Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+C\-19XR\s+vs\s+TH\-6\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+C\-19XR\s+vs\s+TH\-6\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] C-19XR vs TH-6 (score: 1): Author: ve6yc@home.com (Peter Larsen); Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 01:26:38 +0100; Hi All: As every one is having fun with the C-3 vs T-6 debate, here is a question to add to the pot. I have a TH-6 at 72 feet. I am thinking of replacing it with a C-19XR. How would these two antenna; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-10/msg00144.html (8,469 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] C-19XR vs TH-6 (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com); Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 21:39:12 EDT; Dunno. Did you forget your umbrella? Actually the F12 published figures corroborate with our test figures reasonably well so you can use both to make some educated decisions. Sounds like the differen; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-10/msg00145.html (8,429 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] C-19XR vs TH-6 (score: 1): Author: ve6yc@home.com (Peter Larsen); Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 02:24:04 +0100; Although my TH-6 is in good shape having been rebuilt only 2 years ago, I agree. That is why I am starting to look now rather than when I am in need. -- 73 es have fun Peter VE6YC DO21wc "Where Are; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-10/msg00148.html (7,750 bytes)
4. [TowerTalk] C-19XR vs TH-6 (score: 1): Author: na1i@portone.com (BUBS); Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 16:35:37 -0700; Pete, I had a TH6 and then replaced it with a TH7 circa 1990, at 54' up the TH6 was a far better antenna then the TH7. I was sorry that I sold the TH6. Last Summer I replaced the TH7 with a C3E from; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-10/msg00168.html (11,431 bytes)
5. [TowerTalk] C-19XR vs TH-6 (score: 1): Author: w2up@mindspring.com (Barry Kutner); Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 21:19:19 -0000; I find it difficult enough to do reliable "number 1 number 1 number 2 number 2" comparisons, with QSB, QRM, etc. It's amazing how you can make such dogmatic performance statements by taking one anten; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-10/msg00170.html (10,255 bytes)
6. [TowerTalk] C-19XR vs TH-6 (score: 1): Author: david.b.curtis@intel.com (Curtis, David B); Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 14:43:14 -0700; Have anyone tried the methodology outlined in Leeson's _Physical Design of Yagi Antennas_ ? I have not. Let's see if I can recall it... this may be slightly mangled, as it's been a while since I read; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-10/msg00171.html (11,709 bytes)
7. [TowerTalk] C-19XR vs TH-6 (score: 1): Author: ve6yc@home.com (Peter Larsen); Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 01:23:25 +0100; I can't afford to have two towers like I have, so can't do the "ping" test. I think that in the end it would even out to the point where you are only as loud as you think you are. Long Live QRP!! --; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-10/msg00175.html (7,810 bytes)
8. [TowerTalk] C-19XR vs TH-6 (score: 1): Author: ve6yc@home.com (Peter Larsen); Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 01:33:42 +0100; I can't comment on this, but I found that my TH-6 was down from my GB-33. My TH-6 was at 35 feet, and my GB-33 was at 64 feet. (GB-33 was from Grant Beams in Ontario. I think it was a Wilson system; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-10/msg00176.html (7,850 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]