Elecraft

KAT3 vs MFJ 949E

Classic

List

Threaded

8 messages Options

Wayne gmachl

KAT3 vs MFJ 949E

I currently have a K3/100 and am using the MFJ 949E and am looking at
getting the KAT3. The 949 is working great, but would like input as to
changing to the KAT3.

73,
Wayne
[hidden email]
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Jon Kåre Hellan

Re: KAT3 vs MFJ 949E

On 09/25/2012 02:01 PM, Wayne gmachl wrote:
> I currently have a K3/100 and am using the MFJ 949E and am looking at
> getting the KAT3. The 949 is working great, but would like input as to
> changing to the KAT3.

I have both. Well, the 949 is a D. You won't regret getting a KAT3. I
can't recall any antenna I've been able to tune with the 949 but not
with the KAT3. It's fast, and almost silent.

Jon LA4RT

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Bill Clarke

Re: KAT3 vs MFJ 949E

The KAT3 means one less box on the radio desk. To me, that is a real plus.

Bill W2BLC

--
IN GOD I TRUST (but, NOT a single politician)
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Arie Kleingeld PA3A-2

Re: KAT3 vs MFJ 949E

In reply to this post by Wayne gmachl

Wayne,

The KAT-3 tunes just about anything.
The MFJ tuner I have had for a long time is collecting dust now.

No doubt about it, choose the KAT3, smooth operating.

73
Arie PA3A

Op 25-9-2012 14:01, Wayne gmachl schreef:

> I currently have a K3/100 and am using the MFJ 949E and am looking at
> getting the KAT3. The 949 is working great, but would like input as to
> changing to the KAT3.
>
>
> 73,
> Wayne
> [hidden email]
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Ian Kahn, KM4IK

Re: KAT3 vs MFJ 949E

While it isn't the exact same model from MFJ, my -962D has issues tuning my
two antennas (Traffie Technologies HX-5Bi hex beam, MFJ G5RV) on certain
bands. The KAT3 in my rig tunes both antennas flawlessly.

Hope this helps.

--Ian
Ian Kahn, KM4IK
Roswell, GA EM74ua
[hidden email]
K3 #281, P3 #688
HRD v5.x/6.0 Test Team

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Arie Kleingeld PA3A <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Wayne,
>
> The KAT-3 tunes just about anything.
> The MFJ tuner I have had for a long time is collecting dust now.
>
> No doubt about it, choose the KAT3, smooth operating.
>
> 73
> Arie PA3A
>
>
> Op 25-9-2012 14:01, Wayne gmachl schreef:
> > I currently have a K3/100 and am using the MFJ 949E and am looking at
> > getting the KAT3. The 949 is working great, but would like input as to
> > changing to the KAT3.
> >
> >
> > 73,
> > Wayne
> > [hidden email]
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > Elecraft mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:[hidden email]
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

--
Ian Kahn, KM4IK
Roswell, GA EM74ua
[hidden email]
K3 #281, P3 #688
HRD v5.x/6.0 Test Team
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

David Gilbert

Re: KAT3 vs MFJ 949E

My guess would be that you are more significantly inconveniencing the
ether now as well. As tuners go, the MFJ ones are not universally
known for being among the most efficient.

73,
Dave AB7E

On 9/27/2012 10:33 AM, Ian Kahn wrote:

> While it isn't the exact same model from MFJ, my -962D has issues tuning my
> two antennas (Traffie Technologies HX-5Bi hex beam, MFJ G5RV) on certain
> bands. The KAT3 in my rig tunes both antennas flawlessly.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> --Ian
> Ian Kahn, KM4IK
> Roswell, GA EM74ua
> [hidden email]
> K3 #281, P3 #688
> HRD v5.x/6.0 Test Team
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Arie Kleingeld PA3A <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Wayne,
>>
>> The KAT-3 tunes just about anything.
>> The MFJ tuner I have had for a long time is collecting dust now.
>>
>> No doubt about it, choose the KAT3, smooth operating.
>>
>> 73
>> Arie PA3A
>>
>>
>> Op 25-9-2012 14:01, Wayne gmachl schreef:
>>> I currently have a K3/100 and am using the MFJ 949E and am looking at
>>> getting the KAT3. The 949 is working great, but would like input as to
>>> changing to the KAT3.
>>>
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Wayne
>>> [hidden email]

ke9uw

Re: KAT3 vs MFJ 949E

Why would they be less efficient?

