[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] MFJ 1792 correction vs HF2V

To: <>
Subject: [TowerTalk] MFJ 1792 correction vs HF2V
From: (
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 09:59:53 EDT
Last night, I mentioned in reply to N4KG's response to my listing of 
accomplished Butternut HF2V'ers that I thought the Butternut could beat any 
three foot top loaded antenna.  I got data of the antenna's 3 foot size off 
of MFJ's antenna description web page as follows:

First, I clicked on the MFJ page then clicked 

"HF Verticle"  (Is that the English version of vertical????)

Then I clicked: 

"MFJ 1792"

This description came up:

A high-performance vertical.  Full sie quarter wave radiator for 40 
Meters-That's 3 feet of ruthless radiating power.  End loading, low loss 
fiberglass form, high strength 6061 - T6 Aluminum tubing, handles 1,500 Watts 
PEP, requires guying and radial counterpoises or ground screen.  Price 

I assumed it was three feet tall, that's what the page said!!! . (OK, maybe I 
knew it was a misprint but I had to have some fun with it- ) This morning,  
open minded,  I went back and down loaded the actual manual (very well 
written) and saw it was 33 feet tall.  I think they mean full size for 40 
meters, not full sie implying a 3 foot wonder antenna, and from their manual, 
what ever was causing them to spell vertical as verticle in several places on 
their webpage, they got that corrected.  As far as the ruthless aspect, 
typical MFJ advertising style-

Of note, out of the box, the antenna does require guying.  The Butter HF2V 
does not.  Therefore, I don't agree that the MFJ 1792 takes up the same 
amount of room as the Butternut HF2V as stated in earlier postings by others.

The DX window on 75 SSB is 10KHz (3.790-3.800MHz and the 80 meter CW window 
is 25KHz (3.550-3.525MHz).  These are narrow enough to put a stock HF2V in 
the middle of and have decent bandwidth.  Neither of these antennas is so 
broad banded that you can operate in both windows without having to retune 
them and/or use a tuner to accomplish this.

I do think that the MFJ 1792 is a neat concept, on paper, has potential to 
will work fb from a small lot,  and gives more bandwidth over a stock HF2V 
without modifications for those who like to cruise the upper end of 75 SSB 
for stateside stuff etc.......but it would be nice if the company making the 
antenna could give it a better impression by proof reading their own webpage- 

In discussing backyard antennas for DX'ing, they HF2V seems to be a better 
fit then the 1792 if guying is an issue, staying within the spirit of the 
thread on good antennas for small lots.  I would not be discouraged from 
using the HF2V.  Eham reviews are very positive about this antenna.  If you 
have a bit more room, you can top load this antenna with guyed top hat wires 
increasing it's bandwidth.

One other comment, I like to kid around a lot, so please don't take this as a 
flaming write-up against MFJ.  I just want to get the point across about an 
antenna, the HF2V, that many have used around the world, from small 
backyards, to DXpeditions, to work DX- For someone to say it is "DOG" is not 
really accurate-  It is a compromise of an antenna for the band, but that's 
what it is designed for, thus allowing many hams to get on 80 meters in the 
first place-  

List Sponsored by AN Wireless:  AN Wireless handles Rohn tower systems,
Trylon Titan towers, coax, hardline and more. Also check out our self
supporting towers up to 96 feet for under $1500!!

FAQ on WWW:     
Administrative requests:

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