[Elecraft] K3 and whats next from Elecraft

[Jim Lowman]

I agree, Arnie.  While HF is my main motivation as an OT, I have always 
been fascinated by the world above 50 MHz.
At one time I had the enjoyment of maintaining FAA-style air traffic 
control radar systems in the 2 GHz and 9 GHz realms.

I can remember when the only options to get on 6m and 2m, other than 
homebrewing, were things like the so-called "Benton Harbor Lunch Boxes" 
sold by Heathkit.
Even then I longed to operate on those bands, if even only on AM.
When FM became popular on 2m, and especially when synthesizers and 
synthesized transceivers were available, I was in my element.

One more band that I'd like to be active on is 222 MHz.  We know that 
Elecraft has the technology available today, in the form of a transverter.
Can you imagine a 2m/222MHz/432 MHZ/1.2 GHz all-mode transceiver with 
some decent power output?  Think of an updated FT-736.

Oddly enough, though, there is a dearth of 222 MHz activity in southern 
California, given the population base.
Typically, there are only about a dozen stations operating on that band 
during contests, and some of that activity is FM.  Nothing wrong with 
that; better than a dead band.

I continue to be amazed that the JA manufacturers have made transceivers 
available for 222 MHz, albeit pretty much FM-only, since operation in 
that band is not authorized outside of North America.

So, what say, Wayne and Eric?

73 de Jim - AD6CW

On 8/22/2013 12:54 PM, Arnie Grubbs wrote:
> Well, while everyone is putting out their wish lists......
>
> While there is a glut of cheap FM HT and mobile VHF/UHF stuff, I don't think that 2M/430 is represented enough..
>   FM is only one small bit of the upper bands, CW, SSB, Data (high speed mesh networks) and video are there too..
> Cheap FM HTs are not what I would be all over...
>
>   We used to have more options for VHF and up rigs,  lately all you see are multiband mobile rigs that do everything from
> just about DC to daylight that while a jack of all trades, are master of none. You would need two of
> them anyway, to do full duplex comms.
>
> 73 - Arnie KA0NCR
>
>