[TowerTalk] MFJ 1792 correction vs HF2V

[n4kg@juno.com]

On Wed, 5 Sep 2001  Dinsterdog@aol.com writes:
> 
> "MFJ 1792"
> 
> Of note, out of the box, the antenna does require guying.  The 
> Butter HF2V  does not.  Therefore, I don't agree that the MFJ 1792 
> takes up the  same  amount of room as the Butternut HF2V as 
> stated in earlier postings  by others.

	The HF2V also requires RADIALS, as does the MFJ-1792.
	A set of light weight non-conductive guys could easily be
	placed within the space devoted to radial placement.
	Even steep guys are better than NO guys.

	I would NOT recommend using a 1/4 WL (electrical) 
	vertical without radials.  Even short radials are better
	than NO radials, just as a short antenna is better than
	NO antenna.   (Enough of this ! )   N4KG
> 
> Neither of these antennas  is so  broad banded that you 
> can  operate in both windows without having to  retune 
> them and/or use a tuner to accomplish this.

	Agree. I will even concede that it is easier to retune
	the HF2V since the coil is accessable from the ground.

	The MFJ-1792 has a nifty tilt base to facilitate raising
	and lowering.  It would be interesting to see how they
	both work on SSB with a tuner if tuned for CW.  That's
	what I do with my full size coax fed antennas.  N4KG
> 
> I do think that the MFJ 1792 is a neat concept, on paper, has 
> potential to  will work fb from a small lot,  and gives more bandwidth 
> over a  stock HF2V  without modifications for those who like to 
> cruise the upper end of  75 SSB  for stateside stuff etc.......
> but it would be nice if the company  making the  antenna could 
> give it a better impression by proof reading their own  webpage- 

	Thank you for having an open mind and looking at the facts.
	I have no idea why MFJ doesn't do a better job of promoting
	this interesting antenna.  I have suggested they advertise it
	in the NCJ and DX magazines which have low advertising
	rates due to smaller circulations yet target the most 
	likely buyers of  80 / 40 verticals.   N4KG

> One other comment, I like to kid around a lot, so please don't take 
> this as a  flaming write-up against MFJ.  I just want to get the point 
> across  about an  antenna, the HF2V, that many have used around 
> the world, from small  backyards, to DXpeditions, to work DX- 
> For someone to say it is  "DOG" is not  really accurate-  

	No one likes to have their antenna called a "DOG",
	especially if it has done good things for them.
	I didn't like the "modified G5RV" characterization as 
	a DOG in a separate thread and responded similarly.
	
> It is a compromise of an antenna for the band, but  that's 
> what it is designed for, thus allowing many hams to get on 80 M
> in the  first place-  
> 
	That is a good point.  I do stand by my contention that
	the MFJ 1792 has the potential to be a *better* compromise
	on 80M than the base loaded HF2V *without* top loading wires.
	A top loaded HF2V is probably a better radiator as well.
	Note that the top loading wires need external supports
	and possible additional guying.  

	I hope we can put this thread to bed now, at least until 
	further performance data or experience is available.
	
	Tom  N4KG
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

List Sponsored by AN Wireless:  AN Wireless handles Rohn tower systems,
Trylon Titan towers, coax, hardline and more. Also check out our self
supporting towers up to 96 feet for under $1500!!  http://www.anwireless.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