[Amps] FCC Denies Expert Linears' Request for Waiver of 15 dB Rule

[Roger (K8RI)]

Yaesu and Icom still make 160-440 rigs.  Yaesu had the 897D W 100W HF 
and 50 MHz. I think it was 50W on 144 and 440 all modes.  I believe they 
have replaced it with a new line.

Icom had the 700. A better rig for a few hundred more.

The rigs from both companies made great mobile rigs, but they were menu 
driven with little room for panel controls.  I found the 897D to be more 
intuitive.  I still have one out in the shop that I used mobile  and 
storm chasing when both hands worked.  It hasn't been used in about 5 years.

Both still offer the same, or similar rigs.

73,  Roger (K8RI)


On 1/5/2017 10:04 AM, Manfred Mornhinweg wrote:
> Cathy, Jim, and all,
>
>> I have seen many, many online posts asking for an all-mode VHF/UHF
>> rig that doesn't include HF.  These used to be available, but have
>> disappeared.
>
> Such rigs appeared on the market at a time when there was a growing 
> swarm of active ham satellites in orbit. Yaesu brought out the three 
> band FT-726R, and shortly later the four band FT-736R. Kenwood offered 
> the three band TS-790, while Icom entered competition with the very 
> expensive three band IC-970, and then added the more affordable 
> two-band IC-820. All these radios were intended for satellite 
> operation, offering full-duplex crossband operation and crossband 
> transponder frequency tracking. The FT-726 needed an optional module 
> for this. The three latter radios also had computer control interfaces.
>
> Around 1990 it looked like amateur satellite operation was here to 
> stay, and that made many hams, including myself, buy such a radio, 
> which created the marked for these models. I bought an FT-736R, 
> complete with the optional band modules for 6 meters and 23cm, and 
> used the 6m module as an IF for a 13cm converter. This gave me fully 
> computer-controlled, multimode access to all four bands used on 
> satellites at the time.
>
> But in the later 1990s ham satellite development started to decrease, 
> being pushed aside by private and institutional Cubesats posing as ham 
> sats. The manufacturers tried to keep sales up by offering radios that 
> could sort of operate on the more basic sats, but also had HF, such as 
> the FT-847 and the TS-2000. This was in the age of warped front 
> panels, that looked like they got too close to a heater.
>
> As ham satellite activity collapsed after 2000, satellite operation 
> was no longer an important selling point, and so we came to see radios 
> that offer HF/VHF/UHF multimode coverage, but without significant 
> sat-specific functionality.
>
>> Bells and whistles are cheap, cheap, cheap.  The cost of adding them
>> is negligible because they're mostly just firmware. 
>
> Exactly.
>
>> But when you want
>> higher power, better filtering, higher frequencies, etc. -- anything
>> that could be called "performance" -- the cost rises because the cost
>> of the raw components needed rises.
>
> With SDR this changes. In many aspects the performance of SDRs can be 
> improved just by software.
>
>> The major reason why transverters are the popular option above 6M is
>>  that even most of the dedicated VHF/UHF transceivers weren't very
>> good. Anyone who works those bands seriously uses transverters with
>> very low noise preamps.
>
> The FT-736R indeed has a rather poor noise figure, but it has amply 
> sufficient dynamic range and selectivity, at least for my location. 
> And it actually makes little sense to include top notch preamplifiers 
> in an UHF radio, to give it a 0.4dB noise figure, because the coax 
> transmission line between the antenna and the radio will totally kill 
> that performance! So, the usual technique is to put that 0.4dB NF 
> preamplifier in a weathertight box and mount it at the antenna 
> feedpoint, then send the far more robust preamplified signal down the 
> line to the radio. At that level, a 7dB noise figure in the radio, or 
> even higher, is no problem. That's the design philosophy behind these 
> radios - and they feature support for such preamplifiers, having a 
> switch on the front panel that allows applying 12V power to the 
> antenna input of the currently active receiver.
>
> I have heard that some people living close to UHF radar stations had 
> trouble with the dynamic range of these radios, but this problem 
> likely affected only a few users.
>
> So, I would say that the RX performance of this radio is fine.
>
> On the other hand, I have to agree that the FT-736R wasn't very good, 
> in terms of reliability. Mine went through over 20 failures! Most of 
> them in the first years of use, later it more or less stabilized. I 
> was able to repair most of them myself, but right now there is still a 
> popcorn noise problem affecting mostly the 70cm band RX, which I 
> haven't been able to track down. This problem appeared roughly in 2003 
> or so...
>
> The local radio club has one of these too, and last time I checked, 
> nearly nothing of that radio worked. It hasn't got any maintenance in 
> over 20 years. Since there are no really usable sats, there is no 
> demand for VHF/UHF SSB operation, and the club station now uses newer 
> FM radios, while keeping the FT-736 as fancy decoration.
>
> Frankly I don't have any use for SSB on 2m and higher either. Nor for 
> UHF. I'm now using my FT-736R just to access the regional VHF 
> repeaters. What a waste! And the bulk of my activity on the air, which 
> in the 1990s was concentrated on sats and packet radio, has reverted 
> to 40m SSB ragchewing.
>
> Manfred
>
> ========================
> Visit my hobby homepage!
> http://ludens.cl
> ========================
> _______________________________________________
> Amps mailing list
> Amps at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus