- 1. [TowerTalk] Re another w51 (score: 1)
- Author: southbound suarez <southboundsuarez@hotmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 10:57:31 +0000
- Yes, I have studied the Tashjian website and have even spoke with a representative on the phone. Unfortinately their online and openly published documentation in my opinion quite vaugue and incomplet
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2017-06/msg00055.html (9,923 bytes)
- 2. Re: [TowerTalk] Re another w51 (score: 1)
- Author: Clay Autery <cautery@montac.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 08:23:53 -0500
- Sir, as respectfully as I can.... IF you are going to ignore our repeated and unanimous? recommendations, then please do us the courtesy of NOT lecturing us about it. Or at least write the lecture be
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2017-06/msg00056.html (11,862 bytes)
- 3. Re: [TowerTalk] Re another w51 (score: 1)
- Author: Skip via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:28:55 -0700
- I have a W-51 for sale on my web site if anyones interested. Skip, KJ6Y 818-522-5421 cell Communications Service Co Sent from my iPad s _______________________________________________ _______________
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2017-06/msg00057.html (12,811 bytes)
- 4. Re: [TowerTalk] Re another w51 (score: 1)
- Author: "Don W7WLL" <w7wll@arrl.net>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 10:12:39 -0700
- While I suspect there is no confusion in the ongoing current banter about the Tri-Ex W-51, it might be well to remind all that the W-51, as I recollect, differs structurally from the later WT-51 (one
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2017-06/msg00065.html (14,198 bytes)
- 5. [TowerTalk] Re another w51 (score: 1)
- Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>
- Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 09:32:09 -0700
- <While I suspect there is no confusion in the ongoing current banter about <the Tri-Ex W-51, it might be well to remind all that the W-51, as I recollect, differs structurally from the later WT-51 (o
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2017-06/msg00069.html (9,002 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu