At least the 817 gives you the opportunity to operate with an antenna connected to the front of the rig (although its thought that front connector has extra cpu noise).
It would have been great had the ctx-10 had a front antenna connector at least.
They could have gone the route of the kx3 and put connectors on the side so the screen could face up. That too would have been better than the back. I just don’t understand what advantage there is for a portable rig to have connectors opposite comtrols-it seems like a clear and unnecessary negative. Is there some advantage? There are lots of advantages to have the connnectors on other surfaces…
73,
Tom
It looks like it’s not meant for outdoors, but for a hotel room or maybe a caravan. It even has the huge feet, it’s obviously a table radio. The mic connector on the back is really annoying even in that situation.
I’m struggling to see any disadvantage! It isn’t as if you are obligated to use the one at the back if you don’t want to, but using the one at the back means that you don’t have a plug and feeder with two buttons and a rotary control only an inch away, and having the two available gives you a choice and also the opportunity to have two seperate antennas connected at the same time so that you can rapidly change between say an HF and a VHF antenna for more rapid QSYs.
On this rig there are only rear connectors, there is no choice.
If you are looking at the front of the rig while holding the mic I guess you are flexing the mic wire perhaps a lot. It would be less if the mic connector was on the side or the front. Also you really cant use a rig mounted vertical comfortably on a rig with only a rear connector.
If you are outdoors and you don’t have a park bench and table to sit at, and you tilt up the radio for a better look at the screen you may stress the coax connector against the table.
For a rig to use on a summit I think there are many disadvantages to being forced to use all rear connectors as is the case on this rig, and if its not a rig for summits/portable then its a bit odd that it has internal lithium cells. I do love the idea of an internal tuner though.
IMHO nobody is going to buy this rig no matter where the connectors are at the special price of $1000 (or the regular price of $1200) because it simply won’t compete with the Elecraft KX2/KX3.
Sorry if I come over as argumentative, but I disagree, I have used both my FT817 and FT857 with a half wave mobile 2m whip in the rear connector with a right angle adaptor. I have also used a Moonraker HF multiband SPX-100 mobile whip the same way but frankly its little more than a dummy load on the lower bands!
Elecraft is working on an HF vertical that is designed to be mounted to the rig. They have gone through a few prototype designs, so it isn’t for sale yet. Here is the FAQ page for one of the revisions.
I hate the front socket on the FT817! I usually use a BNC adapter on the rear socket
I do prefer the ‘trail friendly’ format though, I have to admit that the FT817 isn’t so good when operating out of doors - even the aftermarket legs and stands don’t make much of an improvement.
An Elecraft antenna, I can see the glowing reports already…
But he told me right then when the top popped open
There was nothin’ his antenna won’t do
With the oil of Afro-dytee
An’ the dust of the Grand Wazoo
He said:
"You might not believe this, little fella, but it’ll work DX in P5-land too!
The infamous MFJ makes similar products, single band with base loading and telescopic whip. Tried the 20M version and it receives fine - but in transmit it is what it is, a highly shortened vertical and performs as such. The Elecraft will likely be better made - but size limitations equally apply. I do like the anti-rotation ‘clip’ though and it shows how Elecraft thinks about practical usage.
