[AMRadio] Collins R390/URR versus R390A

[Larry Szendrei]

Todd, KA1KAQ wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 2:17 PM,  <ne1s at neandertech.com> wrote:
>
>   
>>  Well, Todd, I've been guilty of referring to my R390/URR as a "non-A"
>>  model, and the reason I've done so is because so many folks just say
>>  "R390" when they are really referring to the more common R390-A. Just
>>  trying to be specific and unambiguous, because, as you know, there are
>>  several significant differences between them.
>>     
>
> Yea yea, I remember folks saying they did so to aid the newbs in
> knowing the difference. We'll learn 'em right!
>
> If we applied the same logic to other Collins (or Hallicrafters) rigs
> that look similar or are based on an earlier model, we'd have 75S-3
> non-A non-Bs (75S-3C), Hallicrafters SX-28 non-As. S-36 non-As, etc.
> How about Yaesu FT-101 Non-E, Non-EE?  Then there's the BC-348s and
> other military gear, but I can't type that much.
>
> How about calling a Ford Mustang base model a Non-GT?
>
> I just figure it's easier to call it what it is, ask what they mean,
> and give accurate information to someone who is new or otherwise
> inexperienced rather than misinformation. Of course, I'm prepared to
> eat my words the day someone shows me an authentic nomenclature tag
> that says R-390 Non-A/URR with supporting documentation. (o:
>
> Not to mention that the A model is based on and came after the R-390.
> Generally speaking, folks who know the rigs tend to call them all
> R-390s, while folks who don't seem to call them R-390s and 'non-A's.
> Even some folks who know the radios have adopted the 'what it's not'
> approach. Weird!
>
> I blame phonics and ebonics, because I can. And the elimination of the
> CW requirement.
>
>
>   
Todd,

You and I have WAY too much time on our hands ;-)

73,
-Larry/NE1S