BLIND-HAMS Archives

For blind ham radio operators

BLIND-HAMS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date:
Tue, 31 May 2011 11:58:06 -0230
Reply-To:
For blind ham radio operators <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Message-ID:
Sender:
For blind ham radio operators <[log in to unmask]>
From:
Michael Ryan <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (12 lines)
Come on now John! LOL play nice! LOL If Kw had trade mark protected the 450/950/2000 model #s, don't you think Yaesu would have followed that? 
Don't for get that KW had either S, SAT, DG and SG at the end of their model #s.  
I know that you don't look favourably on Yaesu but Icom does pretty much the same thing with its lower end rigs in the terms of accessibility and up until recently, Kenwood has taken the "Been there done that" attitude towards the Amateur Radio Service the way GM has done for years towards the Mussel car segment, except for the Corvette.  I think every manufacturer has made a bad rig from time to time. For me the 570 could have been better for its price when it 1ST came out. This was a 2K rig in Canada, 200 less than the IC-746 and the 746's architecture blew it away.
 Now on the other hand my TS-940SAT was one of the nicest rigs I have ever own or had the pleasure of operating except for the Yaesu FT-102 which just edged it out in receiver performance.  

73: 

Michael De VO1RYN 

. 
 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2