[TenTec] The Eagle inflation costs, etc.

[Pumbaa]

Kevin, don't you think a lot of expensive radios have been "paid for" using 
plastic money like Visa.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kevin Anderson" <k9iua at yahoo.com>
To: <tentec at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] The Eagle inflation costs, etc.


>I didn't mean any disrespect for the Eagle in my post of a few days ago. 
>And I appreciate Jack noticing my post and specifically replying to it.
>
> I personally would buy an Eagle if I could afford it (and would have 
> bought the Argo V earlier if I could have afforded it then, as I am mainly 
> a QRP operator).  I'm partial to the wider and not so tall format of the 
> Scout, Argo V, and Eagle.  I much prefer their smaller size and 
> proportions to the format and size of the Jupiter, Orion, and Omni VI (and 
> before that the Paragon II, Omni V, and Omni VI), as I've long considered 
> them too boxy and large for my shack.  Before I got my two Scouts, I used 
> to own an Argosy II and Century 22, which again share more similarities to 
> my preferences.  I parted with those two older radios mainly because I 
> grew tired of having to rebuild PTOs and wanted someone else to enjoy 
> those radios while they had the chance.  And the PTO limitations of the 
> older Corsair, early Omnis and Tritons, is why I wouldn't personally buy 
> one for myself, regardless of how good they are.  While the Scout has a 
> PTO (the last of the Ten-Tec
> PTO radios), it is a much different PTO design and one not requiring 
> rebuilding.  My only beef with the Scout, besides the module-based band 
> switching, is that I wish the RIT covered +/- 6 khz, instead of its very 
> limiting 1.4 or so, because then I might be able to work a bit more DX in 
> pileup situations; right now I'm basically out of luck for thinking about 
> working DXpeditions and sought-after DX.  Otherwise, for its cost, the 
> Scout was/is a decent, solid, dependable, usable radio.
>
> I don't doubt that a cheaper or more bare-bones radio is not good in 
> serious contesting situations.  I wouldn't want that either.  My limited 
> experience operating at club field days and some other multi-multi 
> situations is that Ten Tec and maybe Kenwood work well, with Icom 
> generally being the worst and Yaesu being somewhere in between, at 
> tolerating station-to-station interference.
>
> And I don't deny Jack's business assessment that even Ten-Tec couldn't 
> produce a Scout today, let alone a multi-band version of such a low-end 
> radio, at an affordable (to me) price.  When I look at what an Elecraft K2 
> costs new, $699 for just the 10-watt CW-only version, which is for the 
> kit, with assembly still required, there is no way I can expect Ten-Tec to 
> do that or less with an assembled radio.  Nor is it fair to ask them to. 
> But I want them to stay in business, so I have the option of buying a 
> well-built radio made here in the States, and more importantly still being 
> able to get older radios repaired.
>
> And so I will still watch the Eagle with interest, and hope that it does 
> get bought and become successful for Ten-Tec, as at least then I might be 
> able to buy a used one in six to ten years time (as I still hope someday I 
> might upgrade to an Argo V).
>
> But in the meantime I still also sit back in amazement at how much radio 
> buying you guys do, and the prices you can afford to pay, as I know there 
> is no way my wife and I can ever justify it (and we are in our early 
> 50s) -- to us, a non-essential purchase such as a transceiver at even 
> $1,000 (or even a K2 kit for $699) is well beyond our scope of 
> consideration.  Obviously you guys earn a lot more than I do, or have a 
> way different set of priorities than my family.  I'm not disappointed --  
> just amazed.
>
> And speaking of Tritons of old now costing thousands today if bought new - 
> there is now way I could have afforded to become a ham then (or now) if 
> that is what it cost to get into the hobby.  The only way I figure people 
> were able to do it then is that we/they didn't have nearly the range of 
> necessary expenses, at least in proportion to income.  Despite the 
> advances in some areas economically, it does cost a whole lot more today 
> proportionally to live, and with it our expectations on equipment 
> performance, etc.
>
> Cheers/73,
> Kevin, K9IUA
>
> -- 
> -------------------------------------
> Kevin Anderson, Dubuque IA USA, K9IUA
> k9iua (at) yahoo (dot) com
> -------------------------------------