n4kg@juno.com n4kg@juno.com
Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:39:36 -0600

The C31XR is composed of 3 monobanders interlaced with
forward stagger.  There are 3L on 20, 4L on 15, and 7L on 10M.
I used the same number of elements for each band except 10
where I expect some of the elements are primarily used as
open sleeves to decouple the 15 and 20 M elements.  

I would use the same element spacing / boom length for the 
monobanders as in the C31XR.  The slight offsets along the 
boom can be compensated as discussed by others previously.

This arrangement is less expensive than 4 - C31XR's but is
not as flexible since some of the middle antennas could not 
rotate without hitting guy wires. 

de  Tom  N4KG

On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:05:02 -0500 Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
> At 07:23 AM 12/21/1999 -0600, n4kg@juno.com wrote:
> ...
> >130 ft  C31XR
> >100 ft  4L15
> >  85 ft  3L20
> >  70 ft  4L15
> >  60 ft  6L10
> >  40 ft  C31XR
> An interesting idea, but a question.  Does this presuppose that the
> monoband antennas in the stack would be sections out of the C-31 
>(i.e. similar spacing)?  I've always understood that stacking dissimilar

> antennas  is prone to unexpected downsides unless fully modeled.  
> 73,  Pete N4ZR

Why pay more to get Web access?
Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm