| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 03.05.11 21:03l 299 Lines 11675 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB6255
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V6 255
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<DB0RES<ON0AR<HS1LMV<CX2SA
Sent: 110503/1902Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:3253 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB6255
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. SO-67 (Kevin Deane)
2. Re: Question about radios (K5OE)
3. Re: Question about radios (John Geiger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 10:56:47 -0700
From: Kevin Deane <summit496@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] SO-67
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <col107-w38662AF723758B4D96DB6A839E0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Another souless pass.... Very dissapointing. :(
Kevin
KF7MYK
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 14:10:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: K5OE <k5oe@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Question about radios
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <8CDD7D48BAC6DB3-10AC-1361F@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxx.xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I can tell already this is an old thread that will go on for a while?
Money is almost never ?not an issue,? so fitting the radio to the user is
always a matter of preferences and priorities. If you want HF + satellite
in one rig, the TS-2000 and the FT-847 work, but not the IC-910. If you
want 23 cm in the rig, the TS-2000 and the IC-910 work, but not the FT-847.
If you want to power your preamp(s) without any external wiring, the FT-847
and IC-910 work, but not the TS-2000. If you want a built-in antenna tuner
(HF), or a built-in TNC, or built-in voice recorder, then only the TS-2000
works. If you want lots of 3rd party software, then the FT-847 is your best
bet.
I agree with Ed, the IC-9100 seems priced outrageously for what it
is?reminiscent of the IC-970H. Maybe I?ve just lost a sense for the
market?look at the price of new cars! For a strictly satellite rig, an
IC-821H is still a very good radio selling for half the price of a used
IC-910 (and just a bit more than a FT-736?the FT-847 of a previous
generation).
A decade ago I bought a TS-2000 for a number of reasons, including the
ability to work the HF satellites (RS-12/13 and AO-7) in one rig. I sold an
FT-990 and an IC-820 and had money left over. I still consider it really
good value. While I have never liked the controls as well as my Yaesu HF
rig(s), I came to really appreciate the DSP functions and the CW features
and had great fun with the TNC on the ISS, pacsats (especially UO-22, RIP),
and APRS. I added 1.2 GHz when AO-40 was launched. I scored higher in HF
contests with it than I ever had with the non-DSP Yaesu rig. I wasn?t
bothered (too much) by the infamous birdie because I could tune around it
with the combination of a high-gain UHF antenna and a preamp, but do
consider it a fatal flaw to anyone considering the radio for use on AO-27 or
SO-50 with a low-gain antenna system.
I?ll end with an echo of Dee?s comment below: spend your time and money on
the antennas, as almost any radio will work with a good signal.
73,
Jerry, K5OE
--- original message ---
Having the FT-847 since early 1998 and observing the IC-910 I would
recommend both over the TS-2000 or new IC-9100 on basis of bucks
spent. I realize both the 847 and 910 are out of production but good
used units are available for <$900.
The TS-2000 "birdie" issue is unforgivable for the money spent
(Unless you are not interested in satellites which the FT-857/897
would then be my choice). The IC-9100 is outrageously expensive and
would only be a choice if you have no HF equipment. It is still too
new for a complete opinion (for what you spend you could have top
notch transverters and a new K3*, or buy two FT-817 with amps for a lot less).
*Note: the K3 is not able to do duplex at this time, but I have an
idea how it could by using the dual receiver IF.
My K3 with DEMI transverter is much superior to the FT-847 on 2m, but
that is only for very weak-signal applications (satellites are on the
strong side of weak-signal if you get my drift), and use on HF (which
is not the question that was asked).
73, Ed - KL7UW
At 06:46 AM 5/3/2011, Dee wrote:
>Andrew,
>Being in this end of the hobby for "many" years, I have learned that
>sometimes the choice comes down to what you can afford. While the TS2000 is
>a nice radio, with the birdie problem, it leaves a question. Ihave had 2
>Icom 910's for many years and even have one of them adapted with the 1.2ghz
>module. Both have worked flawless and have been more than adequate. The
>new ICOM 9100 (which you ask about) is a bit pricey for the bands provided.
>I have been following the production of the 9100 and it has become out of an
>average hams price range. While the specs are very good, you can achieve
>the same effect with a TS2000 - Icom 910- Yaesu 847 and even the older icom
>820 (?) -
>Once again, I have always advised sat ops to spend the money on the antennas
>and coax as this is where you'll find the most advantage for your operation.
>Good luck and go to the AMSAT website to obtain a truck load of info
>pertaining to satellite station construction and operating advice.
>73,
>Dee, NB2F
>NJ AMSAT Coordinator
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
>Behalf Of Alvaro Gaviria
>Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 4:51 PM
>To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
>Subject: [amsat-bb] Question about radios
>
>Hello all,
>
>
>
>Can someone tell what is better for satellite work, the Kenwood TS-2000X or
>the Icom IC- 9100 ??
>
>
>
>Best regards
>
>
>
>Andrew
>HK4MKE
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 13:38:05 -0500
From: John Geiger <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Question about radios
To: K5OE <k5oe@xxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <BANLkTimL-RS_6ZJF=S-c_EO0f+2U+d6wpQ@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
The Icom 9100 isn't overpriced at all considering all it does. If all you
want to use it for is the satellites, there are cheaper alternatives.
