[TowerTalk] HF2V Elevated or On Ground

[ve4xt at mymts.net]

Hi Jim

I never tried elevating my HF6V (similar in principle to the 2V), but I'm not surprised by your results. 

My HF6V worked OK on the high bands, OK on 40 but was little better than a dummy load on 80. 

What you've done by moving it closer to the ground is increase your ground losses considerably, as well as it not being in the clear like before. 

Butternut tries to claim its verticals aren't base-loaded, but c'mon. ;-)

In a base-loaded antenna, most of the current is radiated at the coil, so that compounds your losses, too. 

If a change of antenna is more possible than a change back to 10-feet elevation, look at a Cushcraft MA8040v. 

Mine is no band-killer, but it's a damn sight better than the old Butternut. It is top-loaded.

73, Kelly
ve4xt

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 13, 2013, at 15:49, "James Setzler" <jms_k1sd at verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> 
> 
> I've a Butternut HF2V that used to be elevated with the feedpoint at 10 ft.
> and 2 tuned radials each on 40m and 80m also at 10 ft.  I was satisfied with
> it; it seemed to hear well enough and I often got good signal reports on
> 40m.  During reconstruction I moved it to ground mounted with 12 radials
> each 10 to 33 ft. long; it's not getting many more.  I also installed a 40m
> inverted V with the feedpoint at 65 ft.
> 
> 
> 
> The ground mounted HF2V seems to be worse that the elevated vertical was.
> The elevated vertical often got good signal reports; the ground mounted
> never.  The dipole always beats the vertical, listening and transmitting.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else have experience with the HF2V mounted up using elevated radials
> versus ground mounted with limited on-ground radials.
> 
> 
> 
>    73 James K1SD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk