Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+MFJ\s+1792\s+correction\s+vs\s+HF2V\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+MFJ\s+1792\s+correction\s+vs\s+HF2V\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] MFJ 1792 correction vs HF2V (score: 1): Author: Dinsterdog@aol.com (Dinsterdog@aol.com); Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 09:59:53 EDT; Last night, I mentioned in reply to N4KG's response to my listing of accomplished Butternut HF2V'ers that I thought the Butternut could beat any three foot top loaded antenna. I got data of the anten; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-09/msg00165.html (10,348 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] MFJ 1792 correction vs HF2V (score: 1): Author: ValErwin@aol.com (ValErwin@aol.com); Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 10:37:32 EDT; Tower Dudes and Dudettes: Don't have any experience with the MFJ antenna but did just take down an HF2V. I found my modified HF2V antenna to be an excellent performer on 80 and 160M. I defeated the 4; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-09/msg00169.html (7,652 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] MFJ 1792 correction vs HF2V (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (2); Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 08:50:25 -0700; morning, // It would be nice if they made a dipmeter option for their analyzer that dipped. It would be nice if their 8877 amplifier had: 1. a tank that was designed by a person who understood skin-; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-09/msg00171.html (10,527 bytes)
4. [TowerTalk] MFJ 1792 correction vs HF2V (score: 1): Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com); Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 10:34:27 -0600; The HF2V also requires RADIALS, as does the MFJ-1792. A set of light weight non-conductive guys could easily be placed within the space devoted to radial placement. Even steep guys are better than NO; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-09/msg00173.html (11,105 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]