[Hallicrafters] sx-28 price

Tue Jan 31 21:44:47 EST 2006

I totally agree. There is a lot more to collecting vintage radios than 
specs. I don't currently have or have ever owned an SX-28, but it is one 
of the radios that I will aquire (when I find one that I want) and spend 
the time to properly restore. My favorite radio as far as "Cool" is my 
SX-42. It has many of the qualities that others have used describing the 
SX-28. When I want to do some casual band cruising. I don't know 
anything better than an SX-42. The round green dials are the best that I 
have ever seen, at night with the lights turned down in my shack, there 
is nothing IMHO that compares to the SX-42. It is very heavy and well 
built, with push-pull audio that sounds great through an R-42 reproducer.

When I want to do some serious short wave listening, I use my R-390A or 
my Icom R-75 (solid state yuck). The R-390A is without a doubt a great 
performer. However, when listening to the ham bands on SSB, the R-75 is 
fine for SSB reception. I have used the R-390a as a great SSB receiver, 
by running the 455 KHZ output to the antenna terminal on the R-75.

I'm getting sidetracked. My point is that using an old vintage receiver 
such as the SX-28 is a lot more than just specs. 1930's technology that 
still performs well in the new century is truly outstanding. I would not 
use a 1935 Chevy as an every day driver or use a  1930'S toaster, stove 
etc as an every day appliance. However, state of the art radios that 
were well built, still have their place for more that just lookiing at. 
Listening with a decent antenna to stations such as BBC, radios such as 
the SX-28 perform very well and sound outstanding.

73's
DW Holtman
WB7SSN

Roy Morgan wrote:

> At 02:38 PM 1/31/2006, you wrote:
>
>> This is an interesting thread, and I wonder why the SX-28 is so 
>> attractive
>> to people. Is it a good radio?
>
>
> Julian,
>
> Not especially by more recent standards. It was designed in the late 
> 30's or very early 40's (I assume, without having any real facts) and 
> used the "technology" of the time.  One "improvement" I've heard of is 
> to substitute a better mixer tube for the original one to get it to 
> run better on the higher frequencies.
>
> BUT:
>
>> ...Perhaps it is the classic look that attracts?
>
>
> Absolutely. There are very, very few other radios that have that 
> classic look (and weight!). By comparison, the R-390's are boring, the 
> EK-07 is strange looking, the 51S-1 is simplistic, the 51J's and the 
> 75A-4 are business like, and almost all the more recent Hammarlunds 
> and Hallicrafters radios are.... well, .. just plain GRAY.
>
> Here is the reason I changed from not really being interested in the 
> SX-28 to wanting one for sure:
>
> One day I bought a QST for the month I was born: October '44. There 
> was an article about the FCC radio communication and direction finding 
> stations around the US and another article about military stations in 
> the arctic regions used to guide our airplanes to and from Europe and 
> over to the Far East during the war.  The first one showed the Adcock 
> arrays for DF and the operating stations with a number of SX-28's in 
> use.  That did it.. I got the need to have one.. Soo, eventually I 
> found two of them, one an A, and one the earlier version.
>
> The two related articles of interest in the October 1944 issue of QST 
> are:
>
> "Hams in the RID
> The FCC's Radio Intelligence Division in Action"
> by Oliver Reaad, W9ETI
> QST, October 1944, Pages 18-23
>
> This story is about the Great Lakes Monitoring Station near Allegan 
> Michigan. It shows Adcock antennas for direction finding, monitoring 
> stations, and a number of SX-28's in use.
>
> and:
>
> "Hams In Combat
> The Great Spiderweb"
> by PVT H. D. Colson and S/SGT Robert C. Fleischman, W8TOZ
> QST, October, 1944, Pages 44-46, 90 and 92
>
> This story is about the AACS, Army Airways communications Service. It 
> does not mention the SX-28 by name but it's reasonable to assume that 
> the AACS stations used lots of them.  It tells a story about one of 
> the stations in the Arctic hearing an SOS from a downed flight of four 
> B-17's which outran a pack of enemy fighters but had to ditch on the 
> ice pack north of the North Atlantic.  A dog team rescue mission was 
> launched and rescued all the personnel, but the B-17's are still up 
> there in the ice.
>
> My guess is that both Boeing and Hallicrafters were running three 
> shifts a day to make the needed equipment.
>
>
> I find the rear cover ad by RCA interesting.  It announces "3 New RCA 
> Miniatures" with summary information and prices:
>
> 6AQ5    $1.50
> 6AL5        .75
> 6J4         8.35
>
> What made the 6J4 so expensive, I can only guess.
>
> Roy
>
>
> - Roy Morgan, K1LKY since 1959 - Keep 'em Glowing!
> 7130 Panorama Drive, Derwood MD 20855
> Home: 301-330-8828 Cell 301-928-7794
> Work: Voice: 301-975-3254,  Fax: 301-948-6213
> roy.morgan at nist.gov --
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Hallicrafters mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hallicrafters
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> Post: mailto:Hallicrafters at mailman.qth.net
> ----
> List Administrator: Duane Fischer, W8DBF **for assistance**
> dfischer at usol.com
> ----
> Hallicrafters Collectors International: http://www.w9wze.org
>
>