[Heathkit] Re: Heathkit HX-10 "Marauder" and matching Receiver "Mohawk"

Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:15:50 -0400

Hi to the list,

I believe that the two units in question were not actually designed to be
"matching units", but as the series progressed, it became clear that as an
afterthought, it would be a marketing advantage to market them as matching
units.

Just one example of "matching units" having non-identical band coverage are
the Kenwood R-599D and T-599D.  The receiver has the 1.8 and CB band
coverage that the transmitter does not.  These were most certainly designed
to be "matching units".  The debate continues.....

Sincerely,

Jim Temple
73, KF4ICZ

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Greg Mijal" <[email protected]>
To: "Larry Knapp" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Cc: "mail list Heathkit" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Heathkit] Re: Heathkit HX-10 "Marauder" and matching Receiver
"Mohawk"

> This is my last comment concerning the Marauder/Mohawk stuff.
> I stand by my original statement: There is no matching receiver for the
> Marauder.
> So much that I did a little more digging into this before someone decides
> they want to re-write a tiny bit of American manufacturing history.
> "Matching receiver and transmitter"  generally means to a ham that both
> units will have the same frequency and mode coverage. There doesn't seem
to
> be a redefinition of the phrase from the 50's to now.
> Mohawk/Marauder band coverage do not "match"
> Documentation: "Matching receiver and transmitter" generally means to a
ham
> that the receiver manual will discuss the integration of the transmitter
> into the "matching" system and vice vesa. There doesn't seem to be any
> changes to that expectation either.