[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] MFJ 1792 correction vs HF2V

To: <>
Subject: [TowerTalk] MFJ 1792 correction vs HF2V
From: (
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 10:34:27 -0600
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 writes:
> "MFJ 1792"
> 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 HF2V also requires RADIALS, as does the MFJ-1792.
        A set of light weight non-conductive guys could easily be
        placed within the space devoted to radial placement.
        Even steep guys are better than NO guys.

        I would NOT recommend using a 1/4 WL (electrical) 
        vertical without radials.  Even short radials are better
        than NO radials, just as a short antenna is better than
        NO antenna.   (Enough of this ! )   N4KG
> 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.

        Agree. I will even concede that it is easier to retune
        the HF2V since the coil is accessable from the ground.

        The MFJ-1792 has a nifty tilt base to facilitate raising
        and lowering.  It would be interesting to see how they
        both work on SSB with a tuner if tuned for CW.  That's
        what I do with my full size coax fed antennas.  N4KG
> 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- 

        Thank you for having an open mind and looking at the facts.
        I have no idea why MFJ doesn't do a better job of promoting
        this interesting antenna.  I have suggested they advertise it
        in the NCJ and DX magazines which have low advertising
        rates due to smaller circulations yet target the most 
        likely buyers of  80 / 40 verticals.   N4KG

> 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-  

        No one likes to have their antenna called a "DOG",
        especially if it has done good things for them.
        I didn't like the "modified G5RV" characterization as 
        a DOG in a separate thread and responded similarly.
> 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 M
> in the  first place-  
        That is a good point.  I do stand by my contention that
        the MFJ 1792 has the potential to be a *better* compromise
        on 80M than the base loaded HF2V *without* top loading wires.
        A top loaded HF2V is probably a better radiator as well.
        Note that the top loading wires need external supports
        and possible additional guying.  

        I hope we can put this thread to bed now, at least until 
        further performance data or experience is available.
        Tom  N4KG
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:

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>