Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: ARRL review posted on their site

Expand Messages
  • eumelein2003
    Gentlemen, what do you expect from a mobile or portable-rig ? If you compare all these tranceivers from the ts-50 up to the new ft-857 you will find vy
    Message 1 of 27 , Mar 31, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Gentlemen,

      what do you expect from a mobile or portable-rig ?

      If you compare all these tranceivers from the ts-50
      up to the new ft-857 you will find vy simmilar performance
      and numbers. They are made for portable-and mobile-antennas
      and have not the front-ends to go with a windom or logperiodic.

      I was buying my ft-897 to be the only TRX for shack and portable
      but I learned long before the ARRL-Test from my own measurements,
      that I expected to much.....
      The Receiver is good in the shack when a preselector is used,
      but the TRX-IMD are soooo bad that you can not use this one
      to drive an amplifier without having troubles with you neighbouring
      stations on the band.

      So I use in the shack my 756pro2 on the Acom1000 PA and have a clean
      signal with only 20-40W drive.

      The FT-897 is in the shack used as second receiver and 2m/70cm Allmode
      and works for portable excellent !

      Regards
      Helmut
    • jimplasticguy
      Folks, I am a relatively unexperienced person in these matters, but are you all taking the first paragraph out of context? The paragraph immediately following
      Message 2 of 27 , Apr 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Folks,

        I am a relatively unexperienced person in these matters, but are you
        all taking the first paragraph out of context? The paragraph
        immediately following states that the pre-production product had
        these problems. It goes on to say that "Subsequent units,
        representative of those currently on the market, performed quite well
        on the ARRL lab bench..." Hey, I just bought one of these and believe
        me, do not want it to be "broke." I just don't read the article that
        way. What am I not seeing?

        Maybe I am missing something. I just wanted to make sure that those
        who are not subscribed don't make any rash decisions based on our
        paraphrasing.

        Thanks,

        Jim H
      • Valveman
        That s what it says: The first units had problems. These problems have been addressed in the new units. jimplasticguy wrote:Folks,
        Message 3 of 27 , Apr 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          That's what it says:
          The first units had problems. These problems have been addressed in the new units.

          jimplasticguy <jimplasticguy@...> wrote:Folks,

          I am a relatively unexperienced person in these matters, but are you
          all taking the first paragraph out of context? The paragraph
          immediately following states that the pre-production product had
          these problems. It goes on to say that "Subsequent units,
          representative of those currently on the market, performed quite well
          on the ARRL lab bench..." Hey, I just bought one of these and believe
          me, do not want it to be "broke." I just don't read the article that
          way. What am I not seeing?

          Maybe I am missing something. I just wanted to make sure that those
          who are not subscribed don't make any rash decisions based on our
          paraphrasing.

          Thanks,

          Jim H


          Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          FT897-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



          ---------------------------------
          Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • dietmarfichter
          ... in the new units. ... you ... well ... believe ... that ... those ... Jim, what your are saying is correct. Someone please correct me if I am wrong, I
          Message 4 of 27 , Apr 1, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, Valveman <valveman_6146@y...> wrote:
            >
            > That's what it says:
            > The first units had problems. These problems have been addressed
            in the new units.
            >
            > jimplasticguy <jimplasticguy@h...> wrote:Folks,
            >
            > I am a relatively unexperienced person in these matters, but are
            you
            > all taking the first paragraph out of context? The paragraph
            > immediately following states that the pre-production product had
            > these problems. It goes on to say that "Subsequent units,
            > representative of those currently on the market, performed quite
            well
            > on the ARRL lab bench..." Hey, I just bought one of these and
            believe
            > me, do not want it to be "broke." I just don't read the article
            that
            > way. What am I not seeing?
            >
            > Maybe I am missing something. I just wanted to make sure that
            those
            > who are not subscribed don't make any rash decisions based on our
            > paraphrasing.
            >
            > Thanks,
            >
            > Jim H


            Jim, what your are saying is correct. Someone please correct me if I
            am wrong, I interrperted the published numbers to be of the new
            units as ARRL stated that the new units performed relatively well.

