Email Detail

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/6U55KJ73USQZEZQOVR5CNFYYVVZHXGJN/",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "6U55KJ73USQZEZQOVR5CNFYYVVZHXGJN",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/6U55KJ73USQZEZQOVR5CNFYYVVZHXGJN/",
    "sender": {
        "address": "k5oe (a) aol.com",
        "mailman_id": "aee3209b1433498d8db2ef6ec0d414c3",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/aee3209b1433498d8db2ef6ec0d414c3/emails/"
    },
    "sender_name": "K5OE",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: Question about radios",
    "date": "2011-05-03T18:10:40Z",
    "parent": null,
    "children": [
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/WZDLIBCSNASJ3YGJB2OF44L57KGLV7AQ/"
    ],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "\nI can tell already this is an old thread that will go on for a while…\n \nMoney is almost never “not an issue,” so fitting the radio to the user is always a matter of preferences and priorities.  If you want HF + satellite in one rig, the TS-2000 and the FT-847 work, but not the IC-910.  If you want 23 cm in the rig, the TS-2000 and the IC-910 work, but not the FT-847.  If you want to power your preamp(s) without any external wiring, the FT-847 and IC-910 work, but not the TS-2000.  If you want a built-in antenna tuner (HF), or a built-in TNC, or built-in voice recorder, then only the TS-2000 works.  If you want lots of 3rd party software, then the FT-847 is your best bet.  \n \nI agree with Ed, the IC-9100 seems priced outrageously for what it is—reminiscent of the IC-970H.  Maybe I’ve just lost a sense for the market—look at the price of new cars!  For a strictly satellite rig, an IC-821H is still a very good radio selling for half the price of a used IC-910 (and just a bit more than a FT-736—the FT-847 of a previous generation).  \n \nA decade ago I bought a TS-2000 for a number of reasons, including the ability to work the HF satellites (RS-12/13 and AO-7) in one rig.  I sold an FT-990 and an IC-820 and had money left over.  I still consider it really good value.  While I have never liked the controls as well as my Yaesu HF rig(s), I came to really appreciate the DSP functions and the CW features and had great fun with the TNC on the ISS, pacsats (especially UO-22, RIP), and APRS.  I added 1.2 GHz when AO-40 was launched.  I scored higher in HF contests with it than I ever had with the non-DSP Yaesu rig.  I wasn’t bothered (too much) by the infamous birdie because I could tune around it with the combination of a high-gain UHF antenna and a preamp, but do consider it a fatal flaw to anyone considering the radio for use on AO-27 or SO-50 with a low-gain antenna system.  \n \nI’ll end with an echo of Dee’s comment below:  spend your time and money on the antennas, as almost any radio will work with a good signal.\n \n73,\nJerry, K5OE\n \n--- original message ---\nHaving the FT-847 since early 1998 and observing the IC-910 I would \nrecommend both over the TS-2000 or new IC-9100 on basis of bucks \nspent.  I realize both the 847 and 910 are out of production but good \nused units are available for <$900.\n \nThe TS-2000 \"birdie\" issue is unforgivable for the money spent \n(Unless you are not interested in satellites which the FT-857/897 \nwould then be my choice).  The IC-9100 is outrageously expensive and \nwould only be a choice if you have no HF equipment.  It is still too \nnew for a complete opinion (for what you spend you could have top \nnotch transverters and a new K3*, or buy two FT-817 with amps for a lot less).\n \n*Note: the K3 is not able to do duplex at this time, but I have an \nidea how it could by using the dual receiver IF.\nMy K3 with DEMI transverter is much superior to the FT-847 on 2m, but \nthat is only for very weak-signal applications (satellites are on the \nstrong side of weak-signal if you get my drift), and use on HF (which \nis not the question that was asked).\n \n73, Ed - KL7UW\n \n \nAt 06:46 AM 5/3/2011, Dee wrote:\n>Andrew,\n>Being in this end of the hobby for \"many\" years, I have learned that\n>sometimes the choice comes down to what you can afford.  While the TS2000 is\n>a nice radio, with the birdie problem, it leaves a question.  Ihave had 2\n>Icom 910's for many years and even have one of them adapted with the 1.2ghz\n>module.  Both have worked flawless and have been more than adequate.  The\n>new ICOM 9100 (which you ask about) is a bit pricey for the bands provided.\n>I have been following the production of the 9100 and it has become out of an\n>average hams price range.  While the specs are very good, you can achieve\n>the same effect with a TS2000 - Icom 910- Yaesu 847 and even the older icom\n>820 (?) -\n>Once again, I have always advised sat ops to spend the money on the antennas\n>and coax as this is where you'll find the most advantage for your operation.\n>Good luck and go to the AMSAT website to obtain a truck load of info\n>pertaining to satellite station construction and operating advice.\n>73,\n>Dee, NB2F\n>NJ AMSAT Coordinator\n> \n>-----Original Message-----\n>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On\n>Behalf Of Alvaro Gaviria\n>Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 4:51 PM\n>To: [email protected]\n>Subject: [amsat-bb] Question about radios\n> \n>Hello all,\n> \n> \n> \n>Can someone tell what is better for satellite work, the Kenwood TS-2000X or\n>the Icom IC- 9100 ??\n> \n> \n> \n>Best regards\n> \n> \n> \n>Andrew\n>HK4MKE\n \n",
    "attachments": []
}