Like most of the previous respondents I too would go
with 222, despite its reputation of being inactive I
consistently work almost as many grids on 222 as I do
on 432 during contests. The propagation and overall
"feel" of the band is a cross between 144 and 432, ...
as one would expect.
For the "money is no object" case I would still go
with 222 at 100W or so and 3-5 wavelength or so boom
antenna (good feedline of course) first, and then add
gear for 1296 and 902/3 as well. I would add the
higher bands before adding more power and antennas on
any of the lower 4. Furthermore I would put
money/effort into low loss feedlines before big
expensive antennas.
Duane
N9DG
EN53bj
--- John Geiger <johngeig@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am interested in receiving comments on the
> following
> for my own interest, as well as for a possible VHF
> club newsletter item.
>
> If you were currently active on the "Big 3" VHF/UHF
> bands (6, 2, 70cm) running 100 watts on each band
> with
> moderate sized antennas-13 elements on 2 and 16
> elements on 432, what band would you add next:
>
> 1. If you were limited to $500-$600 for equipment
> and
> antennas
> 2. If money and space were no object.
>
> Or, would you be better off using the money to
> improve
> your existing setup and just staying on 6, 2 and
> 432?
>
> 73s John NE0P
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
|