[Elecraft] KAT3 vs MFJ 949E

[hawley, charles j jr]

Why would they be less efficient?

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 27, 2012, at 1:55 PM, "David Gilbert" <xdavid at cis-broadband.com> wrote:

> 
> My guess would be that you are more significantly inconveniencing the 
> ether now as well.   As tuners go, the MFJ ones are not universally 
> known for being among the most efficient.
> 
> 73,
> Dave   AB7E
> 
> 
> On 9/27/2012 10:33 AM, Ian Kahn wrote:
>> While it isn't the exact same model from MFJ, my -962D has issues tuning my
>> two antennas (Traffie Technologies HX-5Bi hex beam, MFJ G5RV) on certain
>> bands.  The KAT3 in my rig tunes both antennas flawlessly.
>> 
>> Hope this helps.
>> 
>> --Ian
>> Ian Kahn, KM4IK
>> Roswell, GA  EM74ua
>> km4ik.ian at gmail.com
>> K3 #281, P3 #688
>> HRD v5.x/6.0 Test Team
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Arie Kleingeld PA3A <pa3a at xs4all.nl>wrote:
>> 
>>> Wayne,
>>> 
>>> The KAT-3 tunes just about anything.
>>> The MFJ tuner I have had for a long time is collecting dust now.
>>> 
>>> No doubt about it, choose the KAT3, smooth operating.
>>> 
>>> 73
>>> Arie PA3A
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Op 25-9-2012 14:01, Wayne gmachl schreef:
>>>> I currently have a K3/100 and am using the MFJ 949E and am looking at
>>>> getting the KAT3. The 949 is working great, but would like input as to
>>>> changing to the KAT3.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 73,
>>>> Wayne
>>>> KD0NEO at gmail.com
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html