[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] 160m - Sloper vs. Inverted L?

To: <>
Subject: [TowerTalk] 160m - Sloper vs. Inverted L?
From: "Larry Schimelpfenig" <>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 07:57:38 -0400
List-post: <>
Will, I have to agree with Roger K8RI's comments. Some folks have had great 
luck with a half sloper, others haven't. On the other hand it appears that 
performance of an inverted L is quite consistent, depending on the ground 
screen. I'd say the inverted L is the standard of 160M antennas, at least 
for those that want to work over the pond!

Many years ago I put an 80 meter half sloper on a wind mill type tower 
supporting a KT34XA at K4CG. The length needed a little adjusting, but once 
it was pruned, it really honked. I had used a similar sloper at several of 
my own QTHs and while they seemed to work, they weren't nearly as effective 
as the one at the Coast Guard Station. Eventually it dawned on me that the 
thing performed as well as it did, because it was sitting over an extensive 
radial system. The unit had previously been Coast Guard Washington Radio. 
While most of the antennas had been removed, the ground screen had not.

I haven't seen much discussion regarding half slopers over a radial field, 
but based on my experience, if one can get a half sloper to resonate, 
putting a radial field under it is icing on the cake.

Then again if one is going to do radials, an inverted L is almost a sure 

73 de Lar K7SV 


TowerTalk mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [TowerTalk] 160m - Sloper vs. Inverted L?, Larry Schimelpfenig <=