TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] Ten-Tec Transceiver Survey

To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Ten-Tec Transceiver Survey
From: d.e.warnick@comcast.net
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:22:56 +0000
List-post: <tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
But there are great rigs for under $500. Back in the early 60's when we got our 
novice tickets, we went to used gear to save on cost. There were new rigs, but 
other than  Heathkit CW-only rig, they were expensive. My first rig was a used 
AT-10 and an AR-3 rcvr. Horrible by todays standard.
Today, a used Omni D or Argo is under $500. A deluxe station like a Corsair is, 
too and it will get you 5BWAS and DXCC easily.
Perhaps the standard of a 'new' rig is too high.
Dave WA3MKB

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net> 

> Geoff makes good points. I recall speaking with a very close friend, he and 
> I got our Novice tickets at the same time, some 45+ years ago now. He said 
> "Bob, in 1960 did you ever think you'd spend $3,000 for a radio?". Well in 
> 1960 I doubt that I made $3,000 the entire year. My my times have changed. 
> 
> Yes It would be nice if an entry level radio was available for say something 
> under $500. Oh it wouldn't have all the whistles and bells, certainly not 
> 160M - 6M coverage and maybe not all the modes, maybe just LSB, USB & CW. 
> And maybe available in a "semi-kit" form. 
> 
> I don't see much equipment around except old used stuff that the average 
> teenager or young adult with a family would or could afford as an entry 
> point into ham radio. And there's not much that folks are willing to pass 
> on due to the value. 
> 
> Just food for thoughts. 
> 
> 73 
> Bob, K4TAX 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" 
> To: ; "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" 
> 
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 2:48 AM 
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Ten-Tec Transceiver Survey 
> 
> 
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 09:22:53PM -1000, Ken Brown wrote: 
> >> In the questions regarding how important is 6 meters, 2 meters, 70 cm, I 
> >> was thinking about a home station transceiver, and I answered 
> >> accordingly. For a home station, I don't really want DC to daylight in 
> >> one box. 
> > 
> > Just to stir things up a bit, I really wonder if anything below 20m 
> > and CW is really needed in a low end radio these days. With many new 
> > or at least new to HF hams out there, there is IMHO a demand for 
> > a low priced radio. 
> > 
> > Anything longer in wavelength than 20m is difficult to place an antenna 
> > in a small or apartment, and making someone pay for something they think 
> > they may never use is bad business. 
> > 
> > IMHO the lower bands and CW should be cheap options, so that most people 
> > are encouraged to buy them anyway, but if someone does not know how to 
> > copy or send morse code, they would feel better if they did not have to 
> > pay for it. Nor would they want to buy bands they could not use. 
> > 
> > I'm not trying to start a code/no code debate, I'm only discussing it in 
> > relation to specifying a minimal cost/feature radio that will sell well. 
> > 
> > I often read comments by hams who are not on the air because they can't 
> > afford a radio, and I think there would be a demand for a small, low 
> > power radio, 20m-10m, USB only, with a digital readout for under $300. 
> > 
> > Many of them have never copied a single dit over the air. So they don't 
> > see the need for CW, and I'd rather they buy a radio and get on the air 
> > than try to convince them. 
> > 
> > If I had the money to buy one and could get a general coverage receiver, 
> > AM reception, the lower bands and CW, I would probably buy one with the 
> > options, but if making those optional allows the radio to sell for 
> > $100-$200 less, it's worth it, IMHO. 
> > 
> > Geoff. 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > TenTec mailing list 
> > TenTec@contesting.com 
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec 
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> TenTec mailing list 
> TenTec@contesting.com 
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec 
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec

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