[amsat-bb] Re: Icom 9100
Edward R Cole
kl7uw at acsalaska.net
Sun May 16 12:50:39 PDT 2010
Watching from the sidelines (with my FT-847 and K3).
One of the reasons I held onto my FT-847 was that with the addition
of my DEMI 144/1296 xvtr the total outlay (when they were new) was
$1600 + $395 ~ $2K. And that covers 160m - 6m, 2m, 70cm, 23cm. The
FT-847 "IS" a satellite radio, full-duplex crossband. Too bad they
discontinued production (which begs one to wonder if there might be a
new version coming?). All radio are increasing in cost (it's called
inflation - err, or maybe more profit?).
When I bought the K3, I struggled with considering selling the FT-847
and buying DEMI 144/28 and 432/28 xvtrs. I also considered buying a
used IC910H. But, in the end, it made more sense to keep the FT-847
for satellite and casual VHF. The K3 is in a whole 'nother league
than the FT-847, as afar as receiver performance and that is why I
bought it. I did give in to buying a new DEMI 144/28 xvtr, so in
time if Elecraft can come out with duplex receive sw, I may add the
432/28 and finally say goodbye to the old FT-847.
For outright performance, either the K3 or Flex5000 own the real
estate (note: TS-590S has been introduced as a contender at
Dayton). How they are incorporated for satellite full-duplex
operation, remains. The IC9100, TS-2000x are not in that league, sorry.
I doubt that DEMI will enter the transceiver business (but?). I was
hoping RFSpace would come up with a dual-Rx SDR-IQ and/or
TCVR-IQ. The SDR field is wide-open as where ham radio technology is
going. "Theoretically" if you purchase a "good" SDR, you will never
have to buy any hardware, again - just new sw.
With the unlikely launch of new Heos, it is hard for the industry to
justify (new or existing) high-end satellite rigs. Icom obviously
bundled HF into the new radio to widen its appeal to those wanting a
PS: in the risk of repeating myself, I bought the K3 to be my
state-of-art receiver for eme, ms, mw, and general weak-signal
stuff. If it can eventually do satellite that would be an added frill.
73, Ed - KL7UW
At 10:59 AM 5/16/2010, Sebastian wrote:
>I sold my IC-910H recently, as I had thoughts about going with the
>9100. But at that price, I can't justify it.
>I agree that the Flex 5000 is probably a much better radio (since we
>don't yet know all the technical details on the 9100). However the
>cost of the V/U module for the Flex is about as much as you would
>pay for a brand new TS-2000. Sure the Flex offers more, but let's
>face it, with the current birds in orbit, it's overkill for the
>average ham who makes occasional satellite contacts.
>Perhaps others such as DEMI, will see this as an opportunity and
>come up with alternatives?
>73 de W4AS
>On May 15, 2010, at 9:43 PM, Michael Tondee wrote:
> > I guess once I put the upcoming V/U module in my Flex 5000 I'll have
> > that amount of money in it but I won't have had to spend it all at once
> > and IMHO I'll have a markedly better radio. Also one that isn't outdated
> > a day after I walk out of the store with it.
> > I'm just not a big fan of Icom's anyway so I guess I'm pretty biased.
> > 73,
> > Michael, W4HIJ
> > On 5/15/2010 7:22 PM, Mik Forsythe wrote:
> >> Just left Dayton a few hours ago. Icom said that it is
> basically a 7600 and a 910. It is bigger than the 910. It was in
> a display case so I can't tell you what the feel was like of the
> weight. Price is in the $4,000.00 range so that will kill a lot of
> the satellite market if you ask me.
>Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. 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
More information about the AMSAT-BB