[SixClub] Is anyone using a MFJ-945E on 6M?

[Roger (K8RI)]

First I am not a fan of MFJ. I've had a couple of run-ins with their 
engineers, or sales people and they became downright hostile when I 
disagreed with them.

I have to admit I've come to the conclusion that if it has the MFJ brand 
on it, in general it's cheap. Cheap components, cheap workmanship, 
...cheap. 

That said, I have a pair of 989C tuners which have worked well for quite 
a few years running from a KW to the legal limit.  The roller inductors 
need cleaning, but I've had no complaints with them, and they held up 
even with some nasty arcing with  a KW on 160. OTOH I only used them on 
160, 75, and 40 where I needed a tuner. Of course they are considerably 
larger and more money than the 945E.

OTOH I would not use a tuner for mobile as the crowd on e-ham were 
doing. I would match the antenna at the base of the antenna and leave it 
at that which was something I did for years on HF mobile.

They are, or are going to become distributors of the Alpha Spid rotators 
which are far superior to most rotators on the market and anything that 
Hy-Gain has out. I'm not trashing Hy-Gain, it's just the Alpha Spid is 
that much better of a rotator. The Alpha Spid is 10 times the rotator 
with dual worm gear drive than Hy-Gain's HDR-300 is and for the same or 
less money. IIRC you could purchase on for about the price of a top of a 
ham series rotator, not the HDR. OTOH they are not cheap, or 
inexpensive. BUT what they go for once MFJ adds their mark-up is another 
matter.

kd4e wrote:
> Is anyone using a MFJ-945E on 6M?
>
> The model is roundly trashed on the eham review
> page.
>
> I have a MFJ-904 that seems to work fine on 160-6M
> but wonder if the MFJ-945E is any better on 6M.
>   
Were it me, and it's not, if I had one that works good I'd stick with it.
Apparently the 945E is rather lightly constructed with caps suspended 
only at one end and only one bearing.  I'd really like to take one apart 
before passing judgment on the particular tuner though.
There were complaints about construction, but I've come across missing 
screws on some rather expensive equipment, but that's not the same as 
cheap components. However a phone call resulted in a rather profuse 
apology from the owner of said company and in a manner than made me 
think he really cared. I had the parts on hand so I just replaced the 
missing SS screws.  I've also purchased Amphenol coax connectors and 
found one PL259 with no threads. OTOH that is far better than the "cheap 
ones" that are consistently bad.

Going back to the e-ham group, apparently there are many who do not 
realize that even the best tuners are limited as to both resistance and 
reactance ranges where they can safely operate. I have a rather large, 
high power tuner and it comes with a table listing the reactance and 
resistances ranges with power levels that can be used. So even though 
it's rated at far more than the legal limit, a low impedance antenna on 
160 would restrict the user to well less than the legal limit.  Shorten 
the antenna and it'll do much better.  Thats what I had to do to get rid 
of the arcing in the 989C tuners. Running a 75 meter antenna on 160 is 
not good for the health of the tuner<LOL>, particularly a low power tuner.

OTOH on the AMPS reflector there are those who think even the big 
Palstar tuners are lightly constructed, but they also use "tubes with 
handles" in the final.<:-))  Remember there are countries where your 
power level is based on your license ...and how much it cost and there 
are amps out there with 3 phase power supplies. <:-))

Sorry about the dissertation.

73

Roger (K8RI)