[Antennas] May put up another large vertical. Any suggestions?

[Charles Greene]

At 01:43 PM 3/10/2002 -0500, Bill Roberts wrote:

Bill,

I looked at the Voyager for a good antenna on 160 and 80, but gave it up 
for an inverted L with a good ground system, which I haven't built 
yet.  I'm convinced that good performance, in my situation without a real 
tall tree or mast, is to get up as high as possible with a vertical and top 
load it or use an inverted L configuration, and then put in lots of ground 
radials.  I haven't modelled it, but I think I can get good dual band 
performance on 160 and 80 with an inverted L, and I have enough real estate 
for an inverted L.  I can get four band performance with low angle 
radiation on 160 through 30 meters with a top loaded 45' vertical and lots 
of ground radials, so EZNEC says.

>Greetings,
>
>The 80 MPH winds here in Michigan just took down my GAP Voyager IV 160-20 
>meter vertical.  For those of you not familiar with the Voyager, it gets 
>you on 160 with mediocre performance (albeit broad banded).  It really 
>stomps on 80 and 40, and is also broad banded (resonates on nearly all of 
>80 and all of 40).  Have rarely used it on 20.  I know that in theory, 
>broadbanded = low Q and inefficient.  My experience has been to the contrary.
>
>Before I repair or replace it, does anyone on this reflector have any 
>other suggestions.  I'm mainly interested in 80 and 40.  I like the broad 
>banded feature but would be happy with just partial band segments.  I have 
>had HyGain Hi Towers, butternut verticals (room and ground mounted).  Any 
>other suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>73
>
>Bill Roberts / K8DXX

73, Chas, W1CG