On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 Dinsterdog@aol.com 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.
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
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!! http://www.anwireless.com
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com