As DXpeditiins go, this one was just above failure. A lot of shortcomings have been noted. And duly noted, there is tons to be learned here.
The equipment brought was just rediculous. As another stated, a single generator per station would have been much better. A generator runs at its most efficient the more its loaded. Bring huge generators that will be run at 20 percent load is just dumb. And screams someone who spec'ed power for this expedition just got it wrong.
Zodiaks, suits, helicopters...... Did anyone planning this one have prior experience with sub arctic landings? It would appear not. And if they did, why did nobody else listen?
I mean, prior operators moved during the dxpediyion, on 3Y, by themselves, so they could make contacts to North America.
I had a half hour window and never heard them. I'm by no means a big gun but I expected at least one decode. And my 850 was running 24x7.
Future expeditions need to take note of the failures noted on this one. So they don't make the same mistakes.
Small radios and large gain ldmos high efficiency amps are key here. Generators sized appropriately are key. An actual landing plan is key.
And let's hope that major donators, equipment manufacturers, etc who make these possible, don't think that this is the new norm. Because they didn't get anything for their money this time, other than being associated with what is probably the hottest debated dxpedition ever in terms of it being a failure or not.
Like what I say or not. Learn from it or not. Defend your position or not. But what is being said is the truth. In comparison to almost all DXpeditions operated in the last 4p plus years, this one was pretty much a failure.
Move on. Learn. Don't repeat.
--Shane
WP2ASS / ex KD6VXI