff]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Knoppow" <1oldlens1 at ix.netcom.com>
To: "David Knepper" <collinsradio at comcast.net>; <W9RAN at oneradio.net>; 
<boatanchors at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] Hammarlund Pro 310 Rcvr on eBay


>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Knepper" <collinsradio at comcast.net>
> To: <W9RAN at oneradio.net>; <boatanchors at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 5:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] Hammarlund Pro 310 Rcvr on eBay
>
>
>>I own a PRO-310 with original speaker.  To those who have
>>never owned this
>> receiver, your comments are banal,
>>
>> If you did own one, you would know that the greatest
>> shortcoming of this
>> receiver is the type of drive belt that is used on the
>> bandspread - its
>> composition is like leather - it may be in fact!  This
>> belt with age slips
>> making the receiver almost worthless from that standpoint.
>>
>> Yes, I would agree that it is just a nice receiver to put
>> on the shelf and
>> admire not use.
>>
>>
>> David Knepper, W3CRA/W3ST
>
>    Everything I've read about them tends to confirm your
> opinion. They are reputed to be extremely difficult to work
> on because of the mechanical design. At the time they first
> came out they looked sexy and performed pretty well but I
> clearly remember deciding that if I were rich I would prefer
> a Collins 75A-4. Now, even that has faults but I think the
> Pro-310 was a blunder on Hammarlund's part. There are a
> number of receivers that tickle my curiosity, about the only
> one with fairly thorough documentation is the R-390A. It
> would be fascinating to know, for instance, what happened
> with the SP-600, the original advertising shows something
> which is recognizable but differs considerably in detail
> from the production model. Another puzzle is the receiver
> announced by the Allen Cardwell company, that one evidently
> never got beyond a concept since the only illustrations of
> it appear to be drawings.
>    The conditions following WW-2 are interesting: the
> companies who were established before the war converted
> almost completely to military production. They were joined
> by a number of small companies, some of which were organized
> specifically to obtain government contracts. Some of these
> busineses did not survive reconversion to civilian
> production. I think specifically Hammarlund, Hallicrafters,
> and National, tried to return with essentially restyled
> versions of the same stuff they had built before the war.
> Collins had never built _ham_ receivers before the war
> although they had built special purpose receivers mostly for
> aeronautical use. Their concept was completely new, at least
> to the field. Receivers like the Cardwell and Pierson (do I
> have that name right) might have seemed super in the late
> 1930's but too much was going on in the mid to late 1940s
> and they just didn't make it; they were essentially just
> glorified older designs.
>     I am not sure what happened to Hammarlund: while the
> SP-600 was a good design most of the later stuff left a lot
> to be desired. There is probably a book in this but someone
> else will have to write it.
>
>
> --
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles
> WB6KBL
> dickburk at ix.netcom.com

National Radio did very little original work between 1945-62 when the NCX-3 
arrived and followed by the NCX-5, NCL-2000 and HRO-500. After that they 
were gone for all practical purposes in a few more years with the NCX-1000 
the last gasp. The HRO-600 was not a ham product by any stretch.

OTOH National Company had the Atomichron, WRR-2 and 2A and several other 
very sophisticated military products virtually unknown to civilians.

Carl
KM1H