CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] WAE QTC tactics

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WAE QTC tactics
From: Tim Shoppa <tshoppa@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:05:49 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
>From the non-EU side, I would give a batch of 10 QTC's most of the time I
was asked, UNLESS I felt I had some sort of good run going on. (Rate
peaking about 60 Q's/hour).

For the really insistent guys during slow times, I would give less than 10
if that was all I had. Usually if I had less than 10 I would just send
LATER, but... some of those guys were really insistent on QTC's!

If during a slow run I did a S&P contact who asked for QTC's, I turned that
down because I wanted to get back to my run frequency.

I did not do any QTC's on 80M although I was asked for them several times.
In those cases I knew other callers were waiting in line.

A couple times I turned down QTC opportunities because QSB on the path
seemed like it might be a problem.

I usually just sent "LATER" when turning down a QTC request.

I usually turned my CW speed up to 31-32 WPM for QTC's; on a few occasions
I turned it faster when I knew the op on the other end could handle it no
problem. On a couple cases I started off at 31-32 WPM but then had to back
down to 24-26WPM rather than give a lot of fills.

For a while Sunday afternoon I had some excess QTC's and then went and
found guys who had asked previously but I had turned down.

I am curious about how the EU stations determine who to ask for QTC's. I'm
guessing EU's are looking for loud well-keyed stations to ask for QTC's. I
note that in the 3830 results for WAE CW Monday afternoon, I see a handful
of EU stations with twice as many QTC's as QSO's, an excellent result
showing a lot of effort in asking for QTC's.

Tim N3QE
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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