Thanks for reminding us old 220 FM types of this newsletter. I had totally 
forgotten about it. It was invaluable to me back in the 1979 when I was 
building my very first repeater. I had already ordered a Spec. Comm. RX and TX 
and, of course, that was my first mistake. The newsletter really showed me the 
way to put together a quick 220 repeater using the Midlands/Cleggs and to this 
date, I still have a number of the transceivers and even a repeater with split 
RX and TX boards from an old brown face Midland around. There never was a 
better receiver built, bar none, for 220.  I have since changed out my 
Midland/Clegg repeaters with Maggiores, but they still hold fond memories of my 
first taste into the world of repeaters.

Have these newsletters ever been put on computer media or do they only exist as 
the old paper copies?

Roger W5RD --Murphy, Texas
224.18 Dallas
223.82 Murphy
927.1125 Dallas
927.0750 Murphy


---- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joe 
  To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 3:57 PM
  Subject: [Repeater-Builder] 220 Notes, Remember this old newsletter?


  I probably have most of the 220 Notes that were published. This 
  newsletter was Established in 1977 to promote the use of the 220Mhz band 
  and the most recent editor was Art Reis K9XI. The publication ended in 
  the early 1990's and I was sorry to see it go. This newsletter was a 
  wealth of information for all of us trying to put a Midland 13-509 on 
  the air as a repeater. (Actually, mine was a Clegg FM-76 a clone of the 
  midland 13-509).

  Today, the Internet and reflectors like this one fill the void of these 
  past newsletters. Anyone trying to resurrect an old Midland 13-509 
  repeater might be interested in what was published in 220 Notes.

  73, Joe, K1ike



   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.0/1180 - Release Date: 12/10/2007 
2:51 PM

Reply via email to