Yes it is self supporting, though I'd recommend some guying.
Curt
At 11:26 AM 12/3/2011, you wrote:
>Hi;
>No rush;
>May have to look into this one. Is it self supporting? I had two
>cushcraft r8s but just couldn't keep the thing up in the wind.
>Richard
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Curtis Delzer <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Date: Saturday, Dec 3, 2011 02:13:00 AM
>Subject: Re: Thinking of an HF vertical
>
> >
> >
> > Hi, am late in replying, but will handle a kw, it's mounted on my
> > clothes line pole about 5 feet from the ground, and is 33 feet in height.
> > Curt
> > W B 6 H E F
> > Fessenden, North Dakota; 58438-7300
> > At 08:37 PM 11/28/2011, you wrote:
> > >Hi;
> > >How tall is this thing and did you ground mount or roof mount
> > >it? What is its power rating?
> > >Thanks
> > >Richard
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: Curtis Delzer <[log in to unmask]>
> > >To: [log in to unmask]
> > >Date: Saturday, Nov 26, 2011 09:10:54 PM
> > >Subject: Re: Thinking of an HF vertical
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > another terrific vertical for 40 to 6 meters is the Hygain 640/AV
> > > > which I have here and it truly works great. No radials!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At 12:15 PM 11/21/2011, you wrote:
> > > > >Michael,
> > > > >
> > > > >Although I haven't had any experience with either of the antennas you
> > > > >mentioned, I did at one time have a Butternut 18AVQ, which
> was supposed to
> > > > >work on all bands from 80 through 10. In fairness to the
> > > antenna, I wasn't
> > > > >able to put down the kind of radial system stipulated in the
> > > manual, so the
> > > > >antenna probably didn't live up to anything like its full
> potential. That
> > > > >said, though, it worked very well on 20, and I found that I
> could use that
> > > > >band late at night, when it probably would otherwise have
> been closed. On
> > > > >other bands, though, the antenna was a very poor performer,
> with the worst
> > > > >case being 80 meters where it didn't work at all.
> > > > >
> > > > >In my opinion, the important thing to consider with a vertical
> > > is whether or
> > > > >not you want to deal with radials, and whether you want to have
> > > traps, which
> > > > >will make the bandwidth very narrow. In general, verticals
> seem to work
> > > > >better at higher frequencies, and in my experience, dipoles
> and other wire
> > > > >antennas perform better on the lower bands, with the
> possible exception of
> > > > >160 where many people like to use quarter-wave verticals.
> > > > >
> > > > >Again, I am quite sure I would have done better with a good
> radial system,
> > > > >but that's an important factor with most verticals.
> > > > >
> > > > >Steve
> > > > >
> > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > >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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm thinking of adding an HF vertical again.
> > > > > > My G5RV hasn't exactly out performed my old windom, about
> > > equal except on
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > Anyone familiar with these antennas? Will they outperform
> my RV in its
> > > > > > present configuration?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TNX & 73
> > > > > > Michael De VO1RYN
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > > >
|
