[TAC] Antennas

[Ian Hill]

I'm for taking the BC special. I think that with hauling three amps and all
the other gear we are going to be overweight anyway. Take whatever the
overweight expenses are and divide between all the ops.
Also we will have a big signal on 80 and 160 as well as being able to hear
better and that is sort of the point of going there anyway. ;-)
We have 6 guys, I'm sure we can get that thing into the air and figure out
what we can use to keep it that way.

My HF2V's do work ok on 80 but it's a shortened baseloaded vertical and
greatly dependant on the quality of ground radials underneath it. As for it
working on 160m, I've never really tried it but I don't know if you can get
it to work without the 160 loading coil. I would also worry about blowing up
one of the HV doorknob caps as well.

I used to use a Carolina Windom when I was in an apartment. It was strung up
in the woods out back and it worked for the higher bands but not so well on
40 and down. During the 160m contests I would have to call several times
before I could work anything beyond W8,W9,W3 while using that antenna and
500w.

Ian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Greg Surma" <Greg.Surma at wnem.com>
To: <tac at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 3:55 PM
Subject: [TAC] Antennas




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

______________________________________________________________
TAC mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/tac
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmmain.htm
Post: mailto:TAC at mailman.qth.net