Jerry provides a more complete review and more depth (based on his having experience with more satellite capable radios). I should have mentioned the FT-837R, as it was the "best" before the advent of the new HF-light radios. I traded all my components for the single radio concept when I bought the FT-847 (too soon after its introduction), but it has done very well. I am still flip-flopping on whether to sell the FT-847 as it is still good for satellite use (and 432-eme). But my station is building up around the Elecraft K3 as core so we will see.
I do question everyone's desire to have 1.2 GHz in the same box. Experienced microwavers all know that there is a lot of desirability to locate mw units near or at the antenna. This becomes a fact above 1.2 GHz where coax losses eat you up. My FT-847 operates on 2m for 1268 by using one of the (rare) DEMI 144/1268 Tx upconverters. It's not installed, at present, since repairing wind damage from last fall, I put up a reduced-saze array (still not fully functional). That unit produces 15w with about 1.5w drive on 144-MHz. It was produced for a short time during AO-40, and sales ended with AO-40's demise. I installed it on the elevation crossboom with 7-8 foot of LDF4-50 (1/2-inch) hardline to the loop-yagi. Today, one would have to purchase from db6nt (Kuhne Engineering) at higher cost (I think there might be a couple other sources for such a critter). So that gives the Icom and Kenwood radios an advantage (of sorts). But to get any reasonable RF to the antenna you will be running hardline, and if used for 1296, a remote preamp. Well, for satellites you should have remote preamps, anyway (this last advice is not directed to the hand-waving Arrow/HT crowd). There debate will continue as long as hams have radios ;-) Ed - KL7UW At 10:10 AM 5/3/2011, K5OE wrote: >I can tell already this is an old thread that >will go on for a while Money is almost never >ânot an issue,ââ 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. I >agree with Ed, the IC-9100 seems priced >outrageously for what it isreminiscent of the >IC-970H. Maybe Iâve just lost a sense for >the marketlook at the priice 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-736the FFT-847 of a previous generation). A >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 wasnât 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. Iâll end with an >echo of Deeâs comment below: spend your time >and money on the antennas, as almost any radio >will work with a good signal. 73, Jerry, K5OE >--- original message --- Having the FT-847 since >early 1998 and observing the IC-910 I would >recommend both over the TS-2000 or new IC-9100 >on basis of bucks spent. I realize both the 847 >and 910 are out of production but good used >units are available for <$900. The TS-2000 >"birdie" issue is unforgivable for the money >spent (Unless you are not interested in >satellites which the FT-857/897 would then be my >choice). The IC-9100 is outrageously expensive >and would only be a choice if you have no HF >equipment. It is still too new for a complete >opinion (for what you spend you could have top >notch transverters and a new K3*, or buy two >FT-817 with amps for a lot less). *Note: the K3 >is not able to do duplex at this time, but I >have an idea how it could by using the dual >receiver IF. My K3 with DEMI transverter is much >superior to the FT-847 on 2m, but that is only >for very weak-signal applications (satellites >are on the strong side of weak-signal if you get >my drift), and use on HF (which is not the >question that was asked). 73, Ed - KL7UW At >06:46 AM 5/3/2011, Dee wrote: >Andrew, >Being in >this end of the hobby for "many" years, I have >learned that >sometimes the choice comes down to >what you can afford. While the TS2000 is >a >nice radio, with the birdie problem, it leaves a >question. Ihave had 2 >Icom 910's for many >years and even have one of them adapted with the >1.2ghz >module. Both have worked flawless and >have been more than adequate. The >new ICOM >9100 (which you ask about) is a bit pricey for >the bands provided. >I have been following the >production of the 9100 and it has become out of >an >average hams price range. While the specs >are very good, you can achieve >the same effect >with a TS2000 - Icom 910- Yaesu 847 and even the >older icom >820 (?) - >Once again, I have always >advised sat ops to spend the money on the >antennas >and coax as this is where you'll find >the most advantage for your operation. >Good >luck and go to the AMSAT website to obtain a >truck load of info >pertaining to satellite >station construction and operating >advice. >73, >Dee, NB2F >NJ AMSAT >Coordinator > >-----Original Message----- >From: >[email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On >Behalf >Of Alvaro Gaviria >Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 >4:51 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: >[amsat-bb] Question about radios > >Hello >all, > > > >Can someone tell what is better for >satellite work, the Kenwood TS-2000X or >the >Icom IC- 9100 ?? > > > >Best >regards > > > >Andrew >HK4MKE >_______________________________________________ >Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed >are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? >Join now to support the amateur satellite >program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb 73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45 ====================================== BP40IQ 500 KHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com EME: 50-1.1kW?, 144-1.4kw, 432-100w, 1296-testing*, 3400-? DUBUS Magazine USA Rep [email protected] ====================================== _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