            Dietmar
            VE3CG
          • w4wb
            The first unit he had was the 104th production unit. It was in Lot 01 and made in June 2002. The one he tested was Lot 12 and made in Dec 2002. Depending
            Message 5 of 27 , Apr 1, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              The first unit he had was the 104th production unit. It was in Lot
              01 and made in June 2002. The one he tested was Lot 12 and made in
              Dec 2002. Depending upon who gets what, you will see lots 08 and on
              being sold by dealers at present.
              73,
              Barry - W4WB


              --- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, Valveman <valveman_6146@y...> wrote:
              >
              > That's what it says:
              > The first units had problems. These problems have been addressed
              in the new units.
              >
            • n0gv
              I am likewise concerned by those numbers -- particularly if it is to be used as a base unit. On the other hand you will get loads longer battery life out of
              Message 6 of 27 , Apr 1, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                I am likewise concerned by those numbers -- particularly if it is to be used as a base unit. On the other hand you will get loads longer battery life out of this puppy with 0.9A recieve current and about 4.5A Xmit (20 watts) on battery power....

                Another number which is less than sterling is the xmit IMD which is -23dB(carrier)!!!!! BAD, BAD, BAD!!!! 100 Watts Carrier = 0.5 Watts of IMD!!!! SPLATTER City! Really the IMD products are only 3 S-units below the PEP tones!!!!!

                I'll keep my ft-847 and 1000D I guess but the 1000D as a mobile is just not happening ;-)

                Grover Larkins
                N0GV
              • w4cng
                You need to read current info, posted here. The production units do better than the PRE-production radio that was reviewed by ARRL. Some of the specs would
                Message 7 of 27 , Apr 1, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  You need to read current info, posted here. The production units do
                  better than the PRE-production radio that was reviewed by ARRL. Some
                  of the specs would not pass muster to be released for SALE in the
                  USA. Do not ask me for the numbers, you should be smart enough to
                  know or go and find and read them for your self. My FT-897 passes
                  Muster. Get out of the PAST and into the current time.
                  Steve W4CNG

                  --- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, "n0gv" <n0gv@y...> wrote:
                  > I am likewise concerned by those numbers -- particularly if it is
                  to be used as a base unit. On the other hand you will get loads
                  longer battery life out of this puppy with 0.9A recieve current and
                  about 4.5A Xmit (20 watts) on battery power....
                  >
                • w4wb
                  Steve, The unit tested by ARRL and reported in the article was from Lot 12 (manufacture date of Dec 2002) which is among to most recent units. It isn t a
                  Message 8 of 27 , Apr 2, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Steve,

                    The unit tested by ARRL and reported in the article was from Lot 12
                    (manufacture date of Dec 2002) which is among to most recent units.
                    It isn't a pre-production unit. He mentioned that they first tested
                    an early unit (Lot 01 he told me) which had problems. The numbers he
                    reported are for the Lot 12 unit (see top of Table 1) and are likely
                    representative of the current production.

                    73,
                    barry - W4WB


                    --- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, "w4cng" <w4cng@a...> wrote:
                    > You need to read current info, posted here. The production units
                    do
                    > better than the PRE-production radio that was reviewed by ARRL.
                    Some
                    > of the specs would not pass muster to be released for SALE in the
                    > USA. Do not ask me for the numbers, you should be smart enough to
                    > know or go and find and read them for your self. My FT-897 passes
                    > Muster. Get out of the PAST and into the current time.
                    > Steve W4CNG
                    >
                    > --- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, "n0gv" <n0gv@y...> wrote:
                    > > I am likewise concerned by those numbers -- particularly if it is
                    > to be used as a base unit. On the other hand you will get loads
                    > longer battery life out of this puppy with 0.9A recieve current and
                    > about 4.5A Xmit (20 watts) on battery power....
                    > >
                  • Paulo Ferreira
                    ... Has anyone seen the March 2003 edition of Funkamateur ? They have a review of the Ft-897 ( in german of course ). What does it say? ( translated to
                    Message 9 of 27 , Apr 2, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      >Steve,
                      >
                      >The unit tested by ARRL and reported in the article was from Lot 12
                      >(manufacture date of Dec 2002) which is among to most recent units.
                      >It isn't a pre-production unit. He mentioned that they first tested
                      >an early unit (Lot 01 he told me) which had problems. The numbers he
                      >reported are for the Lot 12 unit (see top of Table 1) and are likely
                      >representative of the current production.
                      >
                      >73,
                      >barry - W4WB
                      >

