Airway or Filter Queen?

Speaking for the vintage models I gotta say I like them both equally since both will easily pull +80" a good 20" more than an Electrolux, Fairfax, Constellation, etc. The Filter Queen has a nice solid practical un-flashy 'old timey' look that is classic and lots of fun to play with cetain gimmicky attachments. Rolls smoothly across the floor or carpet and won't tip over. No bags but easy to empty that tub. Holds LOT of dust bunnies. Heavy wands are great for bicep development as is hefting the machine itself.

The Airway has that jazzy sputnik styling & lightweight aluminum casting and tools, nifty swivel hose turret, comes in bright cheerful colors, can be used on its side - all 4 sides for the 66 &77, standing upright has a smaller closet storage footprint than the FQ and originally a 10 foot hose. Because of stability it would benefit from a retrofit with Constellation or Compact stretchy hose stock if your room is large and you want to duplicate the advertising claims. Unique bags are a pleasure to install & dispose of and the long wands are lightweight for above the floor cleaning.

I do wonder why neither ever incorporated a cord winder - there's plenty of room inside the case for one.

In top form with all the filters & mufflers I find them both to be quiet. The Filter Queen exhausts through half an inch of felt and there's practicly no breeze (unless you uncap the blowhole in top. Airways exhaust sideways out the bottom into the carpet, or floor so that could be a problem in certain situations, tho it will blow the dust bunnies out to the four walls for easy detection. :-)

Yes, the FQ cone paper is definitely thinner these days and is paper as opposed to the older cellulose fibre cones. Perhaps it blocks more fine dust but the Bean Counters are not concerned about the end user's cash outlays other than they want more.

Dave's Sunday morning 19 cents.


Forum Topics & Rules Manuals & Literature	New users Click-here to sign-up

Post# 25717 12/2/2007 at 05:29 (5,987 days old) by dualsanitronic (Omaha)
Checkrate/Likes Which is preferred around here?Airway or Filter Queen ?I prefer the (old) Filter Queen's quietness and upper diffused exhaust but some Airways are more attractive and certainly cleaner with dirt disposal.BTW,has anyone noticed that FQ cones are thinner than they used to be years ago,probably so the MediPure filter gets dirty more often and thus needs changing more.Someone told me the Princess cones stayed thicker.Could someone verify any of this? Thanks alot!

Post# 25728 , Reply# 1 12/2/2007 at 09:04 (5,986 days old) by aeoliandave (Stratford Ontario Canada)
Checkrate/Likes Speaking for the vintage models I gotta say I like them both equally since both will easily pull +80" a good 20" more than an Electrolux, Fairfax, Constellation, etc. The Filter Queen has a nice solid practical un-flashy 'old timey' look that is classic and lots of fun to play with cetain gimmicky attachments. Rolls smoothly across the floor or carpet and won't tip over. No bags but easy to empty that tub. Holds LOT of dust bunnies. Heavy wands are great for bicep development as is hefting the machine itself. The Airway has that jazzy sputnik styling & lightweight aluminum casting and tools, nifty swivel hose turret, comes in bright cheerful colors, can be used on its side - all 4 sides for the 66 &77, standing upright has a smaller closet storage footprint than the FQ and originally a 10 foot hose. Because of stability it would benefit from a retrofit with Constellation or Compact stretchy hose stock if your room is large and you want to duplicate the advertising claims. Unique bags are a pleasure to install & dispose of and the long wands are lightweight for above the floor cleaning. I do wonder why neither ever incorporated a cord winder - there's plenty of room inside the case for one. In top form with all the filters & mufflers I find them both to be quiet. The Filter Queen exhausts through half an inch of felt and there's practicly no breeze (unless you uncap the blowhole in top. Airways exhaust sideways out the bottom into the carpet, or floor so that could be a problem in certain situations, tho it will blow the dust bunnies out to the four walls for easy detection. :-) Yes, the FQ cone paper is definitely thinner these days and is paper as opposed to the older cellulose fibre cones. Perhaps it blocks more fine dust but the Bean Counters are not concerned about the end user's cash outlays other than they want more. Dave's Sunday morning 19 cents.

Post# 25730 , Reply# 2 12/2/2007 at 09:24 (5,986 days old) by dualsanitronic (Omaha)
Checkrate/Likes *she's all wound up* Thanks Dave,loved your response.BTW, starting in 1966 and for many years thereafter,FQ did have an optional cordwinder!

Post# 25770 , Reply# 3 12/2/2007 at 19:04 (5,986 days old) by dualsanitronic (Omaha)
Checkrate/Likes Besides the main question of which vac is preferred,has anyone else noticed the thinned out cones of the FQ?

Post# 25779 , Reply# 4 12/2/2007 at 22:15 (5,986 days old) by hygiene903 (Galion, OH)
Checkrate/Likes *I Like Them Both!* Although I've had more experience with Filter Queens than Airways, I did get to use my Aunt's Airway 66 about 42 years ago and it did a pretty good job. I don't have an Airway in my collection yet, but I do have a Filter Queen 350. It's a nice, quiet, powerful machine that does its job well. Only wish I had the original attachment case for it. Jeff

Post# 25797 , Reply# 5 12/3/2007 at 01:19 (5,986 days old) by beerad (Beautiful Vancouver BC)
Checkrate/Likes *Filterqueen* I love my filterqueens...strong, durable, reliable, timeless. My 1978 model 700 and my 1939 special editon Canadian model 200A.(this is one of the first F/Q made, and was only available as a gift to the top F/Q salesperson of the year)

Post# 25802 , Reply# 6 12/3/2007 at 02:27 (5,986 days old) by chestermikeuk (Rainhill (Birthplace of the Railway),England, UK.)
Checkrate/Likes *Classics* Hi Brad , those vacs have a class and style of their own, timeless, what does the badge say on the 1939 model??can these be used for wet pickup as well?? Mike