Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Cushcraft\s+XM\-240\s+Vs\s+Optibeam\s+40\/30\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Cushcraft XM-240 Vs Optibeam 40/30 (score: 1)
Author: "Rick Kourey (K4KL)" <rkourey@carolina.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:56:01 -0500
I read where most Tower-talkians rate the performance of the Cushcraft XM-240 very favorably. Cushcraft rates the XM-240 for only 1,500 watts. Does the lower power rating pose any kind of problem whe
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-11/msg00375.html (8,551 bytes)

2. [TowerTalk] Cushcraft XM-240 vs Optibeam 40/30 (score: 1)
Author: "Rick Kourey (K4KL)" <rkourey@carolina.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:59:48 -0500
I consistently read where most Tower-talkians rate the performance of the Cushcraft XM-240 very favorably. Cushcraft rates the XM-240 for only 1,500 watts. Does the lower power rating pose any kind o
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-11/msg00377.html (8,629 bytes)

3. [TowerTalk] Cushcraft XM-240 vs Optibeam 40/30 (score: 1)
Author: "Rick Kourey (K4KL)" <rkourey@carolina.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:03:12 -0500
I consistently read where most Tower-talkians rate the performance of the Cushcraft XM-240 very favorably. Cushcraft rates the XM-240 for only 1,500 watts. Does the lower power rating pose any kind o
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-11/msg00378.html (7,597 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu