[Milsurplus] [MMRCG] "Radio Prepares for War"

Mon Apr 27 20:16:41 EDT 2020

Ray,

Comments below:

On 4/27/2020 1:45 PM, Ray Fantini wrote:
>
> It’s kind of the pot calling the kettle black. Yes the mechanical dial 
> assembly on the HRO Can be an issue but the Band spread dial on the 
> HQ-120 is just as bad. I have never liked receivers with two tuning 
> dials to the extent that I was unable to determine where the receiver 
> was. The reduction drive on the HRO allows the operator plenty of fine 
> tuning without having to resort to two different and almost never 
> aligning tuning dials but maybe that’s just me, as many will tell you 
> I am not the sharpest tool in the shed.
>
There's a lot to be said in favor of one dial with geared tuning and an 
accurate logging scale.  It make it possible to return to a previously 
logged freq. with good precision.  That the pattern the better 
receivers, like the RCA products fell into.

The two-dial arrangement might actually be better for the average ham.  
You set the band-spread dial to your TX crystal freq.  then zero-beat 
with the main dial.  Sucks for SWL.
>
> Think when most receivers were used in military service the BC-221 was 
> never far away and that’s how you set frequency.
>

That's a problem that doesn't get solved until Collins shows up with the 
51-J's in the 1950's.  A crystal controlled converter in front of a 
carefully calibrated variable IF.
>
> As far as the plug in coil assemblies that’s one of the best parts, no 
> issues with dirty band switches and buckets of isolation, maybe not in 
> the day but know that after years band switch issues are often a 
> problem, isn’t that the reason that they went to the big drum in the 
> SP-600 in order to get the isolation and mechanical stability of the 
> HRO without plug in coils?
>
Yes, but I hate to have to rummage around for the coil I want.

