Anyone out there still have any of these radios in operationa? I'd like to
hear of WAV file of front-end overload. Over the years I had most of them...
can't remember having an over load problem, the antenna's were gain
antenna's as well....maybe just never got on when near by stations were
operating??? I'll bet most radios from that era had similar issues with
just a few being the exception.
Maybe this is a boat anchor discussion ;-)
73,
dave
wa3gin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
To: "Fuqua, Bill L" <wlfuqu00@uky.edu>; "WA3GIN" <wa3gin@comcast.net>;
"Robert Morris" <robrk@nidhog.net>
Cc: <amps@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Amps] FW: [Boatanchors] Best Boatanchor 160-10m Receivers
forSSB?
> I'll take a NC-300 or 303 over those others any day, its the classic look
> that counts along with excellent performance.
>
> I had a 2B in the early 60's and was very dissapointed with its poor
> overload performance, dumped it in a year. I guess they are OK on a modest
> antenna but I had a tribander at 70', a full size 40M vertical at 70' on
> top of a pine tree and an 80M dipole between the tower and tree. This was
> on a hilltop in Lexington, MA which was a Boston suburb with lots of hams.
>
> Carl
> KM1H
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fuqua, Bill L" <wlfuqu00@uky.edu>
> To: "WA3GIN" <wa3gin@comcast.net>; "Robert Morris" <robrk@nidhog.net>
> Cc: <amps@contesting.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 11:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [Amps] FW: [Boatanchors] Best Boatanchor 160-10m Receivers
> forSSB?
>
>
>> Mind you most receivers for the same era did not have 160 meters because
>> few hams were able to operate or willing to operate 160 then. For the
>> same
>> reasons linear amplifiers and transmitters did not have 160 meters.
>> If I recall the ranges available were small in bandwidth and yoiu were
>> very
>> limited in power due to LORIN system.
>> 73
>> Bill wa4lav
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: WA3GIN [wa3gin@comcast.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 11:26 PM
>> To: Robert Morris; Fuqua, Bill L
>> Cc: amps@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [Amps] FW: [Boatanchors] Best Boatanchor 160-10m Receivers
>> forSSB?
>>
>> R599 rocked on RTTY ;-) w/ 4-1000 for the T-599
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Robert Morris" <robrk@nidhog.net>
>> To: "Fuqua, Bill L" <wlfuqu00@uky.edu>
>> Cc: <amps@contesting.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 11:24 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Amps] FW: [Boatanchors] Best Boatanchor 160-10m Receivers
>> forSSB?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 4, 2011, at 11:17 PM, Fuqua, Bill L wrote:
>>>
>>> Best to lesser perferred
>>> SB300 or SB301
>>> Drake 1A or 2B equally good for SSB but the 1A does not receive AM
>>> R599 is a good one but foreign made
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> Don't think the Drakes or Heath do 160.....
>>>
>>> --
>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>>> believed to be clean.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Amps mailing list
>>> Amps@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Amps mailing list
>> Amps@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1511/3681 - Release Date: 06/04/11
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|