[Boatanchors] Making a SX-110 Better?

[The Pollacks]

My couple of cents worth....on the original topic.

I'm more of an "historian" than technician, and some might be interested in
why the NC109 might be a better receiver.

In the beginning, shortly after Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden,
was the S20 and S20R.  This was in the late 30s.  After the war, the S20R
begat the S40, then the A, and then the B. In about 1954, the S85 was
introduced, followed in the late 50s by the S108.  These were all virtually
the same receiver.  The SX99 came to pass in the mid 50s, followed around
1959 by the SX110, the subject of this thread.  These last 2 were also the
same receiver, with the addition of a limited crystal filter, which I
believe had only a "broad" and "narrow" position.

So, we're dealing with 20 year old technology and design when these were
built.  Even into the 60s, the S108 and SX 110 used octal tubes!  I believe
it was basically the same tube lineup as the S40.  Starting with the S85,
the bandspread was calibrated for the ham bands, but performance was the
same.

I have or have had in the past, all of the earlier receivers, not including
the 110 and 108, but I have no reason to believe that the performance was
much different than the earlier ones.  With all of them, the performance was
less than stellar, but probably better than the original poster is
experiencing.  I agree that a good alignment, and probably a good tube
tester, would improve the performance into the "usable" category.

The NC109, which I believe was introduced in 1957, was a new design,
incorporating a separate product detector, miniature tubes, and a voltage
regulator.  It was advertised, at around $200, as the least expensive
sideband receiver. In addition to the product detector it had a 5 position
(plus "off") crystal filter that was quite effective. It also had a big
bandspread dial that was easy to read.

I have one of these, and used it in the last Classic Exchange contest for a
few contacts on SSB as well as CW with no problem.  I agree with an earlier
poster who thought the 109 was a sleeper in the marketplace.  If someone
comes across a clean one for the $100 or so mentioned, I would not hesitate
to recommend it.

Maybe I've rambled a bit, but comparing the SX99/SX110 to the NC109 is
really an "apples and oranges" kind of thing, other than perhaps in terms of
current value.

Ron K2RP