                      Has anyone seen the March 2003 edition of "Funkamateur"?
                      They have a review of the Ft-897 ( in german of course ).

                      What does it say? ( translated to english )?

                      Greetings

                      Paulo Ferreira CT2ILQ

                      ------------------------------------------------
                      Paulo Ferreira paf@...
                    • pd1ald
                      ... Lot ... in ... on ... Last Saturday, I bought a lot 7 radio (number 2N07....) , in Germany. Should I expect any problems? Rene
                      Message 10 of 27 , Apr 2, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, "w4wb" <w4wb@a...> wrote:
                        > The first unit he had was the 104th production unit. It was in
                        Lot
                        > 01 and made in June 2002. The one he tested was Lot 12 and made
                        in
                        > Dec 2002. Depending upon who gets what, you will see lots 08 and
                        on
                        > being sold by dealers at present.
                        > 73,
                        > Barry - W4WB

                        Last Saturday, I bought a lot 7 radio (number 2N07....) , in
                        Germany. Should I expect any problems?

                        Rene
                      • pd1ald
                        ... I have both the Funkamateur and the Funk. What do you want to know? Rene
                        Message 11 of 27 , Apr 2, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, Paulo Ferreira <PAF@D...> wrote:

                          > Has anyone seen the March 2003 edition of "Funkamateur"?
                          > They have a review of the Ft-897 ( in german of course ).
                          >
                          > What does it say? ( translated to english )?

                          I have both the Funkamateur and the Funk. What do you want to know?

                          Rene
                        • Paulo Ferreira
                          ... What do they say about RX performance and intermod ? Thanks 73 Paulo Ferreira CT2ILQ ... Paulo Ferreira paf@dei.isep.ipp.pt
                          Message 12 of 27 , Apr 3, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            >--- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, Paulo Ferreira <PAF@D...> wrote:
                            >
                            >> Has anyone seen the March 2003 edition of "Funkamateur"?
                            >> They have a review of the Ft-897 ( in german of course ).
                            >>
                            >> What does it say? ( translated to english )?
                            >
                            >I have both the Funkamateur and the Funk. What do you want to know?
                            >
                            >Rene
                            >
                            What do they say about RX performance and intermod ?
                            Thanks
                            73
                            Paulo Ferreira CT2ILQ


                            ------------------------------------------------
                            Paulo Ferreira paf@...
                          • pd1ald
                            ... know? ... In the magazine Funkamateur : nothing. In magazine Funk : 14 MHz, IP3 = -26dBm (5kHz), -4dBm (20kHz), 14dBm (200kHz) 14 MHz, IP3 (effective) =
                            Message 13 of 27 , Apr 3, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, Paulo Ferreira <PAF@D...> wrote:
                              > >--- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, Paulo Ferreira <PAF@D...> wrote:
                              > >
                              > >> Has anyone seen the March 2003 edition of "Funkamateur"?
                              > >> They have a review of the Ft-897 ( in german of course ).
                              > >>
                              > >> What does it say? ( translated to english )?
                              > >
                              > >I have both the Funkamateur and the Funk. What do you want to
                              know?
                              > >
                              > >Rene
                              > >
                              > What do they say about RX performance and intermod ?
                              > Thanks
                              > 73
                              > Paulo Ferreira CT2ILQ

                              In the magazine 'Funkamateur': nothing. In magazine 'Funk':

