Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+W1AW\s+portables\s+on\s+JT65\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+W1AW\s+portables\s+on\s+JT65\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] W1AW portables on JT65 (score: 1): Author: "Don Hill AA5AU" <aa5au@bellsouth.net>; Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 22:25:05 -0500; Since this is the "RTTY" reflector, I think I already know what kind of answers I'll get with this one, but here goes. I'm going to be operating W1AW/5 next week and will be doing a lot of RTTY. My t; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-05/msg00194.html (7,557 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] W1AW portables on JT65 (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 21:50:11 -0600; We just finished with Colorado. I would say it would depend on the band and how many ops you have doing digital. I don't have our final numbers but I could have worked lots more on RTTY. I personally; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-05/msg00195.html (8,135 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] W1AW portables on JT65 (score: 1): Author: "Ron Kolarik" <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>; Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 23:10:15 -0500; We made a few JT65 contacts for the Nebraska operation. If band conditions are marginal in your time slot it may be worth a try. I had no trouble getting pileups except on 160m and I think that was b; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-05/msg00196.html (8,833 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] W1AW portables on JT65 (score: 1): Author: "Ed Muns" <ed@w0yk.com>; Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 21:49:12 -0700; I don't think JT65 makes sense unless the RTTY rate drops way off. OTOH, there is typically more JT65 on 160m than RTTY. I recall that you don't have a 160m antenna, but with JT65 you may be surprise; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-05/msg00197.html (8,186 bytes)
5. Re: [RTTY] W1AW portables on JT65 (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 07:49:08 -0600; I have been working the W1/W2 stations with my 80m dipole and 500 watts. The lowbands are going to be much more challenging now that we are seeing summer conditions. Mike W0MU Ed W0YK Since this is t; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-05/msg00198.html (8,818 bytes)
6. Re: [RTTY] W1AW portables on JT65 (score: 1): Author: Tom Osborne <w7why@frontier.com>; Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 11:46:49 -0700; HI Don If things get slow, you might try it on a dead band, like 6 or 10 meters. Might be an interesting test. 73 Tom W7WHY I'm going to be operating W1AW/5 next week and will be doing a lot of RTTY.; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-05/msg00201.html (8,516 bytes)
7. Re: [RTTY] W1AW portables on JT65 (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 17:05:29 -0600; On 160.............. Mike W0MU Mike W0MU On 5/28/2014 10:49 PM, Ed Muns wrote: I don't think JT65 makes sense unless the RTTY rate drops way off. OTOH, there is typically more JT65 on 160m than RTTY.; /archives//html/RTTY/2014-05/msg00202.html (10,073 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]