Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+847\s+comments\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+847\s+comments\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [VHFcontesting] 847 comments (score: 1): Author: "Joshua M. Arritt" <jarritt@vt.edu>; Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 10:46:51 -0400; FB Al. Glad your 847 is a good one. Yep, it's true that there are differences between same-model rigs as they roll off the line. Perhaps the one we used was a bit flaky. And I certainly don't claim m; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-03/msg00090.html (8,663 bytes)
2. Re: [VHFcontesting] 847 comments (score: 1): Author: John Geiger <n5ten@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 07:56:43 -0700 (PDT); The QST review of the FT847 specifically mentioned how poor the receiver was under contest conditions. 73s John W5TD -- http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting ____________________; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-03/msg00091.html (9,677 bytes)
3. Re: [VHFcontesting] 847 comments (score: 1): Author: aa4zz@aol.com; Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:10:09 -0400; Bill W4GRW put the INRAD filter in his 847 and it made it a much better radio as far as stong signal performance is concerned. 73 Paul AA4ZZ --Original Message-- From: n5ten@yahoo.com To: jarritt@vt.; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-03/msg00092.html (10,493 bytes)
4. Re: [VHFcontesting] 847 comments (score: 1): Author: Ed Parish K1EP <k1ep@mgef.org>; Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:12:11 -0400; I put the Collins filter in mine. I still sold the radio at the first opportunity I had. Unless you were into satellites, I didn't feel that the radio was anywhere near contest grade. It lacked thing; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-03/msg00098.html (12,561 bytes)
5. Re: [VHFcontesting] 847 comments (score: 1): Author: "John Santillo" <u1004467@warwick.net>; Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:08:53 -0500; I'm surprised to see so many complaints about the 847. During a VHF contest a few years back we had to replace a 746pro with an 847 because the front end of the 746 couldn't take the strong 6M signal; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-03/msg00100.html (14,110 bytes)
6. Re: [VHFcontesting] 847 comments (score: 1): Author: Ray J <ray@w9ray.org>; Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 02:36:22 -0500; At our TCRA field day site over the last few years we have operated with various radios, including a ft-920, ft-847's and regular IC-746's and the 847's always seemed to be next to useless on any ope; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-03/msg00102.html (15,523 bytes)
7. Re: [VHFcontesting] 847 comments (score: 1): Author: Bob Witte K0NR <list@k0nr.com>; Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:13:16 -0600; OK, how does the Kenwood TS-2000 receiver stack up in an intensity of a contest? _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting mailing list VHFcontesting@contesting.com http://lists.c; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-03/msg00103.html (9,002 bytes)
8. Re: [VHFcontesting] 847 comments (score: 1): Author: "Nate Duehr" <nate@natetech.com>; Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:54:51 -0600; Continuing the FT-847 comments... My FT-847 was the majority of my contacts from the WY0X Rover last year... it was the primary 6m/2m/70cm rig, and performed flawlessly. The year before, we had a dea; /archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-03/msg00113.html (8,602 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]