                              14 MHz, IP3 = -26dBm (5kHz), -4dBm (20kHz), 14dBm (200kHz)

                              14 MHz, IP3 (effective) = -40 dBm (5kHz), -18dBm (20kHz), 0dBm
                              (200kHz)


                              Carrier suppression:

                              -43dBc (20m), -37dBc (2m), -50dBc (70cm)

                              Sideband suppression:

                              -53dBc (20m), -52dBc (2m), -53dBc (70cm)


                              Rene
                            • willyacht
                              All i can say is that the FT897 receiver numbers have been one of the worst set of numbers i have seen in a long time. I am quite shocked that the radio
                              Message 14 of 27 , Apr 5, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                All i can say is that the FT897 receiver numbers have been one of the
                                worst set of numbers i have seen in a long time. I am quite shocked
                                that the radio measured so poorly. The receiver performance numbers
                                remind of some of the very early SSB ham gear from 60's. What is also
                                disapointing is the transmitter IMD, the 3rd and 5th order products
                                are very bad. It is in the CB radio class for transmitter performance.
                                I was quite impressed with the physical construction of the unit but
                                i would never buy it with those measured results. With a 100 watts
                                you would be tempted to use it with a amplifier, but i would not
                                launch this beast on a busy band its too dirty.

                                Many people dont care about numbers, but this radio is a shocker. I
                                really thought Yaesu would have done a better job than this. I mean
                                the old standard of radios from 20 years ago like TS4XX series, the
                                Icom 735 series etc are radios that are now almost 25 years old, yet
                                they set a better performance standards than the FT897. The receiver
                                if the numbers are correct would be no better than most of the
                                terrible wide band scanners with shortwave bands on them, even simple
                                receivers like the Sangean 909 or Radio Shack 398 have numbers which
                                are similar to the FT897. Its a shame because in reality the FT897
                                would have been radio that would suited many people who were beyond
                                radios like FT817, it would could have been a all round standbye for
                                for most kinds of operation.

                                I will be looking closely at what the German CQDL report says about
                                the receiver, likewise the RSGB. Because to me for a modern radio the
                                FT897 sets all new overall lousy performance benchmark for modern
                                radios. I am only talking about the measured figures and nothing
                                else. Others might be happy with the radios functional package. Its
                                amazing that a radio like Elecraft K2 using older design techniques
                                can beat the pants off most radios. Considering that one can buy off
                                the shelf mixers with intercept points of +30dbm why Yaesu choose to
                                set the performance benchmark so low has got me perplexed. If this is
                                the trend for modern radios i think we all going to be fighting each
                                other collecting good radios from the 80's or we will all be building
                                radios like the K2.

