[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] NA SPRINT CW Issues

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] NA SPRINT CW Issues
From: Hank Greeb <n8xx@arrl.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 18:28:52 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Might help to move to 2300Z start time, but 40 was LOOONNNGGGG at 
2300Z.  I lost Minnesota stations in the MNQP from SW Michigan well 
before that, and had to switch to 80 metres for the final hour to find MN.

I was pleasantly surprised to be able to work Minnesota with 5 watts on 
80 metres @ 2300Z.  Typically QRP on 80 won't hack such a path until 
much later in the evening.

72/73 de n8xx Hg
Operated as N1L in FYBO 2011,  MNQP 2011, and CW NA-Sprint Feb 2011

On 2/7/2011 3:00 PM, cqtest97@k6vva.com wrote:
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:01:11 -0800
> From: "K6VVA - Rick"<cqtest97@k6vva.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] NA SPRINT CW Issues
> To:<cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Cc: 'Steve N2IC'<n2ic@arrl.net>
>> Since this sunspot cycle just isn't going to happen, I am now open to the 
>> idea of moving the start time to 23Z.
> Whether we will be stuck in a real 'Maunder Minimum' or a derivation thereof, 
> I second N2IC's 3830 post comment.
> The horrific Digital/RTTY conflict issue on 40m still needs to be eliminated 
> from NA CW Sprint future events.
> 73.
> Rick, K6VVA * The Locust
CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>