[VHFcontesting] Transverters (was: Icom IC-9700 Release Date)

[Sean Waite]

The K1SIG rover uses transverters on everything but 6,2 and 70. Depending
on the configuration for the particular contest, we have an IC-746, IC-910,
IC-7000 and a TS-590 pulling duty on the native bands. One of those cheapo
Ukrainian transverters on 222, previously with an HTX100 as IF but next
time will be an FT-818. We've got SG Labs transverters on 33,23 and 13cm,
and if I actually get the rest of the pieces I need I have a homebrew (not
my homebrew, purchased homebrew) transverter on 5 gig and a DEMI 10 gig
module. We had been using a FT290rII and an FT790rII as IFs on the
microwaves, but will be moving to an FT817.

I've debated getting the 1.2 module for the 910. For the price I'll
probably end up with the SG Labs amp, 25W vs 10W and half the price. I see
one on ebay at the moment for $750, which is 3/4 what I paid for the radio
itself. The IC-9100 and IC-9700 are both out of my price range for now.

73, Sean WA1TE

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:05 AM <aduhawk at comcast.net> wrote:

> We started roving seriously 20+ years ago using Xvrtrs for 222, 900, 1.2
> and 2304. We used 706MKii and an IC820 which doubled as an IF for 1.2 and
> the primary for 432. We have TE Systems higher power amps for the bottom
> four.  There are beams for all bands.  There are two of us in the vehicle
> (K9ILT shotgun) and our weekend gear.
>
> The release of the TS2000X simplified life dramatically.  It became the
> primary rig for 6, 2, 432 and 1.2.  The 706 became the IF for 900 and 2304
> (with an attenuator).  The second SO239 for HF became the IF port for 222.
> The remote head meant that we had control of everything right in front of
> us.
>
> When the Limited Rover Class was introduced we simplified further, giving
> up 2304, where we had little success.  We now run the bottom four bands
> using the TS2K and our amps for VHF contests and for the UHF Contest we use
> the 2 meter output as the IF for 900.  We may go to a higher power xvrtr
> from DEMI for 900.
>
> I understand the the 9100 is large and heavy, so while we were initially
> interested, the lack of a remote head kept us away.  We do have a 7300,
> which is nice for home use and are planning to pick up a 9700 for home use
> as well.  With the TS2K being discontinued we may pick up a spare if the
> close out price is attractive enough.
>
> The Kenwood resides in the Rovermobile where we use it one in a while for
> portable ops on HF.  I prefer the performance of transverters but
> sometimes, the complexity of cables and power connections increases the
> ceiling of complexity to the point where the fun gets diminished.
>
> 73, Tim K0PG and Pat, K9ILT
> The Rovairs Extraordinaires
> > On December 16, 2018 at 6:48 PM Patrick Thomas <p-thomas at mindspring.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > To be fair, the stock 9100 covers 12 bands over two decades of RF.  I
> have to admit I share some disappointment that 222 (and 33cm while we're
> dreaming) can't be included in a $1500-$2000 dedicated V/U radio.  I guess
> Big Radio is in league with the transverter industry!
> >
> > Speaking of which... let me fork this thread off on a related topic...
> how many people here use a rig with native VHF/UHF coverage of 144/432/1296
> for weak signal work, as opposed to off-board transverters?  I'm not
> holding my breath on direct conversion UHF radios, so frequency conversion
> has to happen somewhere, right?  But I can see either philosophy: 1) the
> radio manufacturer gets the best prices, an army of engineers, and knows
> their system the best... or 2) the transverter people aren't constrained by
> cost vs. mass market appeal, physical space, etc.
> >
> > Patrick
> > KB8DGC
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > >Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 11:32:10 -0600
> > >From: Peter Laws <plaws0 at gmail.com>
> > >To: VHF Contesting <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
> > >Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Icom IC-9700 Release Date
> > >
> > >On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 9:47 PM N6Ze via VHFcontesting
> > ><vhfcontesting at contesting.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> And 135 cm (222-225mhz )?? Hahaha
> > >
> > >Icom finally decides to put L-band in as the default (meaning no need
> > >to leave room for and then design a removable module as on previous
> > >radios) and ... people complain because there is no 222 MHz band.
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > VHFcontesting mailing list
> > VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
-- 

Sent from my Motorola DynaTAC 8000X