[TowerTalk] Higher is better? Sometimes

[cqtestk4xs at aol.com]

I agree.  Out in KH6 my triband stack was limited to 94 feet.  Last time I was able to erect a 150 footer but only put the triband stack at approximately at 95 ft.  Why?  The stack would have been too high for the US on 20 and way too high for the US on 15 and 10.  The same was true for the JA path.  Now on 40, that was different game.  Best height was a 150 over 80 stack which absolutely screamed on 40 in all down slope directions.  I wish I could put up a tower that was 150 feet, but am limited to 90+ by the county.  I wouldn't change the height of the triband stack, but sure would like the 150/80 stack back for 40.
HFTA rocks.  Anyone who doesn't live on flat terrain may spend thousands on a radio, amp, tower and antennas...but is missing optimum performance by not modelling. Those couple of extra sticks of tower might actually be hurting your signal, not helping.
KH7XS/K4XS




Actually Wes, this is 100% wrong if you have complex terrain.  I have that
here and I modeled 10, 15, 20, 40 using HFTA.  On 40M a higher antenna would
be even more potent.  But on 10. 15. 20.  My lower antennas to EU - where I
have significant terrain enhancement, modeled to be the better antennas.
And after a decade of on the air observation, HFTA is spot on.



73



Ed  N1UR