[TowerTalk] KT36XA

[Bill]

Tony,

My experience is with KT34XA not KT36XA antennas. I have a friend that lives
within a mile of me and had, until recently a pair of KT34XA's on a 100 foot
tower. We also had a pair of KT34XAs at our contest station, 6D2X, now (SK).
At the time we considered these antennas to be very good and were pleased
with the results. I bought a Force 12 C3E four or 5 years ago and put it on
a 120 foot tower. My friend and I began to compare signals. We were
surprised to find that the C3E held its own very well on all bands with the
100' KT34XA. In fact it was not unusual for the C3E to get better reports
using similar power levels. After these tests I would have never purchased a
KT34XA due to the cost, complexity, and weight of the antenna.

I have not seen or used the KT36XA so I cannot comment on the performance of
that antenna. I suspect that the antenna was improved but have no personal
knowledge. M2 has always been a good outfit. Considering the number of good
triband antennas that are available these days, I would want to check all
available before I bought one. If you're trying to win a contest, tribanders
generally won't suffice. If you chasing DX, a smaller antenna will work very
well. Bigger, heavier, more complex antennas (not just the KT34/36)
generally mean a bigger rotator, and more antenna and rotator maintenance.

If you haven't read K7LXC/N0AX's Antenna Comparison report, you should. It's
a little out of date now (doesn't have the KT36XA) but it gives some ideas
about all the claims, etc. Most hams like their antennas and will tell you
how great they work. You need to "know" how they work, not how big/small,
number of elements/spacing, etc. Anecdotal comments are not much help.

Good luck,
Bill, W5VX

 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: towertalk-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:towertalk-
>bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of KT2Q
>Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:04 PM
>To: Towertalk at contesting.com
>Subject: [TowerTalk] KT36XA
>
>All,
>
>Still pondering the idea of purchasing a KT36XA by M2. I received a few e-
>mails and would appreciate additional comments about it's performance
>before I make the purchase.
>
>I've been told that it is one of the better tri-band Yagi's because it uses
>all of it's boom length when compared to some interlaced designs that use
>less than the entire boom. The Optibeam OB16-3 does use most of it's 33
>foot boom, but it is a bit heavy and pricy. Element spacing for 20 meters
>on the Force12 XR31 is about 24 feet.
>
>LB (W4RNL) made the point that the gain figures quoted for this antenna
>(and other tri-banders) are close to the maximum obtainable; even for
>monoband Yagi's of similar boom length. So I would assume that like other
>tri-band Yagi's, it falls somewhat short of true monoband performance due
>to the fixed element spacing and loading.
>
>With that said, has anyone been able to accurately model the KT36XA
>(especially on 20 meters) with it's shorter elements and linear loading and
>compare it to interlaced designs of the same boom length?
>
>Being an M2 product it looks like a sold design, but does it's performance
>come close to matching it's number of elements and size? How well does it
>model when compared to a monobander on say 20 meters with the same boom
>length?
>
>Thanks,
>
>73 Tony KT2Q
>_______________________________________________
>
>See: http://www.mscomputer.com  for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
>Weather Stations", and lot's more.  Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any
>questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk