[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Skyhawk, KT36XA, opinions requested

To: <>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Skyhawk, KT36XA, opinions requested
From: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:34:53 -0400 (EDT)
List-post: <>

In the USA, a similar aluminum oxidation-prevention product is called
NOALOX.  I bought mine in the electrical section at Home Depot some time
ago and do recall seeing it there within the past year.

The KT-series antennas are trapped tribanders.  They use a combination of
linear inductors and coaxial capacitors made from aluminum tubing to form
the parallel resonant trap sections one would expect in such an antenna. 
It is generally less lossy than a conventional coil/capacitor trap, but it
puts a lot of extra aluminum in the air.  They use a 2-element trapped log
cell for the driven element to improve the bandwidth, generally giving
full-band coverage and then some on all three bands with the KT-34
version, and slightly narrower bandwidth with the extended KT-36 version. 
They generally work reasonably well as multi-band trap antennas go, and
being a VHF person with a lot of M2 antlers under my belt, I know that
Mike Staal makes an effort to be honest with antenna gain figures - even
on HF.

One thing to note - the current M2 construction of the KT-series is MUCH
more robust than the original KLM versions, and most, if not all of the
original issues with capacitor plastics differences, breaking element
insulators, etc. have been eliminated.  I don't own a new one, but I
helped raise and/or used several KT-34A's many years ago while I was
"seeing the world" with the US Navy.  Everybody I knew who put one up
liked them, and had no problem working the stations they wanted to work. 
Will they compete head-on with a big-gun with stacked long-boom
monobanders and stacked 8877's?  Not likely - unless the conditions are
just right.

Dan  KB5MY/6

> I use "alumslip" (I thinks it´s a product from the U.K.) on he joints of
> my yagis.
> Thats a kind of grease mixed with very fine aluminum powder.
> After mounting and aligment I put a double layer of sef vulcanizing tape
> across the joint and cover all with heat shrinking tubes.
> Never had any trouble with dismounting those parts.
> 73
> Peter
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [] On Behalf Of Robert G.
> Strickland Sent: Mittwoch, 10. Oktober 2007 02:25
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Skyhawk, KT36XA, opinions requested
> Steven...
> 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 assembly?
> 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.
> ...robert
> At 10/09/2007 07:31, wrote:
>>In a message dated 10/7/2007 9:39:38 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>> writes:
>> >  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
> <>
> ations.html.
>> 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.
>>Steve    K7LXC
>>Champion Radio Products
>>Cell: 206-890-4188
>>See what's new at <>
>> and <>Make AOL
>>  Your Homepage.
> Robert G. Strickland PhD ABPH - KE2WY
> Syracuse, New York  USA
> _______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list


TowerTalk mailing list

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