When it is up I use a High Sierra Screwdriver. I use 16 10 foot radials,
and I jam a piece of Pipe about 1 foot into the ground and then I clamp the
antenna connector on that. It does well on 40 through 10, and I can tune
80, but I need a lot of power to be heard.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Dresser" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: Thinking of an HF vertical
>I didn't think so, but I had this antenna several years ago and I may have
> misremembered the model number.
>
> Steve
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Buddy Brannan" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 13:37
> Subject: Re: Thinking of an HF vertical
>
>
>> Isn't the 18AVQ a Hy-Gain antenna?
>>
>> --
>> Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA
>> Phone: (814) 860-3194 or 888-75-BUDDY
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 21, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Steve Dresser wrote:
>>
>>> Michael,
>>>=20
>>> Although I haven't had any experience with either of the antennas
>>> you=20=
>>
>>> mentioned, I did at one time have a Butternut 18AVQ, which was =
>> supposed to=20
>>> work on all bands from 80 through 10. In fairness to the antenna, I =
>> wasn't=20
>>> able to put down the kind of radial system stipulated in the manual, =
>> so the=20
>>> antenna probably didn't live up to anything like its full potential. =
>> That=20
>>> said, though, it worked very well on 20, and I found that I could use =
>> that=20
>>> band late at night, when it probably would otherwise have been closed. =
>> On=20
>>> other bands, though, the antenna was a very poor performer, with the =
>> worst=20
>>> case being 80 meters where it didn't work at all.
>>>=20
>>> In my opinion, the important thing to consider with a vertical is =
>> whether or=20
>>> not you want to deal with radials, and whether you want to have traps, =
>> which=20
>>> will make the bandwidth very narrow. In general, verticals seem to =
>> work=20
>>> better at higher frequencies, and in my experience, dipoles and other =
>> wire=20
>>> antennas perform better on the lower bands, with the possible =
>> exception of=20
>>> 160 where many people like to use quarter-wave verticals.
>>>=20
>>> Again, I am quite sure I would have done better with a good radial =
>> system,=20
>>> but that's an important factor with most verticals.
>>>=20
>>> Steve
>>>=20
>>> ----- Original Message -----=20
>>> From: "Michael Ryan" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 12:00
>>> Subject: Thinking of an HF vertical
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>> Hi all:
>>>>=20
>>>> I'm thinking of adding an HF vertical again.
>>>> My G5RV hasn't exactly out performed my old windom, about equal =
>> except on=20
>>>> 40, slight edge to the rv.
>>>> It's in an inverted V, apex at 50 feet.
>>>> So I'm looking at 2 verticals, the Hustler 5BTV and the Butternut HF =
>> 6V.=20
>>>> Anyone familiar with these antennas? Will they outperform my RV in =
>> its=20
>>>> present configuration?
>>>>=20
>>>> TNX & 73
>>>> Michael De VO1RYN
>>>>=20
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>=20
>>
|
