When it happens, I got a rover rig that can contain up to 4
operators, one driver, two loggers, and two resting in the
bunks ready to rotate into any of the other positions as
either relief operators, loggers, or driver.
When stopped at likely microwave capable locations, then
the driver can operate the microwave gear.
With a cruising range as currently equipped (65 gallons
fuel, 7MPG average,) of appx. 400 miles, it is possible to
cover lots of ground in a 30 hour contest period, stopping
only for microwave contacts, food and fuel.
Antennas are arranged onto two masts, and operating
positions are arranged accordingly.
Front mast holds 4 elements on 6, 10 elements on two, with
one operating position for each band.
Rear mast supports the 222, 432, 903 and 1296 antennas, the
shortest boom currently is the 12 foot, 20 element antenna
for 432. 222 and 432 are set up at one position, 903 and
1296 the other, using a common IF rig for both bands.
This arrangement facilitates simultaneous operations on 5
bands at a time, making "band running" large multioperator
fixed (and rover?) stations a breeze. It also divides the
workload up nearly equally for each operator.
And for that single op trying to crash the pileup when the
rover hits a new grid, no more waiting around for the rover
to change bands... If one band is busy, just call the
multiop rover on one of the other bands less busy, and
arrange QSOs on the remaining bands.
In busy contest areas, this keeps QRM to a minimum, and
allows the multiop rover a better opportunity to get all
the workable stations into the log quickly, meaning more
grids activated per contest, and more stations worked per
grid activated.
This would tend to make multiop and single op fixed
stations pay a bit more attention to the rigs during slack
periods during the contest, as the multiop rover can change
grids more frequently and remain in a given grid for less
time and still make a decent pile of Q's in the log.
So I say, "Let the Unlimited Multiops ROVE!"
Eric
KB7DQH
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:37:01 -0500
"Mike (KA5CVH) Urich" <ka5cvh@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/31/05, VHFRover@aol.com <VHFRover@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > While we are at it, let's also consider setting up a
> separate class for
> > multi-op rovers. It is very difficult for a single-op
> rover to compete against a
> > multi-op rover station.
>
> Mike wrote
>
> I hear what you are saying and I'm not dispelling it but
> I'm not quite
> sure we are there yet. OTOH, if you want to go down this
> path then
> lets set a single op as just that but do not limit the
> number of
> operators under the multi-op as long as they all ride in
> the same
> vehicle. However this I'm sure would create other
> inequities too. At
> this rate we can create enough categories that everyone
> can finish
> first in their given category. :-)
>
> Mike Urich, KA5CVH
> http://ka5cvh.com
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|