Sounds to me like you are in luck!
Here is a datasheet on the CX-345, which as you'll see speaks of it as if it were a 45.
I compared the spec numbers with those of a 45 that appear in a reprint of an early tube manual I have. There are a few differences, but they are EXTREMELY minor (examples: mutual conductance 2100 vs. 2050; plate resistance 1670 vs. 1700; g-p capacitance 8pf vs. 7pf).
As an antique radio collector, I have never encountered any incompatibilities between 2-digit tubes and their 200 and 300 series counterparts.
Finally, the Sibley book states that the "only important exception" to the Cunningham numbers paralleling standard industry and RCA practice was the type 373.
Good luck!
-- Al
Here is a datasheet on the CX-345, which as you'll see speaks of it as if it were a 45.
I compared the spec numbers with those of a 45 that appear in a reprint of an early tube manual I have. There are a few differences, but they are EXTREMELY minor (examples: mutual conductance 2100 vs. 2050; plate resistance 1670 vs. 1700; g-p capacitance 8pf vs. 7pf).
As an antique radio collector, I have never encountered any incompatibilities between 2-digit tubes and their 200 and 300 series counterparts.
Finally, the Sibley book states that the "only important exception" to the Cunningham numbers paralleling standard industry and RCA practice was the type 373.
Good luck!
-- Al