VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

[VHFcontesting] Height vs. foliage

To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
Subject: [VHFcontesting] Height vs. foliage
From: Patrick Thomas <p-thomas@mindspring.com>
Reply-to: Patrick Thomas <p-thomas@mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 20:32:10 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
List-post: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com">mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Speaking of VHF contesting, and my ongoing poor results with my 
below-roof-mounted 2m beam at the home QTH, I figured I would ask the experts 
here for some advice.

Operating under the knowledge that more height is better, I am already at a 
disadvantage being about 15-20' below average terrain.  Additionally I am 
surrounded by extremely dense trees covering all heights up to about 50'.  The 
city has an ordinance limiting antennas to 42', although there is provision for 
a variance.

Assuming I come across $5-10k, I believe I could legally get away with putting 
in a freestanding 70' crank-up tower, but so far I have other financial 
priorities, and I haven't yet won the lottery.

So here's the punchline: Is it worth getting a small tower or roof-mount 
quadpod (total height 25-40 ft), knowing the antenna will still being 
surrounded by trees?  Or will I be happier in the long run saving my pennies 
and concrete, and just roving until I can afford something taller?  Due to my 
lot configuration, guying is not an option, but are there any other 
permanent-mounted, great-lakes-weather-resistant, tall options out there I 
should consider?  I expect to operate up to 23cm, as possible, but would expect 
most "serious" work would be only up to 2m.

Thanks for any advice,

Patrick / KB8DGC


_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting

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