[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Vertical vs. Low Beam?

To: <>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Vertical vs. Low Beam?
From: (
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 14:15:33 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 97-03-21 13:38:19 EST, (Doug Brandon)

> I've been using a roof mounted HF6V vertical (at about 16') for the 
>  past 5 years with reasonable results.  I'm currently looking into putting 
>  up a tower, but in the meantime I'm curious if a roof mounted beam
>  (say a Force C3/C4 or Cushcraft A4) at around 20' - 25' would do any
>  better than the vertical.  
>  I know the rule of thumb with beams is "higher is better", but what is 
>  the minimum height at which I can expect reasonable results?  or at
>  least better results than the vertical?

Doug --  

      What a great idea!  You'll have more fun than you thought legally
possible by doing what you're proposing.  You'll have gain, pattern and less
QRN with the beam installation.  Both antennas will give you lots of
perfomance for the money.  BTW, I'd probably opt for the 40M options on both
antennas - more bands and more fun.

    While more height means more gain and performance, even a low tribander
will work FB.   A roof-mounted tower is an easy way to get started.  

     BTW, you may be interested in a reprint of my presentation "Building A
One Tower Station" which looks at most of the issues of this situation.  A
free copy can be had for an SASE to TOWER TECH, Box 572, Woodinville, WA,

73,  Steve  K7LXC

FAQ on WWW:     
Administrative requests:
Sponsored by:             Akorn Access, Inc. & N4VJ / K4AAA

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>