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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Cushcraft\s+Antennas\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Cushcraft Antennas (score: 1): Author: n8br@buckeye-express.com (William L. Bischoff); Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:06:49 -0800; I agree whole heartedly with K3LR's comments. I've owned several Cushcraft tribanders and two versions of their 40 meter beam. All have performed up to specs and held up well. Furthermore, I've had g; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00448.html (7,319 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] Cushcraft Antennas (score: 1): Author: w4zw@home.com (Jon, W4ZW); Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 09:04:41 -0500; You can add W4ZW to the list of satisfied Cushcraft customers. I've had quite a few of their beams and verticals and have always had good performance, and in this day and time satisfactory service fr; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00451.html (8,408 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] Cushcraft Antennas (score: 1): Author: thorh@worldnet.att.net" <thorh@worldnet.att.net (Thor Hallen); Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 07:02:43 -0800; Both sides of this controversy may have valid points. Cushcraft apparently tried to provide good support to hams in the past but was bought out a few years ago by new management that is arrogant and; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-02/msg00454.html (7,544 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]