[amsat-bb] Re: Question about radios

Tue May 3 16:06:46 PDT 2011

Ed, et al,

It would be interesting to include the new generation SDR's, (FLEX RADIO's,)
in comparison to the radio's mentioned. Just a thought. Commends anyone?

Peter, NH6VB

> Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 11:17:57 -0800
> To: k5oe at aol.com; amsat-bb at amsat.org
> From: kl7uw at acsalaska.net
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Question about radios
> 
> Jerry provides a more complete review and more 
> depth (based on his having experience with more 
> satellite capable radios). I should have 
> mentioned the FT-837R, as it was the "best" 
> before the advent of the new HF-light radios. I 
> traded all my components for the single radio 
> concept when I bought the FT-847 (too soon after 
> its introduction), but it has done very well. I 
> am still flip-flopping on whether to sell the 
> FT-847 as it is still good for satellite use (and 
> 432-eme). But my station is building up around 
> the Elecraft K3 as core so we will see.
> 
> I do question everyone's desire to have 1.2 GHz 
> in the same box. Experienced microwavers all 
> know that there is a lot of desirability to 
> locate mw units near or at the antenna. This 
> becomes a fact above 1.2 GHz where coax losses 
> eat you up. My FT-847 operates on 2m for 1268 by 
> using one of the (rare) DEMI 144/1268 Tx 
> upconverters. It's not installed, at present, 
> since repairing wind damage from last fall, I put 
> up a reduced-saze array (still not fully 
> functional). That unit produces 15w with about 
> 1.5w drive on 144-MHz. It was produced for a 
> short time during AO-40, and sales ended with 
> AO-40's demise. I installed it on the elevation 
> crossboom with 7-8 foot of LDF4-50 (1/2-inch) hardline to the loop-yagi.
> 
> Today, one would have to purchase from db6nt 
> (Kuhne Engineering) at higher cost (I think there 
> might be a couple other sources for such a 
> critter). So that gives the Icom and Kenwood 
> radios an advantage (of sorts). But to get any 
> reasonable RF to the antenna you will be running 
> hardline, and if used for 1296, a remote 
> preamp. Well, for satellites you should have 
> remote preamps, anyway (this last advice is not 
> directed to the hand-waving Arrow/HT crowd).
> 
> There debate will continue as long as hams have radios ;-)
> 
> Ed - KL7UW
> 
> At 10:10 AM 5/3/2011, K5OE wrote:
> >I can tell already this is an old thread that 
> >will go on for a while… Money is almost never 
> >â€œnot an issue,ââ€ 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 Iâ€™ve just lost a sense for 
> >the market—look at the priice 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 FFT-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 wasnâ€™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. Iâ€™ll end with an 
> >echo of Deeâ€™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 at amsat.org 
> >[mailto:amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org] On >Behalf 
> >Of Alvaro Gaviria >Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 
> >4:51 PM >To: amsat-bb at amsat.org >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 at amsat.org. 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
> 
> 
> 73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45
> ======================================
> BP40IQ 500 KHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com
> EME: 50-1.1kW?, 144-1.4kw, 432-100w, 1296-testing*, 3400-?
> DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubususa at hotmail.com
> ======================================
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. 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