Re: Type acceptance of older 23 ch radios vs. 40 channel question.

From: hurricane145@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Here come the story of the hurricane" wrote:
(Michael Herron)

>Thanks for all the input. The inquiry was

>posed mostly to determine the accuracy of the
>statement as I did not think it was much at all

>correct. The premise seemed to be that since

>the newer radios were 40 channel, 23

>channels would not be type accepted for sale

>anymore. I was thinking this would mean they

>all had to be 40 channel. If that were the case

>what about walkie talkies for CB? Wouldn't

>they have to be 40 channel as well then if over
>100 milliwatts? Although I don't know for sure,

>I thought that there are still walkie talkies that

>had only a handfull of channels. Buying an old
>23 channel CB would be either for collectors

>or just for nostalga of owning one that you

>thought was really cool back then but wasn't

>affordable like a Tram Titan 2 or a Browning

>rig or a Courier Royale. They were very well

>built radios but expensive when I was on back

>in the late 60's.

Golden Eagle.

> The ham gear that was run by

>a very few back then were Viking Valiants,

>Heathkit DX-100's and National NC-300

>receivers.


And homebrewed. During the late sixties and even into the early
seventies, many ops were running rigs homebrewed in the fifties.

> The Yaesu Ft-101 series became very

>popular as they came out since you only had

>to clip the wire to enable the CB band. It was

>interesting that there was a cutout in the

>chassis to easily access the wire which ran

>right across it! I had a lot of fun on Cb but

>outgrew it in a couple years. I have been a

>ham since 1970.


Congrats.

>I am in support of all CB ops who want to

>become hams unlike many others.


Many? Name two, just two of the "many" you purport do not support cb ops
who have expressed a desire to get licensed. You're full of biased ***.
Of course, you could always prove me wrong by illustrating two of the
farcical "many" you claim do not support cb'ers seeking to get licensed.


>Soon the code will be dropped and it will be

>easy to get a license.


It's easy to get a license now.

>GOOD! The more hams the better!


Being of the mindset that code prevents
cb'ers from getting licensed is your right, but it's not correct and
serves only to illustrate your own difficulty and prejudices concerning
cw.
Now, about this "many" of which you speak....

.