[CW] Thinking about tubes

[David Ring]

Hello KB,

Long time since the hot fingers of the "Today Show" with Jay Leno.  That was
some nice Morse that bested text messaging over cellphone.

None of the tube transceivers were QSK.  I operated both Collins separates
and Drake separates with a QSK box.

My recommendation is NOT for any of the radios you mention - they were not
very good CW rigs.  I recommend the Drake 4C series as it will with
modification equal or better todays transceivers in all respects.

73

DR


On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Ken Brown <ken.d.brown at hawaiiantel.net>wrote:

> I have been thinking about getting a tube transceiver. I would be
> interested to hear opinions on the QSK performance of various tube
> transceivers. Even just to know what transceivers to consider would be
> helpful. It seems like in the days of tubes transceivers were less
> common than separate receivers and transmitters, so there may not be
> very many choices. The ones I can think of are the Drake TR3 and TR4 (I
> would presume the TR4CW would be the best of those), Collins KWM1 and
> KWM2 (probably both out of my price range), Heathkit HW-101, SB-100 and
> SB-101, maybe some Halliscratchers Cyclones? Swan rigs? Can any of you
> add to the list of tube transceivers, please? I know some of the early
> transceivers were intended primarily for SSB use, and I want something
> that works well for CW. Maybe there are some good military rigs to
> consider, like the RS-6 or Paraset, though I probably want a
> superheterodyne receiver and not a regenerative set.
>
> Thanks in advance for any information.
>
> Ken N6KB
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:CW at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>