Topband: 160 vertical/L

donovanf at donovanf at
Wed Nov 30 08:16:38 EST 2016

Hi Mike, 

An inverted-L with 50-60 feet vertical is a far superior choice than 
a bottom loaded vertical. Its much more efficient, its bandwidth 
is much broader and you don't have to deal with the very high 
voltages at the base of the loaded vertical, especially if you're 
running high power. 


----- Original Message -----

From: "Don Kirk" <wd8dsb at> 
To: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu at> 
Cc: "topband" <topband at> 
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 12:32:26 PM 
Subject: Re: Topband: 160 vertical/L 

HI Mike, 

I use a 68 foot based loaded vertical on 160 meters with 55 short buried 
ground radials (2500 feet of ground radials). I only run 100 watts and 
located near Indianapolis. I would prefer an Inverted-L over the base 
loaded vertical on 160 meters (the L would be much more efficient), but 
having said that I did acquire my 160 meter DXCC last year (all CW) and 
most of the contacts were during years when 160 meters was in very poor 
Note: I do use small pennant antennas for RX on 160 meters. 

For starters it sure would be easy to temporarily install a base loading 
coil to test out your full size 80 meter vertical on 160 meters versus your 
33 foot vertical. You can use part of the loading coil you install on the 
full size 80 meter vertical with a fixed high voltage silver mica cap to 
form a simple L network (that's what I do and it works great). This would 
allow you to easily compare your two TX antennas. 
Note: neither end of my base loading coil is connected to ground (my base 
loading coil is between the bottom of my 68 foot vertical and the center 
conductor of my feedline. I use an MFJ 404-0669 air wound coil as my 
loading coil / L network. 

But if you can install an Inverted-L easily, than I would skip what I have 
said above and just install the Inverted-L. 

Don (wd8dsb) 

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:33 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu at> wrote: 

> I have a full sized 80m vertical and a Top loaded Cushcraft 33ft vertical 
> for 160. The Cushcraft gets out but not great. 
> I was thinking about using an inverted L over the radial field that I use 
> for the 160. It is 30ish radials of various lengths or I have seen where 
> people have loaded the 80m vertical on 160. I think I recall people are 
> not overly excited about bottom loading the 80. The 80 is unguyed so the 
> top cannot support anything. 
> I can get the vertical part of the L up 50-60 feet. 
> Any feelings one way or another? I can make a switching system for the 80 
> vert if people think this is a reasonable transmitting solution. I have a 
> rcv array, so I am hoping to improve my xmit signal. 
> W0MU 
> _________________ 
> Topband Reflector Archives - 
Topband Reflector Archives - 

More information about the Topband mailing list