"AComarow" wrote in message No argument here. And how
come nobody's suggested the HRO-60? Remember, we're
talking APPEARANCE, not functionality. The HROs were a pain to read
frequency
off the dial, but oh, the feel of that dial...


I agree HROs are very cool looking. I like all those 1930s rigs.

--
73 and good DXing
RX:
R-5000, SP-600 JX-6, SX-28
Ant:
100' longwire, Evesdropper Dipole

Brian's Radio Universe
http://webpages.charter.net/brianehill/

From: -Bill- exray@coquidotnet
Date: 1/13/04 7:51 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

AComarow wrote:

SX-115!
-Bill M


I understand the appeal, but it's always left me cold. Arrogant. ("Why am I
so
much more expensive than other ham receivers? Because I CAN be! Nyah,
nyah.")

Avery W3AVE

I got mine for $100 in the eighties so I try not to let current prices
bother me :-)

-Bill

Give you $150 for it.

Avery

AComarow wrote:


I got mine for $100 in the eighties so I try not to let current prices
bother me :-)

-Bill


Give you $150 for it.

Avery


I know you will!
-Bill

I got mine for $100 in the eighties so I try not to let current prices
bother me :-)

-Bill


Give you $150 for it.

Avery

All right, I'll give you $160. Grumble.


I know you will!
-Bill

Ahh!! Thank You Avery. I nominate the TMC GPR-90 because it is pretty and
The Hallicrafters SX-11 because of the airplane dial and the eye tube tuning
indicator plus the cool brass thumbscrews on the front. Ta! Da!
--
73 and good DXing
RX:
R-5000, SP-600 JX-6, SX-28
Ant:
100' longwire, Evesdropper Dipole

Brian's Radio Universe
http://webpages.charter.net/brianehill/

Two good nominees, IMHO. But if the GPR-90 (which I like, too) is a candidate,
why not Hammarlund's more modern HQ-1XX series of receivers (HQ-145, -170, and
-180)? The layout is pretty similar.

Avery W3AVE

Two good nominees, IMHO. But if the GPR-90 (which I like, too) is a
candidate,
why not Hammarlund's more modern HQ-1XX series of receivers (HQ-145, -170,
and
-180)? The layout is pretty similar.

If you've ever seen a GPR-90 in person, you wouldn't
have to ask. It is MIL-SPEC in construction, the
Hammarlunds are *definitely* not (although I do like
some of them, mainly the ones without the cheap
clock).

I, too, vote for the GPR-90, and any HRO other than
the HRO-7 (it, too, looked cheap!).

73, John - K6QQ

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:47:50 UTC, (AComarow) wrote:

Subject: SX-28 Scarce? I Don't Think so!!
From: NoSpam
Date: 1/12/04 8:36 PM Eastern Standard Time

I don't like the peep-hole windows like Hammarlund used. A radio
should have a BIG scale and big knobs.

NC-270
SX-62

The metaphore scales are confusing too, HRO, Collins. It's too much
like looking at a movie through a soda straw. Don't get me started
on digital displays. What's that, a bunch of numbers. It doesn't
show me where the station is in the context of the band.

SX-101A, now there is how 40 meters should be splayed out.

de ah6gi/4

With due respect, the NC-270 was just a cheaper, tarted-up NC-303. But I guess
if you like blue...

Avery W3AVE

No, the 303 didn't have all the bands in front of you the way the
NC-270 did.

I have a theory about these radios. I have a pal who is a "spec"
reader. You know the type. He doesn't have a good feel for
"real-world" phenomenum but he can memorize numbers and parameters.

A lot of radio guys are "spec" readers, 3rd order intercept,
fractional microvolt sensitivity, the more esoteric, the better they
like it.

The real world ain't a bunch of specs. It's how you use the tool,
not the size in mm.

The NC-270 had a nice look, a unique color scheme, that flywheel on
the tuning knob, and decent enough electronics.

I really appreciate BIG slide rule scales and smooth tuning knobs
with some heft to them.

I'm not saying that the '303 wasn't a great radio. It was.

I simply appreciate a radio with the scales in front of you. My
old SX-101A was a nice radio. It gives you a better feel for the
band layout than, say, an S-Line, HRO, or one of the new digital
boxes.

I like maps because I can see that "this" is close to "that". You
don't get that sense from a digital radio.

Anyway, these are all interesting and fun.

de ah6gi/4

"John Moriarity" wrote in message ...
Two good nominees, IMHO. But if the GPR-90 (which I like, too) is a
candidate,
why not Hammarlund's more modern HQ-1XX series of receivers (HQ-145, -170,
and
-180)? The layout is pretty similar.

If you've ever seen a GPR-90 in person, you wouldn't
have to ask. It is MIL-SPEC in construction, the
Hammarlunds are *definitely* not (although I do like
some of them, mainly the ones without the cheap
clock).

I, too, vote for the GPR-90, and any HRO other than
the HRO-7 (it, too, looked cheap!).

73, John - K6QQ

I owned a GPR-90 for several years and agree about the build
quality--but we're talking esthetics in this thread, so you're not
allowed to bring up unimportant side issues like quality of
construction, performance, reliability...

So just on appearance/esthetics/ergonomics (what really counts,
right?), I have to say again that the basic look and feel of this
radio is interestingly similar to that of the better Hammarlunds.

Avery W3AVE

"AComarow" wrote in message


why not Hammarlund's more modern HQ-1XX series of receivers
(HQ-145, -170, and
-180)? The layout is pretty similar.

Avery W3AVE



I like them but why do they all have to look the same.

I like the Collins75A-1 and 51J and the Racal RA71. Heck! I like everything.
But what is the UGLIEST RADIO EVER?

Brian