I will second that.
I have 24 acres here and am in the process of finishing off construction
of a big contest station with three rotating towers. Where I placed those
towers and which bands were represented on those towers made a big
difference. Of course there were tradeoffs, there always are. However, the
decisions can be made with solid info and not guesswork.
In KH6, as I mentioned in previous posts, the success was to a large
degree the result of the HFTA. I had a 150 foot tower and logic would lead
you
to believe that working a long distance to EU would require putting a
triband stack at a height greater than 95 feet, that was not the case.
Because
I had a huge dropoff the optimum height for the stack for 20 was around 95.
However, since I worked many US stations that was too high. Compromise:
92 feet. I swear by HFTA. it allowed me to win several world
championships in major contests in four years on the big rock.
Bill K4XS/KH7XS
In a message dated 3/3/2012 9:10:59 A.M. Greenwich Standard Time,
jim@audiosystemsgroup.com writes:
On 3/3/2012 12:59 AM, Steve Hunt wrote:
> You may not have the resources to raise or lower the antennas, but tools
> like HFTA are very useful for assessing trade-offs and making
> cost/benefit choices.
Absolutely. I'm a member of a serious contesting club, and many of our
members, including me, have used HFTA extensively to decide where to put
our antennas. Those who have done so find excellent correlation between
HFTA's predictions and our on-the-air results.
73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|