[Johnson] re: Viking II better than Heathkit DX 100

[Brian Carling]

Agreed - there is noting wrong with the DX100 that can't be fixed with
some simple improvements to the speech amplifier.

Glen Zook wrote:

>I disagree!  The Johnson Viking II was a good
>transmitter.  But, various features of the DX-100
>(especially the built in VFO) made it, in my opinion,
>better than the Viking II.  I have never owned a
>Viking II but I have worked on several for others.  My
>present DX-100 is part of my re-creation of my 2nd
>primary station from late 1960.
>
>There are going to be people who favor one transmitter
>or the other.  The Viking II did cover the entire 160
>meter through 10 meter range including "general
>coverage" frequencies inbetween amateur bands.  The
>modulator in the DX-100 was better, the rig had a
>built in VFO, and the multiplier and driver tubes were
>12BY7 types which, in general, work better than the
>6AQ5 tubes that Johnson used for the same stages in
>the Viking II.
>
>Glen, K9STH
>
>--- Ron Samchuk <samvideo at escape.ca> wrote:
>
>I agree... the Viking II is a better transmitter than
>the Heathkit DX 100.  Johnson made really good
>transmitters!  Probably one of the most widely known
>Canadian AM stations (Doug VE4BX) always told me that
>Johnson made good transmitters. 
>
>Glen, K9STH
>
>Web sites
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~k9sth
>http://home.comcast.net/~zcomco
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>http://mail.yahoo.com 
>Johnson mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/johnson
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
>Post: mailto:Johnson at mailman.qth.net
>
>  
>