[Kenwood] VFO-240

[manualman at juno.com]

Obviously they had to distinguish between the two models since they were
different electrically but one could wonder why they chose the name
VF-230 and VFO-240 in the first place. There was a VFO-120 for the
TS-120; there was a VFO-180 for the TS-180; there was a VFO-520 and
VFO-520S for the TS-520 series; there was a VFO-700 for the TS-700
series; there was a VFO-820 for the TS-820 series; and there was a
VFO-900 for the TS-900. They could have easily labeled the models
VFO-830D (digital dial) and VFO-830A (analog dial). However, since the
VFO-230 could work with either the TS-530 or the TS-830, they probably
didn't want to tie it directly to one model hence the "230". Maybe "2"
for two models in the "30" series(530, 830). The VFO-240 name probably
simply came about as "what's the next code we can use".

Pete, wa2cwa

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 10:04:57 +0000 Chris Pedder <chris at g3vbl.co.uk>
writes:
> This designation was to distinguish it from the VFO-230.
> 
> While the 230 was an early synthesised device, the cheaper 240 was 
> analogue.
> 
> Chris G3VBL
> 
> At 03:30 27/04/2013, Pete wrote:
> >The VFO-240 came out 7 or 8 years before the TS-940 hit the 
> market.
> >Product model labeling is a science that generally is "concocted" 
> by
> >marketing and product managers. Sometimes their final logic is hard 
> to
> >understand. I know; I was one once upon a time.
> >
> >Pete, wa2cwa