However, it also does true dual receive on HF (something the Yaesu FTDX5000
and Icom 7600 don't do), it has the roofing filter options for increased
HF/6m performance, plus several other nice features. If you want a good,
high performing HF/VHF/UHF rig, it is a great bargain.
73s John AA5JG
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:10 PM, K5OE <k5oe@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> I can tell already this is an old thread that will go on for a while?
>
> Money is almost never ?not an issue,? so fitting the radio to the user is
> always a matter of preferences and priorities. If you want HF + satellite
> in one rig, the TS-2000 and the FT-847 work, but not the IC-910. If you
> want 23 cm in the rig, the TS-2000 and the IC-910 work, but not the FT-847.
> If you want to power your preamp(s) without any external wiring, the FT-847
> and IC-910 work, but not the TS-2000. If you want a built-in antenna tuner
> (HF), or a built-in TNC, or built-in voice recorder, then only the TS-2000
> works. If you want lots of 3rd party software, then the FT-847 is your best
> bet.
>
> I agree with Ed, the IC-9100 seems priced outrageously for what it
> is?reminiscent of the IC-970H. Maybe I?ve just lost a sense for the
> market?look at the price of new cars! For a strictly satellite rig, an
> IC-821H is still a very good radio selling for half the price of a used
> IC-910 (and just a bit more than a FT-736?the FT-847 of a previous
> generation).
>
> A decade ago I bought a TS-2000 for a number of reasons, including the
> ability to work the HF satellites (RS-12/13 and AO-7) in one rig. I sold an
> FT-990 and an IC-820 and had money left over. I still consider it really
> good value. While I have never liked the controls as well as my Yaesu HF
> rig(s), I came to really appreciate the DSP functions and the CW features
> and had great fun with the TNC on the ISS, pacsats (especially UO-22, RIP),
> and APRS. I added 1.2 GHz when AO-40 was launched. I scored higher in HF
> contests with it than I ever had with the non-DSP Yaesu rig. I wasn?t
> bothered (too much) by the infamous birdie because I could tune around it
> with the combination of a high-gain UHF antenna and a preamp, but do
> consider it a fatal flaw to anyone considering the radio for use on AO-27 or
> SO-50 with a low-gain antenna system.
>
> I?ll end with an echo of Dee?s comment below: spend your time and money on
> the antennas, as almost any radio will work with a good signal.
>
> 73,
> Jerry, K5OE
>
> --- original message ---
> Having the FT-847 since early 1998 and observing the IC-910 I would
> recommend both over the TS-2000 or new IC-9100 on basis of bucks
> spent. I realize both the 847 and 910 are out of production but good
> used units are available for <$900.
>
> The TS-2000 "birdie" issue is unforgivable for the money spent
> (Unless you are not interested in satellites which the FT-857/897
> would then be my choice). The IC-9100 is outrageously expensive and
> would only be a choice if you have no HF equipment. It is still too
> new for a complete opinion (for what you spend you could have top
> notch transverters and a new K3*, or buy two FT-817 with amps for a lot
> less).
>
> *Note: the K3 is not able to do duplex at this time, but I have an
> idea how it could by using the dual receiver IF.
> My K3 with DEMI transverter is much superior to the FT-847 on 2m, but
> that is only for very weak-signal applications (satellites are on the
> strong side of weak-signal if you get my drift), and use on HF (which
> is not the question that was asked).
>
> 73, Ed - KL7UW
>
>
> At 06:46 AM 5/3/2011, Dee wrote:
> >Andrew,
> >Being in this end of the hobby for "many" years, I have learned that
> >sometimes the choice comes down to what you can afford. While the TS2000
> is
> >a nice radio, with the birdie problem, it leaves a question. Ihave had 2
> >Icom 910's for many years and even have one of them adapted with the
> 1.2ghz
> >module. Both have worked flawless and have been more than adequate. The
> >new ICOM 9100 (which you ask about) is a bit pricey for the bands
> provided.
> >I have been following the production of the 9100 and it has become out of
> an
> >average hams price range. While the specs are very good, you can achieve
> >the same effect with a TS2000 - Icom 910- Yaesu 847 and even the older
> icom
> >820 (?) -
> >Once again, I have always advised sat ops to spend the money on the
> antennas
> >and coax as this is where you'll find the most advantage for your
> operation.
> >Good luck and go to the AMSAT website to obtain a truck load of info
> >pertaining to satellite station construction and operating advice.
> >73,
> >Dee, NB2F
> >NJ AMSAT Coordinator
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
> >Behalf Of Alvaro Gaviria
> >Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 4:51 PM
> >To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> >Subject: [amsat-bb] Question about radios
> >
> >Hello all,
> >
> >
> >
> >Can someone tell what is better for satellite work, the Kenwood TS-2000X
> or
> >the Icom IC- 9100 ??
> >
> >
> >
> >Best regards
> >
> >
> >
> >Andrew
> >HK4MKE
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Sent via amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
End of AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 6, Issue 255
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
