[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

847/736



Message text written by "Steve O'Neal"
>I like having a play at working the Sats and like to keep things
>simple.  I suppose a lots of folks like to have to work hard at working
the
>birds, I tend to not get as much fun from the chase as I do from having a
go
>at actually working them.  But that's the way it goes for some folks and
>maybe we are not "true" to chase, but that's OK and that's the market I
>suppose the FT 847 is going for is us "duffers".  :)  Hmmm wonder what one
>of the beasts cost ? If I sold my TS 440, and by FT 736, I might be able
to
>get it past the budget minister (XYL) :).
>
>
>Respectfully Submitted for the "duffers".
>
>Cheers
>
>Steve N6CRR
<
It would seem that most people that are thinking about the 847 are moving
from the the FT-736. 
Irrespective of how good the 847 would appear to be on paper, or in reality

for those already with one. It still seems to me that Yaesu are phasing out
a good VHF radio (one that does need updating) and replacing it with one
that does not cover the band(s) the 736 did, and judging by what others are
saying, there is other important factors being left out.

There are other reasons that the 847 could be better:

I said, 
"but what happened to the VHF radio that covered 23cm? the FT-847 won't!"

"Ronald K. Long" <rlong@osu.edu> wrote:
>Maybe this is not such a big deal. Down East Microwave promises a 144 MHz
>to 1.2 GHz transmit-only converter for about $400

>Dave WB0GAZ dgf@netcom.com wrote:
>It _is_ a big deal for this reason - Yaesu has evidently CHOSEN not to put
>a transverter port on the FT847. This means you now have to deal with 50
>watts of RF to somehow get rid of when you convert from 2 meters to 1296
>(or whatever other choice microwave band you like). It's a simple, 
>inexpensive thing (a transverter port) but the designers must have decided
>they'd rather leave it out. The DEM transverter and most others take just
>a few milliwatts of RF drive; building something to pad out the excess
>power could work, but would be much more expensive than a transverter
>port, expose the transverter to high RF if it (the pad) didn't work right,
>and you would have the real potential of leakage at 2 M or wherever if
>a cable or connector wasn't quite right (you can hear a few milliwatts .of
>leakage over quite a distance on VHF/UHF bands!)
>
>So I say boooooooo to Yaesu for leaving this out.

And Robin Haighton VE3FRH/GD4INU wrote:
>If i had a choice i would opt for a transceiver with variable bandwidths
>to be able to receive digital signals using up to 100K baud (for the
>future) or perhaps spread spectrum.... the use of good converters and
>power amps at the antenna feeding or fed by a good 2M and 70cm
>transceiver seems far more preferable than having these frequencies on
>the rig.
>I have a 736 with 23 cms and I have ordered the 847 - I expect to use
>both on P3D. (not  at the same time!!!).
>73 de Robin Haighton VE3FRH/GD4INU

Yaesu make excellent rigs, i dont dispute that. It just seems that the 847
is getting "Hyped" up, yet  it could have been so much better.

Regards to all. 73 de Andy GD0TEP



AMSAT Top AMSAT Home