Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Re: X9 vs C32XR, etc

To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Re: X9 vs C32XR, etc
From: k3mm@erols.com (Tyler Stewart)
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 04:33:28 +0100
I thought they were auditioning the  Pro 57 not 67...

Also, the KLM KT34Xa was the only other 32' boom range antenna.  The Skyhawk
is 24' if I remember correctly, along with the X9, and the Mosley Pro 57, and
TH7.

... the other Ty.   K3MM

----- Original Message -----
From: Tyler Barnett <tbarnett@fairway.stdio.com>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 1999 23:55
Subject: [TowerTalk] Re: X9 vs C32XR, etc


>
> In reply to Tom's request (N1MM), here is what I recall:
> The test "protocol" was a transmit station (where each yagi was mounted),
and
> a receive station, where a reference dipole was situated.
> They were just over a mile apart, on each side of a bay, most of the path
over water.
> Think the tower height was 55', not sure, maybe it was 66'.
> At the end of the day, as the saying goes, they plotted the combined gain
from
> 20, 15, 10 vs the boomlength of the antenna.  It was quite interesting to
see a
> number of good tribanders sitting squarely on this line, which seemed to
indicate
> to the presenters that all the gain that could be obtained, was being
obtained.
> The longest boom was the C31XR at 32', followed by Skyhawk, TH7, etc.
> The conclusion was that you couldn't really tell much difference on the air
> between any of them.  The smaller C3 was called an over-achiever, due to the
> performance it got from being admittedly less of an antenna than it's bigger
brothers.
> The poor Mosely PRO-67 got bad numbers again this year.
> I may open up a can of worms here, but I have a good friend with one of
these,
> who is active every day on the bottom end of the bands, and he is as loud as
> anyone in Europe, from first-hand conversations of his contacts.
> I personally made a QSO with a friend in Wales from his station, using 100W
and
> this PRO-67, and I thought it worked every bit as good as my TH7, maybe
better.
> I wonder if the PRO-67 has a cleaner pattern, and "takes off" with less
pattern
> spillover to detect a mile away.  Who knows.
> Tyler N4TY
>
> --
> 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.htm
>


--
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.htm


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