With no disrespect to Steve, I'll bet that I've operated a lot
more contests with a PRO-57A than he has. I think that he and
Ward tested the PRO-57B, but I could be wrong. There were also
some questions regarding the balun which may have affected the
final results. I don't have the report in front of me.
Here is some recent alternate "proof" that the antenna works OK.
CW SS #1 Overall 2004 QRP
CW SS #1 Overall 2005 QRP
CW SS #2 Overall 2006 QRP (beat by AG9A at N0NI - a GREAT op at a BIG station)
RTTY Roundup #6 Overall 2007 Single Op High Power
Numerous DIvision Leader and Top ten finishes in many other domestic and
some DX contests on all modes and power levels. DXCC Honor Roll, etc.
I usually hold my own against similarly equipped stations with the latest
modern (and supposedly better) antennas in this area. I don't feel weak.
Sure, time in the chair and determination to do well is everything in
contest success (SECOND to LOCATION) and we all know that. And hardware
DOES matter. Look what "The Tim" has done over the years, not to mention
his predecessors. On the other hand, I've operated from several other
contest stations, and I have to agree with something K1AR wrote years
ago. John said "beams are good, doesn't really matter what kind or how
many elements."
Now sure, you might point at models and various test results and "prove"
to me how ridiculous John's statement was. But I know what he means.
I suspect it's the same wisdom that W8JI imparts when he tells us,
"the only thing that really matters in the end is how the antenna
makes us FEEL."
So go ahead and bash away. I've been having fun with my PRO-57A antennas
for 16 years, and I expect to have a lot more fun in the years to come.
I am pretty competitive, within my realistic limitations. Believe me,
if I thought it was worth it to swap out tribanders, I would have done
it by now. FWIW, I thought the Skyhawk was the best tribander I ever
used. Of course, it was on the edge of the ocean in VP5, with a clear
shot to NA and EU. I wonder if that made a difference? :-)
73
-Kirk K4RO
On Sat, Jul 07, 2007 at 12:01:31PM -0400, K7LXC@aol.com wrote:
> You mean you're not interested in any proof? FB - go ahead and believe
> the manufacturer's claims which are not only non-verifiable for the most
> part
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|