Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160

donovanf at donovanf at
Wed Dec 18 16:10:26 EST 2019

Hi Csaba, 

My experience is that an extensive radial system on the ground performs 
significantly better than a few elevated radials. I suspect its difficult to 
obtain nearly equal currents among a small number of elevated radials. 

There is nothing wrong with gull wing elevated radials, but in my experience 
they shorten the effective length of the vertical. 


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

From: "HA3LN" <csaba at> 
To: donovanf at 
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 8:57:40 PM 
Subject: Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160 

Hi Frank, 

So the gull-wing elevated setup should be dropped from the performance 
point of view, right? 

I have a 26m spider-pole and just wondering how to setup the radials for 
that but considering you wrote no sense to make the radials into 
gull-wing then. 

Thanks and 73! 
Csaba HA3LN / HG3N 

On 2019-12-16 22:04, donovanf at wrote: 
> Hi Mike, 
> Years ago my 4-square transmitting array used "gull-wing" elevated 
> radials sloping 45 degrees from the feedpoint at ground level to about 
> ten feet high. 
> When I replaced the radials with sixty 120-foot radials laid on the ground 
> I had to shorten the verticals by about five feet to maintain resonance, 
> suggesting that the current at the bottom five feet -- or so -- of the verticals 
> was attenuated by the sloping radials in close proximity to the verticals. 
> As an aside, the performance of the array improved dramatically... 
> 73 
> Frank 
> W3LPL 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike Waters" <mikewate at> 
> To: "thoyer" <thoyer1 at> 
> Cc: "topband" <topband at> 
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 8:52:41 PM 
> Subject: Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160 
> It was just pointed out to me that I neglected to mention that the 
> feedpoint on my 160m inverted-L was much lower than 10 feet high! 
> The tuner sits on the earth, and the two wires go straight up from that to 
> the insulator block holding the antenna and the radials, which is less than 
> 4 feet high. 
> From that point, the two radials angle upwards at roughly 45° (?) to nearby 
> trees, and level out at 10' high to the North and to the South all the way 
> to the ends. (The South radial zigzags back and forth since the distance 
> from the base to the neighbor's fence in that direction is less than 1/4 
> wavelength.) 
> I had photos of it online, but crashed. Looking for a place to 
> upload it to. 
> I hope this makes sense. Sorry for the lack of details below. 
> 73, Mike 
> W0BTU 
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 8:22 PM Mike Waters <mikewate at> wrote: 
>> Do the inverted-L, but use at least two 10' high 1/4 wave radials. 
>> Do NOT use an RF ground rod, or any radials on or near the earth. Just 
>> connect the coax shield to the junction of the radials and any remote 
>> tuner. At that point a good choke balun is necessary. 
>> Leaving out the choke or grounding the shield will result in very poor 
>> performance. 
>> 73, Mike 
>> W0BTU 
>> On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 7:04 PM thoyer via Topband <topband at> 
>> wrote: 
>>> With only 9 more to go for DXCC on 160 and all of the recent posts about 
>>> how good the band has been recently "best in years....) I find myself with 
>>> no 
>>> antenna for the low bands and cringing after each post on how good the 
>>> band has been. 
>>> ... 
>>> Options - I have a 45' tower with TH6DXX, 6m and 2m yagis. I could easily 
>>> string a makeshift inverted L with about 45' vertical and around 100' 
>>> horizontal. This I could string up in a few hours. the Horizontal portion 
>>> would be pointed south. Not the best of configurations but that's what I 
>>> have to work with. ... 
>>> Tom 
>>> W3TA 
> _________________ 
> Searchable Archives: - Topband Reflector 
> _________________ 
> Searchable Archives: - Topband Reflector 

More information about the Topband mailing list