The adding of top loading to the HF2 is out because I do not want guys. If I
could put up with guys I would have gone for the MFJ-1793 - top loading and
20 meters - but it MUST be guyed. I am not that concerned about the narrow
BW on 80M as I will tune it to the DX portion of the band and leave it
there. I have a trapped dipole for chatting with the KY Morning Crew if I
Clint Talmadge - W5CPT
From: Grant Saviers [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 6:03 PM
To: Clint Talmadge W5CPT
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 40M/80M Vertical Choice - second attempt
The top loading of the MA *might* if large enough make it electrically as
long as the HF, so that makes the loading comparison a wash for the stock
antennas. Since you can add top loading to the HF (see the
manual) that makes it a clear winner.
Another option is to add a variable inductor (Tornado drive) at the base so
you can tune around on 80m. (you might make a replacement for the stock 80m
coil that compresses and expands the coil like the Tornado.
All it takes is a small DC motor and delrin screw.)
If you can elevate the feedpoint and radials about 8' the ground loss will
be way less even with a limited number of radials. See the recent QEX and
On 6/28/2011 1:16 PM, Clint Talmadge W5CPT wrote:
> It seems that the Yahoo Group truncated my table - I 'll try again
> I have decided to replace my makeshift 40/80M vertical with a store
> bought model and have narrowed the choices to two: The Butternut HF2V
> and the Cushcraft MA8040V.
> Facts& Figures:
> HF2V MA8040V Advantage
> Price $270 $265 Draw
> Height 32' 23' HF2V
> Weight 13# 9# HF2V
> Loading base top MA8040V
> I have the remnants of a well-used HF6V which is the basis for my
> present antenna so I am familiar with how the Butternuts go together,
> but the manual for the Cushcraft seems pretty straight forward.
> What have I not considered?
> Clint - W5CPT
> TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk mailing list