If the end result of that would be a battery powered radio the size of an FT-817 or smaller, with K2 + KAT2 functionality then it would be a must-buy. The FT-817 has been very popular but technically it is a huge disappointment, with a poor receiver, far too high power consumption for its battery size and no built in ATU which is really needed in the field. By the time you have added an external battery and an ATU, you may as well take a K2. The only trouble is FT-817s are now very cheap (about a third the price I paid for my first one!) and any Elecraft competitor would probably be perceived as expensive by most potential buyers.
I personally don't have the space for the four times larger K3 proposed by Brett, but as there seems to be quite a lot of space inside the K3 already I don't really see the point in any case. If it is a question of operating ergonomics, perhaps the answer is a software front panel, e.g. HRD. -- Julian, G4ILO K2 s/n: 392 K3 s/n: ??? G4ILO's Shack: www.g4ilo.com Ham-Directory: www.ham-directory.com On 9/6/07, Matt Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would rather see them expanding into a surface mount miniaturized > version of the k2 with improved performance for a k4. > _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
