Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+ARRL\s+FTdx9000\s+ETR\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+ARRL\s+FTdx9000\s+ETR\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] ARRL FTdx9000 ETR (score: 1): Author: John Rippey <jrippey@3n.net>; Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 06:40:29 -0800; ". . . 'technical innovation' has certainly bloated the price of Icom and Yaesu's $10,000 flagships, but their upconversion main receiver designs inherently limits in-close cw reception performance.; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-11/msg00240.html (8,640 bytes)
2. Re: [TenTec] ARRL FTdx9000 ETR (score: 1): Author: Robert & Linda McGraw K4TAX <RMcGraw@Blomand.Net>; Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 19:38:31 -0600; Two points. Point one: As to CW performance and FCC Docket No. 05-235, 7/19/05, it does not appear that it will prohibit the use of CW on any ham band. From my viewpoint, CW will exist on the ham ban; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-11/msg00243.html (11,068 bytes)
3. [TenTec] ARRL FTdx9000 ETR (score: 1): Author: John R <W3ULS@3n.net>; Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 08:13:29 -0800; Bob: I think a lot of hams actually use rigs before deciding which ones they prefer. I am not in the category of John, W5GI, who has run through over 1,000, but I have used a bunch in the past four y; /archives//html/TenTec/2005-11/msg00248.html (7,537 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]