|
Title: How about a HQ-145? Post by: NR5A on June 10, 2010, 07:41:01 AM What do you think about a HQ-145 to go wiyh my Viking Ranger? Would be used for CW & AM?
Jerry - NR5A Title: Re: How about a HQ-145? Post by: K1ZJH on June 10, 2010, 07:33:07 PM A friend gave me a nice clean 145X several years ago. I found that one of the dual frequency IF transformers suffered silver mica disease and arced and shorted; burning up the plate resistor. The plastic coil bobbin fell apart when I tried working on it. Went into storage, and will most likely rot there. Otherwise most of the reviews say it is an "ok" receiver for casual use.
Pete Title: Re: How about a HQ-145? Post by: KM1H on June 10, 2010, 08:01:24 PM I have the one that JN saddled me with at Nearfest maybe 2 years ago ::)
Actually it works well but its been mostly a shelf queen. Carl Title: Re: How about a HQ-145? Post by: WQ9E on June 10, 2010, 08:32:08 PM The first HQ-170 I bought suffered from the IF cap problem. For a short time Hammarlund built the caps in as part of the transformer and they were open construction which is a recipe for disaster. Pretty easy to repair since modern dipped mica caps are so small.
I have never used the HQ-145 but it looks decent. I guess it is a step down from the HQ-140/150/160 with its smaller number of ranges (and probably less complex tuning capacitors). Title: Re: How about a HQ-145? Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on June 10, 2010, 11:54:11 PM The first HQ-170 I bought suffered from the IF cap problem. For a short time Hammarlund built the caps in as part of the transformer and they were open construction which is a recipe for disaster. Pretty easy to repair since modern dipped mica caps are so small. I have never used the HQ-145 but it looks decent. I guess it is a step down from the HQ-140/150/160 with its smaller number of ranges (and probably less complex tuning capacitors). The HQ-140 series and the HQ-150 were single conversion receivers. The HQ-145, 145A, and the HQ-160 were double conversion receivers. HQ-160 also had a crystal controlled second oscillator. All were single conversion below 10 MHz. Main difference between 145 and 145A was the addition of a hinged top cover on the cabinet. HQ-140, 145, 150, and 160 all tuned from .540 to 31 or 30 MHz. All the HQ-170's (170, 170A, 170A-VHF) were triple conversion with double conversion below 7 MHz. Title: Re: How about a HQ-145? Post by: KA2DZT on June 11, 2010, 02:30:35 AM The first HQ-170 I bought suffered from the IF cap problem. For a short time Hammarlund built the caps in as part of the transformer and they were open construction which is a recipe for disaster. Pretty easy to repair since modern dipped mica caps are so small. I have never used the HQ-145 but it looks decent. I guess it is a step down from the HQ-140/150/160 with its smaller number of ranges (and probably less complex tuning capacitors). Hammarlund receivers are known for bad IF xfmrs. In the sixties I would order replacements from Hammarlund. In later years I would repair the xfmrs. Some xfmrs, if I remember correctly, have the caps built into the plastic base. These can also be repaired. I still have a HQ-110 that, so far, seems to be OK but, I don't use it very often. I also have a Hammarlund SP-210 (BC-1004), it has the the big jumbo IF cans, built to withstand bomb blasts. The only Hammarlunds that I would ever consider acquiring would be the early ones that have the jumbo IF cans. I use, as my main station receivers, a National HRO-M (1940) and a NC-183D. Fred KA2DZT Title: Re: How about a HQ-145? Post by: The Slab Bacon on June 11, 2010, 08:18:22 AM I had one and sold it. I thought it's performance was a bit dissapointing for one of their "higher end" receivers. If you want to go with a "gray faced" Hammurlund, IMHO, the HQ-160 is my favorite, but a bit hard to find. AMfone - Dedicated to Amplitude Modulation on the Amateur Radio Bands
the Slab Bacon |