The C31XR is composed of 3 monobanders interlaced with
forward stagger. There are 3L on 20, 4L on 15, and 7L on 10M.
I used the same number of elements for each band except 10
where I expect some of the elements are primarily used as
open sleeves to decouple the 15 and 20 M elements.
I would use the same element spacing / boom length for the
monobanders as in the C31XR. The slight offsets along the
boom can be compensated as discussed by others previously.
This arrangement is less expensive than 4 - C31XR's but is
not as flexible since some of the middle antennas could not
rotate without hitting guy wires.
de Tom N4KG
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:05:02 -0500 Pete Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> At 07:23 AM 12/21/1999 -0600, email@example.com wrote:
> >130 ft C31XR
> >100 ft 4L15
> > 85 ft 3L20
> > 70 ft 4L15
> > 60 ft 6L10
> > 40 ft C31XR
> An interesting idea, but a question. Does this presuppose that the
> monoband antennas in the stack would be sections out of the C-31
>(i.e. similar spacing)? I've always understood that stacking dissimilar
> antennas is prone to unexpected downsides unless fully modeled.
> 73, Pete N4ZR
Why pay more to get Web access?
Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com