This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------9BB39C3EED
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hello..
About a week I posted the "Mosley vs Force12" question on the
contest-reflector..It was probably not the ideal reflector to discuss
this matter at that time I was not aware of this reflector and
VE7TCP was down..
Looking forward receiving your opinions and ideas..
BTW it was not my intension to "kill" Mosley products..just wonna
improve the multiband antennna set-up..
Some of the replies I received so far suggested to go for LPY´s such
as KLM and Tennadyne..
Tnx in advance for any help..
73 de ON7NQ Danny-------on7nq@glo.be--------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------9BB39C3EED
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-POP3-Rcpt: gd33307@phobos
Return-Path: owner-cq-contest@tgv.com
Received: from hyperion.glo.be (root@hyperion.glo.be [206.48.177.11]) by
phobos.glo.be (8.7.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id AAA22614 for <on7nq@phobos.glo.be>;
Mon, 28 Oct 1996 00:27:20 +0100
Received: from Leghorn.Cisco.COM (Leghorn.Cisco.COM [161.44.192.54]) by
hyperion.glo.be (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id AAA24545 for <on7nq@GLO.BE>; Mon, 28
Oct 1996 00:27:17 +0100
X-ListName: Amateur Radio Contester's discussion list <CQ-Contest@tgv.com>
Warnings-To: <>
Errors-To: owner-cq-contest@tgv.com
Sender: owner-cq-contest@tgv.com
Message-ID: <3273AD9B.68C7@glo.be>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 19:44:43 +0100
From: on7nq@GLO.BE (Danny Mees)
Reply-To: on7nq@GLO.BE
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01b1 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: CQ-CONTEST@tgv.com
CC: dx-REQUEST@ve7tcp.ampr.org
Subject: Mosley vs Force 12
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello contesters/dx=B4ers
Don=B4t know if it=B4s ok to use this reflector for this matter...Have=20
also send this question to the Dx-reflector but seems like VE7TCP is
down..
I=B4m currently using a Mosley PRO67B on a 52ft self-supporting tower
with a home made HAZER look-a-like elevation system.
The 67B has been in service for 2 years now and tested under heavy
conditions.I bought the 67B because it was the only 6 bander on the=20
market and had some good comments from US contesters/dx=B4ers.
Probably I talked to the wrong guys cause can=B4t say I=B4m entirely=20
satisfied with the 67B.Mechanicly it=B4s a beauty but experienced a lack
of gain and F/B..
On 12&17 the 3 elements hardly work any better than a dipole (tested=20
with a local ham)
Last year I received a 94/95 Force12 catalog and looks like they are on
the wright track..Lightweight elements and NO traps..
Unfortunatly they don=B4t seem to have real substitude for the 67B.I=B4ve=
=20
looked at the 5BA but has no 40M..guess my tower won=B4t handle a 40m
beam on top of the 5BA..than I found the C4-XL.
Now on to the question(s)..
Has anyone made the change from a Mosley PRO67B to a Force 12 C4-XL ?
If so what was the diffrence in performance and how well does the=20
C4-XL work on 40m and WARC ? Knowing that an ATU is needed on WARC.
Also like to know the spacing between the center of the boom and the
first element left/right from the mast-to-boom connection.
Enough spacing is required to be able to lower the beam with=20
"HAZER-system"...
Pse reply direct to on7nq@glo.be
Will post summary if someone is interested.
TNX in advance..!
73 de ON7NQ Danny on7nq@glo.be
--------------9BB39C3EED--
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: K7LXC@contesting.com
Sponsored by Akorn Access, Inc & KM9P
|