[50mhz] 50 Mhz antennas

[CBoone@Earthlink.Net]

Mike KA5CVH Urich wrote:
> 
> > > Actually, it would not be a tough choice as I won't have anything
> > > CushCraft at my QTH!!
> 
> Mike wrote
> 
> You know I hate to see any product so badly bashed as CC has been on this
> list.  I do pro-sound on the side and I'm in a list of about 2300 people
> around the world that discusses, mixing boards, signal processing,
> amplifiers, speakers, microphones, cables etc etc etc.  As I pointed out in
> that list a couple of times that every product servers a purpose otherwise
> it would not maintain any market share and would the way of the buggy whip.
> Just as some automobiles are better than others and most people have
> preferences of one over another, doesn't mean everything but there favorite
> is a piece of junk.  If CC was as poor a product as some have eluded to then
> they would have been out business years ago.

Well I have to disagree there Mike...

CC was and still is a cheap antenna....it was low cost and EASY to FIND
since a lot of dealers (including Madison's here in Houston when they
were still in business) carry them....BUT just because they are out
there, doesnt mean they are the best for the money....or good at all.
The verticals like the 6mtr Ringo and some of the other 1/2wave stuff
are ok....cant go wrong with that thing (as the Duke said in one movie!)
BUT the pattern/gain of their yagis and even the gain of the Rangers
sucked when actually measured....I had a Ranger on 2mtr up for a 
while as a rptr antenna....a 1/4w GP later replaced it and no
difference in coverage was noted...soo much for the gain...besides
the phasing loop tends to skew the pattern so it is NOT omni...
NOW their mobile line of antennas (patterned after Larsen) work!
and I understand their later line of commercial LMR dipole antennas
are great....the Four Poles on amateur bands though?? the 2mtr and
220 were ok....even omni (if you used a small pole!)...the 440 model
ONLY works good in directional mode...in omni, the antenna has DEEP
nulls between the 90 deg element spacing (this was confirmed by K5NI
in Beaumont,TX who had one on top of his tower...we spun it one day
and took readings down the street...no reflections and GAWD the peak
to null was terrible...which explained his rptr coverage in certain
directions...a Hustler G6-440 on top of the same mast beat the 
pants off the 4 pole!)

The connections to the rings in the Ringos are NOT the best in the
world and COULD have been better....I for one would have liked a 
FLAT ring with a good STRAP connection....but the cheap screw and
u shaped clamp left a lot to be desired (and it showed!)...

Also the 440 yagis they made (6 and 10 elements) were used by
a number of us on 440 in the 70s and 80s...only to find they
could be outdone by the 5 element DB 436 (even the 10 element CC!)

NOW I wont say all their products are bad or not worthy of use..
I know of plenty of HF users of their verticals...but the most
known models of their antennas (the 147-6 and 147-11 as well as
the 220 and 440 version plus the 4 Poles) which made CC a 
well known name ALSO gave them a bad reputation....had they 
NOT made the cheap antennas they did, perhaps their reputation
would be better....I ALWAYS was impressed with the DX-420 series
antenna....Eric Yerpe(and I just misspelled his last name badly!)
in Port Arthur used one of those at 20ft to keep a 432 MHz Sunday sked
with a guy on the south side of Houston.....95 miles to the east..
back in the 70s!!! with HOMEBREW xvtr to 432 and HEATHKIT gear
as the main driver/rcvr!!! NOT bad for back then....Eric btw
never missed a sked except TWICE in the decade they kept it up..
both were Christmas days Eric or the Houston contact were out of
town! :)=

Sorry for the long soapbox...but a lot of CC's reputation was
established before you became a ham....and just as I did get my
ticket in the early 70s!....its hard to get rid of such once
its there...

> 
> I personally wish there was a tried and true standard that every mfg must
> adhere too in their advertising of all products but short of the magazine
> publishers requiring such a standard it isn't going to happen.  Just imagine
> QST, CQ, etc telling mfg that their ads were rejected because of misleading
> specifications ... YEAH ... RIGHT.

QST does sorta..in fact you DO NOT see a GAIN figure at ALL in QST ads..
they WILL NOT print them because of the lack of standard...been ARRL
HQ's policy and still stands....BUT if everyone would use Dbd or Dbi
then MAYBE..................AHH we CAN dream right?? ;)

(I wish so too!)

Chris
WB5ITT