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
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Butch Bussen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
For blind ham radio operators <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 28 Aug 2013 18:42:07 -0700
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (48 lines)
I don't know, but I'm no big fan of them.  I bought a 998 tuner and it 
never did work right on 160, finally quit totally.  I sent it in and 
73
Butch
WA0VJR
Node 3148
Wallace, ks.


took 4 months to get it repaired.  Their "service" sucks!!!!!  On Wed, 28 
Aug 2013, Richard Fiorello wrote:

> 	Hi;
> Thanks Mike;
> Cushcraft was what I had in mind but wonder if the subconscious was
> working.  Guess I haven't followed these mergers very closely.  I
> believe they also took over amaratron.  Wonder where the cash is coming
> from?  Any thoughts as to whether the quality deteriorated when these
> companies became part of mfj?
>
> richard
>
> On 8/28/2013 6:25 PM, Mike Duke, K5XU wrote:
>> Hmmmm.
>>
>> I think you mean Cushcraft.
>>
>> That happened 3 or 4 years ago at least.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Richard Fiorello" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 2:56 PM
>> Subject: mfj and or r9
>>
>>
>> Hi;
>> I have had to much computer time I confess.  At any rate
>> when did mfj
>> absorb witchcraft?  Anyone on this list using the r8 or r9?
>> Eham would
>> lead one to suspect that quality deteriorated when mfj took
>> over but
>> that may be just a few folks opinion.
>>
>
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2