Gerald,
I believe the KX3 is the better general choice for new hams. They can
get it in kit form so they can have the pride of making it themselves,
even though there is no soldering.
For those who are experienced with soldering as well as properly
following written instructions, and really want to solder their kit
together from thru-hole components, the K2 is an excellent choice.
Yes, the price difference is minimal and the extra features offered by
the KX3 (data modes, FM, AM, dual receive, etc.) make it more flexible
than the K2.
If the new ham wants only a basic CW QRP transceiver, then the K2 price
is much lower.
The other point to be made is that the cost of expanding the K2 to a 100
watt transceiver is less than a KX3 with the KXPA3 and KXAT3.
For a 100 watt transceiver, the basic K3/100 and KX3 with KXPA100 are
priced within the same ballpark, so you may want to add the K3 to your
list of suggestions.
New hams may not have resonant antennas, so an antenna tuner may be an
asset.
73,
Don W3FPR
On 6/16/2014 5:53 PM, KC6CNN wrote:
I have been training new hams to pass their test and get licensed.
During one of the classes we looked at my rigs K3, KX3, K2, Drake TR-4.
I was telling them how proud they would feel having built their own rigs and
that the K2 was a good radio. It is hard to push the K2 to them when the
price difference is so minimal between the K2 and the KX3. The KX3 also has
so many more features that it is hard to get them to put that a side for the
pride in making it themselves.
What would you guys suggest?
Features verses the pride in making it yourself. Price difference is
minimal.
Thanks
Gerald - KC6CNN
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
