[TAC] Antennas

[Greg Surma]

Here is my take on the antennas for the low bands:

*	I will be sending the B&W antenna to Ted later this week.  It is
basically an Inverted "L".  Not sure on the theory...and not convinced
that a 35' high antenna spells a booming sig on 160. 
*	From the W8HO estate I also have a "Carolina Windom 160 special"
that is 132' long and 22' high.  It is both H and V polarized.  They
claim that the gain is "up to +10 db....except 160 where it is -10 dB".
I'm sure it acts like a shortened vertical with a heavily top-loaded "T"
on 160.  It is rated at 500 w on 160. 
*	From the W8HO estate I have a Spi-ro D162.  This is a 205' long
combo 80/160 dipole, rated at 600 watts.  www.spiromfg.com  KURT:  This
is the antenna that we were both puzzled over at Findlay.  
*	I have little faith (and, admitted,  little experience)
concerning any of these fad-based wire antennas.  My vote would go for
the B&W antenna for 160 strictly from a weight and convenience point of
view.  The BC Special would leave 'em all in the dust...but is it
practical? Can we risk putting it up in the higher winds?  Is the weight
worth it? 
*	All three of the above antennas would work on 80.....but Ian has
the HF2V's....and we could always load up 30' of mast with a top 30' "L"
as a squashed vertical for 80.  Near the sea and over radials either of
these would be a killer. 
*	Two HF2V's spaced 140' would give some semblance of gain (and
receive discrimination).  Two loaded antennas with 1/4 wave spacing
might be too tricky to get going properly. 
*	The HF2V is always useable on 160 if you tinker with it enuff.

Ted...let me know about the "Snake" antenna.
 
Greg Surma  K8GL