Al
>
> Ray F/KA3EKH
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* MMRCG at groups.io <MMRCG at groups.io> on behalf of Al Klase via 
> groups.io <ark=ar88.net at groups.io>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 27, 2020 12:15 PM
> *To:* MMRCG at groups.io <MMRCG at groups.io>; milsurplus at mailman 
> <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [MMRCG] "Radio Prepares for War"
> I should have said "state of the art" - Al
>
> On 4/27/2020 12:11 PM, Al Klase wrote:
>> Hi Ray,
>>
>> The things you say are true, but my point of view focuses on "the 
>> state of the ."  James Millen had hams believing that the HRO was the 
>> best receiver in the world, when the truth was it was the best 
>> receiver they could afford.  (Well, for a lot of hams that might have 
>> been an SW-3 or FB-7, both National products.)
>>
>> The HRO may have led the industry for a short time, but was 
>> completely out classed by the Hammarlund Super-Pro.  From my vantage 
>> point, as an all-wave SWL kinda guy, the HRO's uncalibrated dial and 
>> plug-in coils are an unacceptable PITA.  As to affordability , the 
>> Hammarlund HQ-120 was the best pre-war ham set.
>>
>> Meanwhile, RCA was the 700-pound gorilla of SW receiver design, but 
>> most of that was high-buck stuff for the military..
>>
>> I feel the HRO design persisted as long as it did, through HRO-50 and 
>> HRO-60, because the interchangeable coils, and LF coverage made it a 
>> desirable receiver in the lab.
>>
>> My further two cents,
>> Al
>>
>> On 4/27/2020 11:24 AM, Ray Fantini wrote:
>>>
>>> Come on man, give me a brake.
>>>
>>> The HRO receivers were a pre war product that has excellent 
>>> performance, low noise, selective and most important of all a simple 
>>> efficient clean design. Remember we are talking about pre war design 
>>> so a fair comparison would be something like the RCA AR-60 a good 
>>> receiver but cost almost three times as much and was more complex 
>>> and harder to build. The AR-88 did not appear until 1940 and it’s a 
>>> fine radio but looking at it you can see it was produced with how to 
>>> build something faster and cheaper then the radios of the late 
>>> thirties. Don’t know the sale price of the AR-88 but suspect it was 
>>> more then the HRO.
>>>
>>> Don’t want to get into comparison with the way over built and 
>>> overweight RAK/RAL TRF monsters or the RBA/RBB and RBC that 
>>> demonstrate just how complex, heavy and large you can make a 
>>> receiver. Ok, before anyone gets offended I understand that on a war 
>>> ship you need mass for stability and to counter act the effect of 
>>> gun fire and poor voltage regulation but who will not admit that 
>>> those are all really heavy radios.
>>>
>>> The HRO family including the striped down RAS was pound for pound 
>>> and dollar for dollar the best value and level of performance in any 
>>> radio of its price class imagine you were able to buy at least four 
>>> or five complete HRO sets for the cost of one RBB or RBC.
>>>
>>> And as far as Hammarlund goes what receiver are you referring to? 
>>> Maybe Hallicrafters and the SX-28 but its not easy to find may items 
>>> like the National HRO that was able to make the transition from the 
>>> Ham Commercial market to the military world with a minimum of 
>>> changes, radios like the National HRO and others like the 
>>> Hallicrafters family of transmitters including the HT-1, HT-14 and 
>>> the HT-4, BC-610 demonstrated how some of the best of the Ham world 
>>> like the HRO served almost as well as the over designed and over 
>>> priced hardware produced just for military applications.
>>>
>>> My 1939 HRO RAS despite its image problem is still one of my 
>>> favorite receivers to use for AM, and I will stand up for it any day 
>>> of the week!
>>>
>>> Ray F/KA3EKH
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From:* MMRCG at groups.io <mailto:MMRCG at groups.io> <MMRCG at groups.io> 
>>> <mailto:MMRCG at groups.io> on behalf of Al Klase via groups.io 
>>> <ark=ar88.net at groups.io> <mailto:ark=ar88.net at groups.io>
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, April 26, 2020 7:42 PM
>>> *To:* MMRCG at groups.io <mailto:MMRCG at groups.io> <MMRCG at groups.io> 
>>> <mailto:MMRCG at groups.io>; milsurplus at mailman 
>>> <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net> <mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [MMRCG] "Radio Prepares for War"
>>> Interesting articles, but HORSE FEATHERS!  The real leaders in 
>>> military short-wave were RCA and Hammarlund.
>>> See my page. 
>>> <http://www.skywaves.ar88.net/commrx/Receiver_Time_Line.html>
>>> The HRO was a big hit with the Britts,  because they were 
>>> available.  Hammarlund and RCA already had the US government contracts.
>>>
>>> Al
>>>
>>> On 4/26/2020 3:43 PM, David Stinson wrote:
>>>> I was surprised to see a PBS station produce this.
>>>> Think you'll like it.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.wshu.org/post/radio-prepares-war-part-1
>>>> https://www.wshu.org/post/radio-prepares-war-part-2#stream/0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Al Klase – N3FRQ
>>> Jersey City, NJ
>>> http://www.skywaves.ar88.net/
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Al Klase – N3FRQ
>> Jersey City, NJ
>> http://www.skywaves.ar88.net/
>>
>
> -- 
> Al Klase – N3FRQ
> Jersey City, NJ
> http://www.skywaves.ar88.net/
>
> _._,_._,_
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Groups.io Links:
>
> You receive all messages sent to this group.
>
> View/Reply Online (#1522) <https://groups.io/g/MMRCG/message/1522> | 
> Reply To Group 
> <mailto:MMRCG at groups.io?subject=Re:%20Re%3A%20%5BMMRCG%5D%20%22Radio%20Prepares%20for%20War%22> 
> | Reply To Sender 
> <mailto:RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu?subject=Private:%20Re:%20Re%3A%20%5BMMRCG%5D%20%22Radio%20Prepares%20for%20War%22> 
> | Mute This Topic <https://groups.io/mt/73289895/527242> | New Topic 
> <https://groups.io/g/MMRCG/post>
>
> Your Subscription <https://groups.io/g/MMRCG/editsub/527242> | Contact 
> Group Owner <mailto:MMRCG+owner at groups.io> | Unsubscribe 
> <https://groups.io/g/MMRCG/leave/3114625/1995457902/xyzzy> [ark at ar88.net]
>
> _._,_._,_

-- 
Al Klase – N3FRQ
Jersey City, NJ
http://www.skywaves.ar88.net/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20200427/8cc6ba00/attachment-0001.html>