[RTTY] RTTY Contesting

[Don Hill AA5AU]

Hi Stu and welcome back to RTTY contesting.  I show you in my log for a WPX RTTY contest back in the 90's.  Glad you're back...

There are probably a lot of readers on this reflector who would die for a C4 at 33 feet.  With conditions so poor on the higher
bands right now, it's understandable that you may be frustrated with the antenna's performance.  But I have to say that the antenna
should perform better on 40 meters than a vertical since you may not have the room for a lot of radials.  I have owned both the HF6
and HF2 verticals (still have an HF2).  Although both antennas are good antennas, they are not great.  Your C4 will outperform
either of these verticals.  Now, if you just don't have room for an 80M wire, then you may consider the HF2 because sometimes it's
nice to have two antennas on 40 meters.  If you plan on doing any SO2R RTTY contesting, then you could consider the HF6.  But then
again, a multi-band inverted vee at 30' may even outperform the verticals.  And the C4 will rock on the high bands when the sunspots
come back, even at 33 feet!

I would advise against mounting either of the Butternut antennas above ground unless you must.  I've tried this without success;
probably because of the lack of room to install a lot of radials.  One big consideration is the type of ground you have.  Here in
Louisiana it's easy to bury a lot of radials even if they are shorter than you would like to have them. The ground is soft and
fertile for the most part. Normally in a small lot you don't want your radials laying on the ground where people can trip over them.
If you can't bury a lot of radios, then the vertical is out of the question.  I've read of some that mount their verticals above
ground but the situation of raised radials makes this solution impractical for small lot owners.

I also live on a small lot, but luckily I've been able to get the apex of my 80M inverted vee up 50 feet and there is no comparison
to the HF2 on that band.  The inverted vee is so much better that I took the vertical down.  I was able to work into Europe a couple
times on 80M using low power with the vertical, but the wire is always better.

Hope this helps.  Maybe others can chime in with their experiences.

73, Don AA5AU
http://www.aa5au.com
http://www.rttycontesting.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: rtty-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Stu Ritter
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 2:44 PM
To: RTTY Contesting
Subject: [RTTY] RTTY Contesting

Hi,
I'm a contesting newbie.
I've been away from HF in any form for 15 years and am just starting up again. I've done 2 RTTY tests and really enjoyed it. A lot
different than it was 20 years ago! I was a TTY'er in the Army in the early 60's.

I live on a smallish city lot and have my tower on my roof with a C4 at 33 feet. That's all I can do! I was thinking that it would
be nice to have another antenna besides the yagi.
I really do not have room to put up efficient wire antennas due to lack of height. I worked the BARTG with 40 and 80 meter dipoles
with peak height of 30 feet. Not too good. The 80 wire had loading coils due to lack of room.

I've thought a vertical mounted on the roof at 13 feet would be a good second antenna, either for just 40/80 and or a multi-band
version like a Butternut HF6V.

I'd like to have some feedback from experienced RTTY contesters.

thanks,

Stu
N0LEF
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty