Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+RTTY\s+Pileups\s+AFC\s+or\s+RIT\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+RTTY\s+Pileups\s+AFC\s+or\s+RIT\?\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] RTTY Pileups AFC or RIT? (score: 1): Author: "Dave Hachadorian" <K6LL@ARRL.net>; Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:25:40 -0500; I had occasion to get on for the last 45 minutes of the BARTG contest with a new callsign (K7ABC). The new callsign generated a sizeable pileup and it was a lot of fun. I had AFC OFF and was manually; /archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00224.html (7,326 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Pileups AFC or RIT? (score: 1): Author: "Ed Muns" <w0yk@msn.com>; Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:40:41 -0700; My experience has been that very narrow filtering and RIT is more effective in pileups. Of course this is anecdotal because it is hard to run a true A/B comparison at the same time. The comparison i; /archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00225.html (7,548 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] RTTY Pileups AFC or RIT? (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>; Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:16:39 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- If you are using MMTTY, I would recommend using AFC and let MMTTY sort them out. MMTTY will tend to latch on to the strongest signal and it's best to work the st; /archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00235.html (7,736 bytes)
4. [RTTY] RTTY Pileups AFC or RIT? (score: 1): Author: "Robert Chudek - K0RC" <k0rc@citlink.net>; Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:36:41 -0500; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- W6WRT REPLY FOLLOWS -- If you are using MMTTY, I would recommend using AFC and let MMTTY sort them out. MMTTY will tend to latch on to the strongest signal and it's best to work; /archives//html/RTTY/2008-03/msg00250.html (8,531 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]