                                Will

                                --- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, "pd1ald" <pd1ald@p...> wrote:
                                > --- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, Paulo Ferreira <PAF@D...> wrote:
                                > > >--- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, Paulo Ferreira <PAF@D...> wrote:
                                > > >
                                > > >> Has anyone seen the March 2003 edition of "Funkamateur"?
                                > > >> They have a review of the Ft-897 ( in german of course ).
                                > > >>
                                > > >> What does it say? ( translated to english )?
                                > > >
                                > > >I have both the Funkamateur and the Funk. What do you want to
                                > know?
                                > > >
                                > > >Rene
                                > > >
                                > > What do they say about RX performance and intermod ?
                                > > Thanks
                                > > 73
                                > > Paulo Ferreira CT2ILQ
                                >
                                > In the magazine 'Funkamateur': nothing. In magazine 'Funk':
                                >
                                > 14 MHz, IP3 = -26dBm (5kHz), -4dBm (20kHz), 14dBm (200kHz)
                                >
                                > 14 MHz, IP3 (effective) = -40 dBm (5kHz), -18dBm (20kHz), 0dBm
                                > (200kHz)
                                >
                                >
                                > Carrier suppression:
                                >
                                > -43dBc (20m), -37dBc (2m), -50dBc (70cm)
                                >
                                > Sideband suppression:
                                >
                                > -53dBc (20m), -52dBc (2m), -53dBc (70cm)
                                >
                                >
                                > Rene
                              • Bill Terry
                                The RGSB (Radcomm) confirms the ARRL review. Nice portable radio but the receiver could be better. Bill K4BYR ...
                                Message 15 of 27 , Apr 5, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  The RGSB (Radcomm) confirms the ARRL review. Nice
                                  portable radio but the receiver could be better.
                                  Bill K4BYR
                                  --- willyacht <willyacht@...> wrote:
                                  > All i can say is that the FT897 receiver numbers
                                  > have been one of the
                                  > worst set of numbers i have seen in a long time. I
                                  > am quite shocked
                                  > that the radio measured so poorly. The receiver
                                  > performance numbers
                                  > remind of some of the very early SSB ham gear from
                                  > 60's. What is also
                                  > disapointing is the transmitter IMD, the 3rd and 5th
                                  > order products
                                  > are very bad. It is in the CB radio class for
                                  > transmitter performance.
                                  > I was quite impressed with the physical construction
                                  > of the unit but
                                  > i would never buy it with those measured results.
                                  > With a 100 watts
                                  > you would be tempted to use it with a amplifier, but
                                  > i would not
                                  > launch this beast on a busy band its too dirty.
                                  >
                                  > Many people dont care about numbers, but this radio
                                  > is a shocker. I
                                  > really thought Yaesu would have done a better job
                                  > than this. I mean
                                  > the old standard of radios from 20 years ago like
                                  > TS4XX series, the
                                  > Icom 735 series etc are radios that are now almost
                                  > 25 years old, yet
                                  > they set a better performance standards than the
                                  > FT897. The receiver
                                  > if the numbers are correct would be no better than
                                  > most of the
                                  > terrible wide band scanners with shortwave bands on
                                  > them, even simple
                                  > receivers like the Sangean 909 or Radio Shack 398
                                  > have numbers which
                                  > are similar to the FT897. Its a shame because in
                                  > reality the FT897
                                  > would have been radio that would suited many people
                                  > who were beyond
                                  > radios like FT817, it would could have been a all
                                  > round standbye for
                                  > for most kinds of operation.
                                  >
                                  > I will be looking closely at what the German CQDL
                                  > report says about
                                  > the receiver, likewise the RSGB. Because to me for a
                                  > modern radio the
                                  > FT897 sets all new overall lousy performance
                                  > benchmark for modern
                                  > radios. I am only talking about the measured figures
                                  > and nothing
                                  > else. Others might be happy with the radios
                                  > functional package. Its
                                  > amazing that a radio like Elecraft K2 using older
                                  > design techniques
                                  > can beat the pants off most radios. Considering that
                                  > one can buy off
                                  > the shelf mixers with intercept points of +30dbm why
                                  > Yaesu choose to
                                  > set the performance benchmark so low has got me
                                  > perplexed. If this is
                                  > the trend for modern radios i think we all going to
                                  > be fighting each
                                  > other collecting good radios from the 80's or we
                                  > will all be building
                                  > radios like the K2.
                                  >
                                  > Will
                                  >
                                  > --- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, "pd1ald" <pd1ald@p...>
                                  > wrote:
                                  > > --- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, Paulo Ferreira
                                  > <PAF@D...> wrote:
                                  > > > >--- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, Paulo Ferreira
                                  > <PAF@D...> wrote:
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >> Has anyone seen the March 2003 edition of
                                  > "Funkamateur"?
                                  > > > >> They have a review of the Ft-897 ( in german
                                  > of course ).
                                  > > > >>
                                  > > > >> What does it say? ( translated to english )?
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >I have both the Funkamateur and the Funk. What
                                  > do you want to
                                  > > know?
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >Rene
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > What do they say about RX performance and
                                  > intermod ?
                                  > > > Thanks
                                  > > > 73
                                  > > > Paulo Ferreira CT2ILQ
                                  > >
                                  > > In the magazine 'Funkamateur': nothing. In
                                  > magazine 'Funk':
                                  > >
                                  > > 14 MHz, IP3 = -26dBm (5kHz), -4dBm (20kHz), 14dBm
                                  > (200kHz)
                                  > >
                                  > > 14 MHz, IP3 (effective) = -40 dBm (5kHz), -18dBm
                                  > (20kHz), 0dBm
                                  > > (200kHz)
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Carrier suppression:
                                  > >
                                  > > -43dBc (20m), -37dBc (2m), -50dBc (70cm)
                                  > >
                                  > > Sideband suppression:
                                  > >
                                  > > -53dBc (20m), -52dBc (2m), -53dBc (70cm)
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Rene
                                  >
                                  >


