Sorry to hear about your power output problems on your IC-910. I do not have that problem. It requires an SWR of over 1.5:1 before I start seeing it degrade in output power. I have almost 100 watts (stays around 98 watts output) for the entire 2 meter band until the swr goes above 1.5:1. 70 cm is the same. I have at least 75 watts out on 70 cm even running it into a 2 meter ground plane or MFJ discone. However, the 2 meter ground plane is very narrow for use on 70 cm and only allows reasonable swr on the satellite frequencies. I find that a simple 70 cm 30 degree sloper ground plane gives me better band width and of course works better on the satellites than the 2 meter. The two meter is only being used due to my sloper being rebuilt right now.
I agree on the comments you made about the TS2000, but have definitely found the the TS2000 lacking in it "hearing" sensitivity. For a complete "DC to light" rig, the Kenwood is great, but like some of the other features about the IC-910 and already have many HF (dc to light ) rigs such as an Omni VI Ten Tec, Yaesu FT-817 and FT-857 and another hf/vhf/uhf rig was not necessary. I find that my preference is the IC-910 due to the comments I have made. I know of many who really like the TS-2000. As I stated before I have the Kenwood TS711/811 which have been super units, but no longer supported by the new software now available. Reid, W4UPD Reid, W4UPD Mark L. Hammond wrote: > Hi Tom, > > I own a TS-2000X and thanks to the AMSAT Symposium :) an IC-910. I > do more digital than voice, so my perspective is biased in that > direction. > > Here are some of my thoughts: > > The CAT control of the TS-2000X is amazing. All menu options are > available remotely via CAT. No so with the 910. > > The TS-2000X allows adjustments of modem/TNC levels in/out of the rig, > 910 does not. > > The TS-2000X has built-in TXCO and DSP, 910 does not (yes, they are > expen$ive options). > > The TS-2000X lets you work mode A, 910 does not. > > The TS-2000X gives me the full rated power output on both 2M and 70cm, > the 910 does not (same antennas, feedlines, etc.)---does anybody have > the solution to this? Even with flat SWR the 910 cuts back output to > about 70-75W on 2M and 40-50W on 70cm!! Bummer > > The 910 receiver is much better on 2M than my TS-2000X, which is > actually pretty deaf on 2M(even after doing the "resistor mod" to > improve receive). > > The 910 does not have the AO-27/SO-50 birdy, while the TS-2000X > does--this is my single biggest disappointment with this radio!!!! > Tuning the TS-2000X "off frequency" by 5-7kHz above and below the real > frequency helps a bit, but it's still a pain. > > In spite of the short comings of the TS-2000X, I don't think I'd trade > it even up for an IC-910H with a the 1.2 gig module installed... > > 73, > > Mark N8MH > > >> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:02:24 -0700 >> From: "Tom" <k...@cox.net> >> Subject: [amsat-bb] Icom 910H vs Kenwood TS2000 >> To: <amsat-bb@amsat.org> >> Message-ID: <a3c3147b82d84bb49ae0e4eb26adf...@k0twhome> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> I plan to purchase a new home transceiver in the next few months and I've >> narrowed my choices between a 910H and a TS2000. Thinking only of satellite >> operation (ignoring the HF capability of the TS2000), is there a general >> preference in the Amsat community of one over the other? Reasons? >> >> Thanks for your opinions. >> Tom, K?TW >> > _______________________________________________ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
