Thanks for this and your other direct message.
Another "issue" comes up that I have seen here and there on the reflector,
but I'm still not sure about the answer.
I live in Syracuse NY, and we have our share of acid rain. It seems that
both antennas - and others - make use of sliding aluminum tubing
connections. What is to prevent oxidation of the connecting surfaces with
resultant deterioration of RF performance? Can this deterioration, if
present, be abated by using some sort of conductive joint compound during
Concerning the KT36XA, it seems that the elements are not spaced using the
more modern element interleaving techniques based on computer modeling. On
the other hand, the antenna clearly uses sophisticated element length
adjustment using stub sections and, I imagine, capacity loading. It has a
longer boom. So, does this represent "one way" of achieving optimum
multi-band performance, or is the uniform spacing inferior by design to
those tribanders using interleaved element spacing?
You can tell I'm new to yagis. About quads I can speak at some length <g>.
Thanks to all who are contributing to this thread. All comments have been
most helpful. Great group.
At 10/09/2007 07:31, K7LXC@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 10/7/2007 9:39:38 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> > I'm thinking of replacing my quad with either a Skyhawk or M2's KT36XA
> Sounds like you should take a gander at our tribander comparison
> report from
> The SkyHawk and KT34XA were both tested. The KLM KT34XA had a couple of
> anomalies that may or may not be present in the 36 (methinks not). And
> Mike Stall said that the 36 has a few more tenths of a dB gain but not
> anything significant so I think you can make some valid inferences from
> the 34 data. And it's only seventeen bucks plus s/h.
>Champion Radio Products
>See what's new at <http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170>AOL.com
>and <http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169>Make AOL
Robert G. Strickland PhD ABPH - KE2WY
Syracuse, New York USA
TowerTalk mailing list