[Johnson] No Challenger Info? Really?

[Artmouton]

But it was (supposed to be) 120 watts, not the measly 75 allowed for 
novices.  I admit to nothing but hope that the statute of limitations for 
the FCC to come after me for a 1960 violation by 45 watts has passed.
Art K5FNQ

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Markavage" <manualman at juno.com>
To: <johnson at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Johnson] No Challenger Info? Really?


> They didn't call it the Challenger for nothing. Loved the meter. My eyes
> hurt waiting for the meter pointer to stop moving each time I
> transmitted. I used the rig for several weeks after a friend brought it
> over for me to fix. Unfortunately, no "lemon laws" back then.
>
> Pete, wa2cwa
>
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 06:30:47 -0500 "Artmouton" <k5fnq at cox.net> writes:
>> I had the Johnson Challenger as a Novice.  When I got back into ham
>> radio
>> then into boatanchors, I heard a lot of people wanting to get their
>> Novice
>> rigs back.  Somehow a Challenger and an S-107 did not sound like a
>> lot of
>> fun any more.
>> It did work.  I did work 49 states as a Novice - all CW of course,
>> all
>> crystal controlled, all with doublet antennas.
>> It is just not a "fine" rig such as a Ranger - the meter would click
>> and
>> clack, but, again, it did work.
>> Sold it and got an HT-37 as fast as I could after getting my
>> General.
>> Nuff said.
>> Art K5FNQ
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: <w1eof at hamnutz.com>
>> To: <johnson at mailman.qth.net>
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 5:31 AM
>> Subject: [Johnson] No Challenger Info? Really?
>>
>>
>> > No one on this list has any opinion or information on the
>> Challenger?
>> >
>> > Do I get a prize for stumping this knowledgeable group?
>> >
>> > 73,
>> >
>> > Mark W1EOF
> 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
>