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

[Ray, W2EC]

Matching to me since the early 50's has meant style/looks, not 
necessarily frequency range. I doubt anyone will disagree that the 
Collins 75A-4 receiver, KWS-1 transmitter and 312A-1 speaker are a true 
"matching" system (Gold Dust Twins by any other name), yet the 75A-4 
covers 160 meters and the KWS-1 does not.

73, Ray  W2EC

wb8jkr@juno.com wrote:

>  Absolutely!  Heck, they have
> transceivers with general coverage receivers
> and the transmitter section only covers the ham bands,
> so would it a unmatched transceiver? I think the issue is
> in mainly with styling and general compatibility.
> 
> Mark  WB8JKR
> 
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:57:57 -0400 Peter Markavage <manualman@juno.com>
> writes:
> 
>>Someone post the "matching receiver and transmitter" Kenwood Twins
>>R-599/T599 series earlier. The Twins were advertised as matching,
>>although as pointed out, the receiver covered 160 and the 
>>transmitter did
>>not. This was true of the three generations of Twins models. 
>>(R599/T599,
>>R599A/T599A, R599D/T599D). Size, cabinet color, front panel color, 
>>and
>>general positioning of controls of each set of Twins, remained 
>>relatively
>>constant, with each iteration of models. The operating manuals of 
>>both in
>>each series, defined a matching cable so that both receiver and
>>transmitter could be integrated to form, either a transceiver 
>>operation,
>>or without the cable, a separate standalone operation. Although to 
>>some,
>>"matching receiver and transmitter" means 100% integration of both, 
>>for
>>many of us, "matching receiver and transmitter" means the physical,
>>cosmetic, and band coverage differences between the two are minimal.
>>
>>Pete, WA2CWA
>>
>>On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:35:36 -0700 "Greg Mijal"
>><bluebirdtele@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>>>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.
>>>I went looking thru my Xerox copy of the HX 10 manual and cannot 
>>>find a
>>>reference to the Mohawk or any other specific receiver. If someone 
>>>
>>>does
>>>please let me know, I am missing a couple of pages to the manual.
>>> I think Heathkit marketed the Marauder as whatever you wanted to 
>>>think it
>>>was,  they wanted it both ways,  as a stand alone transmitter kit  
>>>
>>>and as a
>>>"match" for the Mohawk.  They got a visual match ok but the 
>>>
>>coverage 
>>
>>>and the
>>>manual say otherwise.
>>>If I have pissed someone off, I'm glad really. Maybe this will 
>>>rekindle
>>>people's interest in a far superior Heathkit product and get them 
>>>out of the
>>>closet (the radio's I mean). Also, we can all use our brains and 
>>>
>>get 
>>
>>>to the
>>>truth of the matter and not just accept whatever is written or 
>>>spoken by our
>>>Elmers.
>>>Thank you all for letting me put in my ten cents worth. And now 
>>>
>>snip 
>>
>>>away my
>>>part of this thread.
>>>73's
>>>Greg
>>>WA7LYO
>>>in sunny Feenix
>>>