Re[2]: [TowerTalk] KLM-KT34XA Vs. ?? Recommendations

[Guy Olinger, K2AV]

>However, the Champion review obviously had a bad example of a KT34XA.

Hmmm,

What's so obvious about it. About the cheapest cop-out a manufacturer
could have after a head-to-head where they lose out, is to say the
testers had a bad model. Have heard that so many times (certainly not
just ham antenna's) it isn't funny.

After watching N4AF slave over his KT34XA to get it to work right, and
having used it myself, I'd have to say it was a decent antenna when it
's working.

I wouldn't suppose any large difference between a new C31XR and a KT34XA
that was cleaned up and in good repair. BUT, an antenna with that many
little pieces is a breakdown waiting to happen.

What the C31XR has going for it in these comparisons is slightly better
numbers (not hugely better) all around, but MOST of all, from a
mechanical standpoint, it is SIMPLE. No traps, no caps, almost no
doodads.

The KT34XA was a huge improvement over the Mosley, etc, all-trap design.
And a real step forward in the days before all the computer modeling
came into its own. The scuttlebutt on the 34 around PVRC was that it
really worked "If you could assemble the elements." I would add, "...and
maintain them."

The N4AF multi operation in '00 WPX CW will probably look pretty good in
the standings, using a KT34XA, mostly, but not always, on ten meters,
along with 15 and 20 monobanders. But if I was the one required to get
the XA right, we never would have made it. Good thing Howie is
retired... He had it on and off the tower five or six times before it
worked.

Certainly if you have one working well up on a tower, leave it there. Or
if you don't have a tribander, or have a really scuzzy one, and a friend
(getting a C31?) offers you the 34 for a bargain price or as a token of
friendship, you certainly could do a LOT worse than the 34. Get your
spare parts from M2 and go to work...

- - . . .   . . . - -     .   . . .     - - .   . - . .

73, Guy
k2av@contesting.com
Apex, NC, USA

----- Original Message -----
From: Tyler Stewart <k3mm@ex-pressnet.com>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>; Dave Hachadorian <k6ll@juno.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2000 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [TowerTalk] KLM-KT34XA Vs. ?? Recommendations


>
> Amen to that, Dave.
>
> Yeah, they aint the greatest thing out there at this moment...they
were
> designed without modern computer models.  However, the Champion review
> obviously had a bad example of a KT34XA.  Yes, it's 15 meter F/B is
not the
> best, but it certainly isnt anywhere near as bad as they claim.
>
> It's still a very efficient antenna, but I'm hoping that M2 is going
to
> improve the situation for those of us with the investment in KLM
tribanders
> by introducing a significant update kit that will bring it up to speed
with
> the multi-monobander counterparts.
>
> 73, Ty K3MM
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Hachadorian" <k6ll@juno.com>
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 2:57 AM
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: [TowerTalk] KLM-KT34XA Vs. ?? Recommendations
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 22:25:55 -0400 "R. Otto" <N8NGA@one.net> writes:
> >
> > > Regarding the KT34XA.....interesting question and response.  I
just
> > > got the report from Champion Radio Products that compares the
> > > leading
> > > tribanders in an independent test. I was very interested in the
> > > reports finding as I was considering purchasing the CushCraft X-9,
> > > and
> > > I wanted a comparison of actual data instead of having to rely on
> > > the
> > > marketing propaganda that the beam manufacturers put out. The
report
> > > shows that in DB gain, the C31XR, X-9, and Skyhawk outperform the
> > > KT34XA (in the order shown). In Front to back, the C31XR, X-9, and
> > > Skyhawk again beat the KT34XA (in the same order). In bandwidth,
the
> > > KT34XA was about half what the others were on 20 and 15M, and
equal
> > > on
> > > 10M.
> >
> > Keep in mind that, in their final days, KLM put out some defective
> > KT-34XA's. Fortunately, the bad ones are easy to detect from their
> > lousy swr curves. The one evaluated in the Tribander Comparison
Report
> > was obviously one of the bad ones.
> >
> > Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
> > Big Bear, CA
> > K6LL@juno.com
> >
> > --
> > FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> > Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
> > Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> > Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com
> >
>
>
> --
> FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
> Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com
>
>


--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com