[Boatanchors] Fw: Revised/tamed version/ here we go again -- sanctity of mil gear

[Henry Mei'l's]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Henry Mei'l's" <meils at get2net.dk>
Cc: <boatanchors at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] here we go again -- sanctity of mil gear aka 
original sin

This is a toned-down revision of a mail I sent to this reflector yesterday.
(I hope the original version has been trashed).



> And for the n-th time -- many/most of us wouldn't be on these radio 
> reflectors today if we hadn't
> cut our radio teeth on the then-abundant mil surplus gear.
>
> It's a compliment to the very fine quality of vintage mil gear that many 
> prefer to update them rather than modify commercial gear. Also many
  prefer the rugged and solid look of mil gear.
  Radios that look like real radios and having historical significance.
>
> Limited, retro-able modernization of mil gear is fine with me -- still nuf 
> original stuff around for collectors and museums. -- So much (most?)
    mil gear has been modified by the  military via field changes and 
updated revised
   (hopefully improved/modified ) versions of earlier productions. Can also 
imagine
   that many of the original design engineers did themselves do mods on the 
these rigs
   when they used them on the ham bands years later.
  .

Also, using the vintage mil rigs on the air, even if they have been adapted 
to today's
higher standards of stability and signal quality, is a great  QSO 
conversation topic
in iteself and is a first class way of perpetuating the history of  WWII mil 
gear.

Why not accept the fact that there are different views on this subject as 
there are
on just about every other subject you can name.

HFM
oz3o n2nr


> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "J. Forster" <jfor at quik.com>
> PSTo: "Henry Mei'l's" <meils at get2net.dk>
> Cc: <boatanchors at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 9:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] here we go again -- sanctity of mil gear aka 
> original sin
>
>
>> David has it right.
>>
>> IMO, there is no good reason to cut up mil gear. If you want a
>> transmitter, get a rice box or some old Heathkit to chop up.
>>
>> IMO, most hamifications reflect a general lack of understanding of the
>> original designs. The original engineers that designed the gear were far
>> better than any hams that have subsequently butchered their work.
>>
>> YMMV,
>>
>> -John
>>
>> ==================
>>
>>
>>
>>> David Simpson writes:
>>>
>>> "Most ... find it unacceptable"
>>>
>>> 1. My TCS mod is not irreversible. I keep the removed parts for possible
>>> retroing
>>>
>>> 2. 'Most' means a majority; take a vote recently?  Maybe most active
>>> members.
>>>      What about the silent majority
>>>
>>> 3. Many/most just wont want to get into this tired discussion
>>>     and prefer to remain silent or and most oft agree with me, off list
>>>
>>> 4. But for the sake of 'peace in our time,' I'll agree with u
>>>     (and will not say what I really think ;0)
>>>
>>> Have a nice weekend  and wherever you are,
>>> may your house be safe from tigers.
>>>
>>>
>>> Henry, Cph.
>>>
>>> PS I'm glad surgeons don't mind doing mods on even ancient patients
>>> when something's gone wrong and has to be fixed.
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>
>