This wonderful article written by L.B.Cebic W4RNL sure can make you a believer
in a simple wire inverted L. It is the last antenna discussed.
A $3 wire pulled up into a tree will beat just about any commercial antenna…
because it is longer. So on low bands it has increased band width and
efficiency, and on higher bands it has gain. Yes, I know , some of that high
band gain is horizontally polarized, but that's not all bad. Just get the
vertical portion 33 feet or so and you'll be happy as Larry. The article shows
that an extensive radial field may not be necessary.
And a wire is a lot less visible than a big hunk of aluminum. Without trees,
just top load a 43 foot (or possibly even shorter) vertical. The top loading
could be a T just as easily as an L. People can argue that one all day.
On Dec 12, 2012, at 11:30 AM, k6xt <email@example.com> wrote:
> My first antenna, still in use, on moving to CO is a GAP Titan, advertised to
> load up 80 thru 10 including WARC bands. The Titan is a bit shorter than
> Voyager, 28 feet or something like it. The advertising is correct, it loads
> up 180 thru 10.
> But wait. Is it effective on all those bands? No.
> On 80 its a dummy load. On 40 it works extremely well after I added a one
> foot extension to the bottom wire that encircles the antenna. In some cases
> it is the equal of my shorty HyGain 40 at 70 ft - which probably says more
> about the HyGain than the GAP. For the rest its better on the traditional
> bands than the WARC bands. It worked a lot of DX for me for the couple years
> it was my only antenna.
> Carrying my experience to the few feet taller Voyager, and from what I've
> been told by Voyager users, the ant will meet its spec which is to load up on
> the low bands. Expectation wise I'd expect it to be like the Titan. It loads
> up but is otherwise a dummy load. Maybe with a batch of radials it could be
> made to work as well as any other extremely short vertical or GP.
> Not to say there's anything wrong with GAP. My brother had up an R7 which he
> rated about like the GAP on bands both cover. Those multiband halfwave short
> verticals work but you get what you pay for.
> 73 Art K6XT~~
> Success is going from failure to failure without a loss of enthusiasm.
> ARRL, GMCC, CW OPS, NAQCC
> ARRL TA
> On 12/12/2012 10:00 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> With the prospect of downsizing and moving into senior housing in the future
>> I am starting to look at vertical antennas that will allow me to continue
>> this wonderful hobby.? I have heard "some" good things about the GAP series
>> of antennas but the company says they do not need radials on most of them
>> and that worries me.? Over the years I have become very skeptical about
>> claims and the other BS put out by most companies ( maybe it is a function
>> of age I dunno) so I wonder if these antennas really work.? The two antennas
>> that I am interested are the Voyager DX for 160/80/40? and the Eagle DX for
>> the rest of the bands.
>> So my question is.... does anyone have actual experience with these antennas
>> (especially the voyager) as compared to other antennas for a specific
>> frequency.? Now guys .. I know you cant really compare a 6 element beam to a
>> vertical of this kind but I am talking about a comparison that is
>> realistic.. like how does it hear, tune, match & get out compared to
>> something like another vertical or a dipole up some reasonable distance.
>> I sure hope this has not opend another can of worms.. some how I seem to do
>> that .. private emails are ok..especially it the topic gets out of hand and
>> we get a large volume of comments (Tree please dont shoot me before
>> Christmas my wife will miss me.)
> Topband reflector - email@example.com
Topband reflector - firstname.lastname@example.org