L. L. Lamb wrote:
>
> Bob, your comments on the Pro-67 are well taken, as was those of K7LXC. I
> learn from everyone, and I did from you all.
>
> ....and I have a few comments!
>
> Agree the FRC has some of the greatest ops and otherwise fine folks, as
> does my PVRC.
>
> My dear and late friend Lenny, W3GRF, once answered a young lad many years
> ago when this lad said "my new 80 meter antenna is the very best......".
> He responded as only Lenny could do..."compared to what?". This lad has
> used this phrase many times on many subjects since! The "compared to what"
> is extremely important when talking about antennas, but I feel Lenny would
> agree that many can't do the "compare" and are left to mercy of the makers
> and just how good the antenna makes them feel. I suggest we could do more
> to make multi-band antennas feel better.
>
> The Mosley Pro series antennas (have had several) are good antennas, built
> well to stay up most of the time. They could be better, but in my
> judgement we have never demanded any multi-band antennas be better. We
> just buy them, put them up, use them and tell ourself we are happy with
> them. This is not to say some of us are not happy with them. Many of them
> suffer from lack of gain, F/B, mechanical problems, matching which nudges
> up next to a dummy load, etc. The Pro-57/67 is one of the best of this
> type antenna on this boom length, not to be compared to large mono-banders
> nor in many cases to the trusty 204BA! It holds it's own and has a
> respectable place in the wonderful world of compromise antennas.
>
> The KT-34XA is a very good antenna, but in my experience needs help to keep
> them up in a harsh environment. The old CL-36/TA-36 tri-banders are still
> an excellent choice as are the TH-7/TH-6 series some may forget about. A
> pair of these correctly phased work great on EU during high spots placed
> modestly above the ground...and not expensive either! The TH-11, a less
> understood (and used) antenna along with some of the Force 12 antennas are
> good choices.
>
> Back to Mosley for a moment. I have the Pro-96 3" boom at 100' on an
> AB-105x. I've heard of one fellow who purchased one who had a Rohn 25 to
> put it on..it's still on the ground. It's heavy. Mine was put up as a 3
> ele 30 vice 3 ele 40 and has done better on most of the bands when compared
> to the 57/67 (does not compare to the large mono-banders of the past). It
> is no better than a 204 on 20 although it has a 36' boom. Jim, W2PV told
> me once he didn't like 1/2 wave length booms! The Pro 96 is on 20 meters
> and a weak sister, again in my judgement. I received little help from
> Mosley and pinned a piece on it band by band some time ago. With this
> said, it is the best "compromised" antenna (6 bands) I know of.
>
> My last point and a challenge. Multi-band antennas can be designed and
> made better. Think about it, the mono-banders are better today in part
> because of us (mostly contesters and dxers). We have good computers
> programs to judge and make better single band antennas, be it from scratch
> or from some of the popular manufactures. They have picked up on this and
> are in fact making better antennas. The same could be said for trap/multi
> band antennas if we were to force the issue. I may fail in my attempt, but
> an effort is being made on the '96 (a 3 year project) and will be
> implemented this next summer. The same logic could be applied to any trap
> antenna. I will share it with anyone if it works out and sing out the
> failure if it doesn't. What I want to do here Bob is get some of the
> interested folks thinking of doing something with these various multi-band
> antennas and then force some of the manufactures to do better. This is not
> hitting on any of them, as some are doing well, and they do offer us here
> in the States a better choice than many enjoy. I appreciate it, but let's
> work to make them better since most of us MUST use these antennas in order
> to get on all the bands and play contest and chase the DX!
>
> Flames okay to my e-mail, but let's rise above a bit and do something about
> it if unhappy. If happy already, wonderful, hi
>
> Thanks Bob for the anchor point!
>
> 73, Lynn W4NL
> W4NL-KA4S@worldnet.att.net
>
> --
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
> Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
> Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/searchLynn: I have
> a PRO96 at 100 ft up for four years. Compared it with
(direct on the air comparison, different towers same power, height abt
the same +/- 25 ft) mosley classic on 24ft boom, 3 elemts, and with cc
402cd. results: to europe same as cc402cd on 40, better on10-15, abt
same on 20m. warc bands wrks fine breaks any pileup i have been in
at 12, 17m. For a single antenna, one feedline, on 10,12,15,17,20 and
40 wkrs dx as good as any in FRC.
This antenna up four years, all wx fer SE PA. Would be very hard put
to replace with: 402cd + aw3s + th6-7 + mast to hold this up and rotator
to turn this stacked array. Costs should be same, maintenance harder
and results marginally the same. Hard to beat at this price!! BTW this
is 2" boom at 100ft.
would be interested in any improvements, comparisons etc regards alex
w2ox/v47kp.
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search
|