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@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@gmail.com>
> >To: VHF Contesting <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> >Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Icom IC-9700 Release Date
> >
> >On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 9:47 PM N6Ze via VHFcontesting
> ><vhfcontesting@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@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|