                                  __________________________________________________
                                  Do you Yahoo!?
                                  Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
                                  http://tax.yahoo.com
                                • Cortland
                                  That -24 dBm is at 5 KHz, not the usual 20 KHz. It s 1.3 dBm (20 meters), not spectacular, but not as bad as the 1960 s stuff, at 20 KHz. (VHF/UHF is much
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Apr 5, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    That -24 dBm is at 5 KHz, not the usual 20 KHz. It's 1.3 dBm (20
                                    meters), not spectacular, but not as bad as the 1960's stuff, at 20
                                    KHz. (VHF/UHF is much worse.)

                                    Here's what the review in QST says: "......Compare this 5 KHz
                                    measurement to Yaesu's other recent 100 W radio with a handle, the
                                    high-end and much heavier FT-1000 MP Mark V Field, and you will find
                                    similar performance. For a radio of its price class, the FT-897 does
                                    a very nice job of pulling out the weak ones in the presence of
                                    strong ones."

                                    3rd order transmit IMD in the ARRL review IS a bit disappointing,
                                    tested as -26dB at 50 watts PEP, but I suspect this may be related to
                                    the often mentioned audio problem at less than 100 watts --- which is
                                    also said to go away if the RF speech processor is turned on with a
                                    setting of 10 or so.


                                    Cortland

                                    --- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, "willyacht" <willyacht@y...> wrote:
                                    > All i can say is that the FT897 receiver numbers have been one of
                                    the
                                    > worst set of numbers i have seen in a long time. I am quite shocked
                                    > that the radio measured so poorly. The receiver performance numbers
                                    > remind of some of the very early SSB ham gear from 60's. What is
                                  • kb0cj
                                    After reading the review, I looked at the specs for the FT-100D. Amazing difference. The older radio s front end kills the 897, as does the price now that it
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Apr 5, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      After reading the review, I looked at the specs for the FT-100D.
                                      Amazing difference. The older radio's front end kills the 897, as
                                      does the price now that it is a discontinued unit. I was in the
                                      market for an 897 for portable use (non-battery), but after reading
                                      the specs for the 897 it is no longer on my radar screen.

                                      Lou, KB0CJ


                                      --- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, "willyacht" <willyacht@y...> wrote:
                                      > All i can say is that the FT897 receiver numbers have been one of
                                      the
                                      > worst set of numbers i have seen in a long time. I am quite shocked
                                      > that the radio measured so poorly. The receiver performance numbers
                                      > remind of some of the very early SSB ham gear from 60's. What is
                                      also
                                      > disapointing is the transmitter IMD, the 3rd and 5th order products
                                      > are very bad. It is in the CB radio class for transmitter
                                      performance.

                                      <<<snip>>>
                                    • Cortland
                                      Yeah.. heh heh! I d passed on the FT100 because everything I d heard on them was, they were about the same as a 706. Have fun! Cortland
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Apr 5, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Yeah.. heh heh!

                                        I'd passed on the FT100 because everything I'd heard on them was,
                                        they were about the same as a 706.

                                        Have fun!

                                        Cortland

                                        --- In FT897@yahoogroups.com, "kb0cj" <kb0cj@a...> wrote:
                                        > After reading the review, I looked at the specs for the FT-100D.
                                        > Amazing difference. The older radio's front end kills the 897, as
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.