I don't get to see sunrises very often as I'm not a morning person, hihi. My
test was with Puerto Rico which is not exactly long haul DX. I have worked
many long-haul DX stations with the D240 but doing a performance test on them
was difficult due to the low S/N ratio. Perhaps this winter will provide me
with more opportunities on performance testing.
Yes I still have the same mounting configuration. The Skyhawk has insulated
elements. I get a ton of wind static from it. But that's another topic for
another day, hihi.
Since I'll be changing out my mast soon I'm considering of putting the D240
under the Skyhawk. This doesn't help with wind loading on the tower so I'm
hesitant to make the switch. Many others have it above the tri-bander will no
ill effects. Per the F12 gang (Tom and Mark) the D240 is designed to be
mounted close (>4') to a tri-bander.
Copying W2IRT as he also has a D240.
From: Steve London <email@example.com>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:56 AM
Subject: Re: F12 Delta 240 performance observation
Before you conclude that your D240 doesn't have much pattern, run some more
tests on DX signals. From your QTH in Colorado, I would recommend listening
around your sunrise for signals from Japan and the far east.
Are you still using the Bencher Skyhawk/D240 stack as shown in the photos on
your qrz.com web page ? Does the Bencher Skyhawk insulate the parasitic
elements from the boom ? If not, it is possible that the combined electrical
length of the boom plus the uninsulated elements is close enough to a half
wavelength on 40 meters to have significant interaction with the D240.
TowerTalk mailing list