RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R

To: "RTTY" <rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
From: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:22:07 -0700
List-post: <mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
Hi Joe

I agree with your statements.

I run SO2R, but it is probably SO 1/2 R the way I do it :-)

With my peanut whistle station, I'll never be in the top 10 ( or 20 or 30) 
but I still plug along because I have fun doing it.  The second radio makes 
it more fun, and I think that is why I do it.  I can't imagine doing a 
contest any more with only 1 radio, even if it is just to see what is going 
on on the other bands.  Also, it gives me something to do between 
contests-building stubs, antenna switching, etc.

I don't see why someone with a small station using 2 radios has an advantage 
than a station with stacks, etc, using 1 radio.   I think if I had my 
choice, I'd rather have the second setup, but I don't.

If we ARE going to have a separate class for SO2R, then we would have to 
divide it into SO2R expert and SO2R fumble finger to keep things 'level' . 
I think a better class would be 'SO 2-190 foot towers, 10, 15, 20, 40 stack, 
80 meter beam, 160 4-square, 1R :^)  73
Tom W7WHY





>
> The same is true with SO2R ... AA5AU has commented more than once
> that since he could not possibly have a big antenna farm, he adopted
> SO2R to allow him to compete against the guys with big antennas
> (he does might well <G>).  SO2R is in no way, nor should it be,
> a "separate class." 

_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>