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 27, 2012, at 1:55 PM, "David Gilbert" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> My guess would be that you are more significantly inconveniencing the
> ether now as well. As tuners go, the MFJ ones are not universally
> known for being among the most efficient.
>
> 73,
> Dave AB7E
>
>
> On 9/27/2012 10:33 AM, Ian Kahn wrote:
>> While it isn't the exact same model from MFJ, my -962D has issues tuning my
>> two antennas (Traffie Technologies HX-5Bi hex beam, MFJ G5RV) on certain
>> bands. The KAT3 in my rig tunes both antennas flawlessly.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> --Ian
>> Ian Kahn, KM4IK
>> Roswell, GA EM74ua
>> [hidden email]
>> K3 #281, P3 #688
>> HRD v5.x/6.0 Test Team
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Arie Kleingeld PA3A <[hidden email]>wrote:
>>
>>> Wayne,
>>>
>>> The KAT-3 tunes just about anything.
>>> The MFJ tuner I have had for a long time is collecting dust now.
>>>
>>> No doubt about it, choose the KAT3, smooth operating.
>>>
>>> 73
>>> Arie PA3A
>>>
>>>
>>> Op 25-9-2012 14:01, Wayne gmachl schreef:
>>>> I currently have a K3/100 and am using the MFJ 949E and am looking at
>>>> getting the KAT3. The 949 is working great, but would like input as to
>>>> changing to the KAT3.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>> Wayne
>>>> [hidden email]
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Chuck, KE9UW

David Gilbert

Re: KAT3 vs MFJ 949E

Higher loss components in some cases, but designs that produce
sub-optimal L-C ratios in others. Check the QST review of high power
tuners from a few years ago if you don't believe me, and then do a
Google search for melted inductors in MFJ tuners if you still don't.

Dave AB7E

On 9/27/2012 12:04 PM, hawley, charles j jr wrote:

> Why would they be less efficient?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 27, 2012, at 1:55 PM, "David Gilbert" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> My guess would be that you are more significantly inconveniencing the
>> ether now as well. As tuners go, the MFJ ones are not universally
>> known for being among the most efficient.
>>
>> 73,
>> Dave AB7E
>>
>>
>> On 9/27/2012 10:33 AM, Ian Kahn wrote:
>>> While it isn't the exact same model from MFJ, my -962D has issues tuning my
>>> two antennas (Traffie Technologies HX-5Bi hex beam, MFJ G5RV) on certain
>>> bands. The KAT3 in my rig tunes both antennas flawlessly.
>>>
>>> Hope this helps.
>>>
>>> --Ian
>>> Ian Kahn, KM4IK
>>> Roswell, GA EM74ua
>>> [hidden email]
>>> K3 #281, P3 #688
>>> HRD v5.x/6.0 Test Team
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Arie Kleingeld PA3A <[hidden email]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wayne,
>>>>
>>>> The KAT-3 tunes just about anything.
>>>> The MFJ tuner I have had for a long time is collecting dust now.
>>>>
>>>> No doubt about it, choose the KAT3, smooth operating.
>>>>
>>>> 73
>>>> Arie PA3A
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Op 25-9-2012 14:01, Wayne gmachl schreef:
>>>>> I currently have a K3/100 and am using the MFJ 949E and am looking at
>>>>> getting the KAT3. The 949 is working great, but would like input as to
>>>>> changing to the KAT3.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 73,
>>>>> Wayne
>>>>> [hidden email]
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html