Thu, November 2, 2023 5:44 pm
In August, I decided to look into the TXQP website. All QP websites are not equal, and I found the resources for the TXQP very helpful. I took time to study the available routes and fixed stations via the "TQP 2023 - Counties on the Air" webpage, and set up an Excel spreadsheet to track the roving stations by day and by county. From Arizona, I ran 200 watts into two home-brew verticals (10-15-20) and an Inv-V on 40 and 80. (My score details are at 3830).
Although it would have been great to work all counties, I set a goal on trying for at least 100 multipliers, and to follow the APRS-capable mobiles for bonus points which turned out to be a great challenge. During the QP I watched the map and used other tools and good 'ol hunting and pouncing to work my way through the contest.
From Arizona it is relatively a short hop to west Texas, and I was not certain what QSO's the propagation would be kind enough to yield. It would be interesting to hear other experiences from other states. Interestingly, 20 meters seemed to be "the band" for me, and in the time working the TXQP, I ended up making 124 Q's on 20, followed by 41 Q's on 40, 26 on 15 and 6 on 80. Total Q's were 197 - and I made the goal of 100 multipliers by working 112 counties. By following the rovers, I was fortunate to earn 8,500 bonus points, which are critical if one is to try to place in the higher scores. There were times when I could hear one of the roving stations fairly well, and then other times was unable to copy. In my 3830 comments, I wrote:
Total Score includes 8500 bonus points. Bonus stations worked (points/mults): AD4EB (3000/34), N5NA (1500/19), K5EC (1500/17), K5CM/M (500/8), W5CT (1500/19), and K5PS (500/6).
After the QP, I had the pleasure of exchanging emails with Jim and enjoyed his detailed response about his and Melody's experiences. I also found they were likewise participating in the Illinois QSO party and had the opportunity to work their mobile station a number of times. I likewise had the pleasure of exchanging emails with a couple of out-of-state scoring ops and appreciate the time they took to respond.
Fri, September 15, 2023 5:55 pm
We need a better way to do the exchange that fits into the FT-x message format. Not sure what the solution is but would like to know how others are doing it and maybe document the methods. I have heard some opinions but nothing definitive.
I know this is not a TXQSO issue but as popular as FT-x is, it would be attractive.
I also saw a suggestion to use a different frequency so that the ops would be expecting the exchange and be prepared. The Texas County is the biggest problem. We can use a macro to do it but it is not standardized. Anyway, for consideration please.
Thu, September 21, 2023 12:29 pm