Topband: Vertical antennas aren't always best for DX

[Roger Kennedy]

Very interesting reading about the fact that people have consistently found
that Verticals aren't so good for 160m DX from Australia . . . 

But I wonder why I have always had good results with Dipoles for DX here in
Britain?  It's nothing special about my current QTH, as I have used similar
antennas at 6 different QTHs over the past 50 years.

I get that most North American stations have found that Dipoles are rubbish
for DX . . . so I guess there's something different over here. As I posted
previously, I have done hundreds of proper comparison tests alongside people
with good Verticals, and most of the time there has been no real difference
(on average).

I have also wondered WHY that is . . . is it that propagation angles on 160m
are actually much higher than people imagine? (unlike 80m) . . . or is it
that there is actually a lot more low-angle from a low Dipole like mine than
computer-modelling would suggest? (I don't believe the theoretical modelling
can ever properly take into account the ground underneath the antenna on
such a long wavelength, and when it is so very near the ground)

I only spent a couple of hours on 160m over the weekend, but managed to work
39 NA stations in the CQ WW contest. (always difficult picking out the DX
between all the hundreds of very strong Europeans on the band!)

Roger G3YRO