|[AMRadio] AM sensibility "value"|
arksky at alltel.net
Wed Oct 5 13:49:44 EDT 2005
I had a FTDX-400 years ago. Bought it for a song and dance mainly because I thought
it "looked pretty" <g>. All that chrome and brushed aluminum...
When it worked, it did good on SSB, but never got a good report on AM with it. I had
all sorts of little problems with the PCB, and finally just parted it out if I
remember correctly. I figure they were good rigs when new, however I think the heat
from the tubes is just too much over time for those PCB's.
> Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 09:37:55 -0400
> From: bcarling at cfl.rr.com
> Subject: RE: [AMRadio] AM sensibility "value"
> To: Discussion of AM Radio <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
> Message-ID: <43439EF3.24064.14EAD7D at localhost>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Sigh - here we go again... (grin)
> They can't have been THAT bad. You never heard guys
> complaining much, and they sold many of them.
> But hey maybe you are right - the one review at eHam is not very
> They must have improved things greatly with the FTDX560 -
> everyone seems to LOVE that one:
> Also a 570 owner likes his a lot:
> I think you are an aficianado for the really OLDER rigs with a
> proper chassis Don, and would guess you would dislike
> the Heath HW and SB series rigs for the same reason you dislike
> the Yaesus. PCB instead of a chassis and a lot of potential for
> problems as a result...
> I just like the notion of a ricebox rig that can run some decent
> power and has a built-in AC supply.
> I have never owned the 400 or 500 series rigs, but I had an
> FT101E which was a phenomenally good piece of radio gear!
> On 4 Oct 2005 at 23:51, Donald Chester wrote:
> > I wouldn't call the FTDX400 (or any of the FTDX rigs) a "good" AM rig. I
> > wouldn't even call it a good SSB rig. Those things were pieces of junk
> > even
> > when they were new.
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 22 Feb 2018.