[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] service

To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] service
From: Jerry Volpe <kg6tt@tomorrowsweb.com>
Reply-to: kg6tt@tomorrowsweb.com,Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:42:04 -0700
List-post: <mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
Ron Notarius wrote:

>To slighltly paraphrase an old cliche, do you want it done right, or do you
>want it done Tuesday?
I am fortunate in that having Ten-Tec gear allows me the freedom to 
perform my own repairs (when rarely needed). Unfortunately not many hams 
do that anymore. So getting our applicances 'serviced' is an inescapable 
part of ham life. I already wrote about my devistating expereince with 
Icom before. Now...

My close  friend has a Yaesu FT-1000 MP Mark V Field (whatever). It is 
somewhere between two and three years old and is on its way back to 
Yaesu service for the fourth time. Each repair takes about a month round 
trip. Each time they tell him they found the trouble and replace dozens 
of parts... each time the malfunction re-occurs. He loved this 
transceiver but this 'service' thing has rained on him too much so he is 
selling the rig once it is repaired this time. Fact is, having to have 
our 'precious' away to service is rarely a good experience. Ten-Tec, 
like all companies stay in business by watching expenses.... including 
service overhead..... and keeping a manufacturing/service company in 
business, in a small nich market like Amateur Radio,  in this country, 
for over 30 years is a miracle! Anyone remember Hallicrafters, 
Hammarlund, National, RME, Eico, Ameco, Swan, Atlas, EF Johnson, RL 
Drake, Collins, Heath?... to mention just a few.

I avoid the sting of equipment failure by having more than one of 
anything. This is also why I haven't spent 3k+ on an Orion but instead 
have bought and fixed up a number of quality/older Ten-Tec's.... and do 
the service myself.


Jerry, KG6TT

TenTec mailing list

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