Hi Brian, Hope you had A nice Christmas.
I used an HFV-2 w/160 mtr kit about 10yrs ago, while living in town. It
had 10 150ft rolls of chicken wire, 3ft wide as radials. I used it a
contest, and didn't do too well. When I hit it with 800wts it would slowly
change in SWR, due to coil heating, obviously we were experiencing a little
loss.
Out of curiosity I put up two additional antennas to compare it to.
One was a 160mtr dipole with its center at 40ft and the ends at 20ft.
The second was an inverted L with 3 elevated radials, the base and radials
were at 15ft, the vertical section was 30ft tall, and the horizontal wire
was about 95ft long and angled down to 30ft.
My comparisons were unscientific, but very consistent. I did the typical
antenna A B C comparisons, using an Icom 751A.
If I made a contact on the HFV-2, the dipole was a little better, and the
inverted L was 2 to 3 S units louder.
If I made a contact on the initially on inverted L the differences were
more drastic. Usually I would be barely perceptible on the dipole and gone
while on the HFV-2.
When answering CQ's or breaking pile-ups, the inverted-L was always the
weapon of choice.
Why the drastic differences depending on which antenna I initially started
with? I usually started testing by calling CQ. It appears that a CQ
answered while on the HFV-2 was along a good path of propagation, and the
other antennas showed mild differences. CQ's originating on the inverted L
apparently didn't need a perfect path. Obviously the dipole is too low to
be effective at 40ft. The inverted L and the HFV-2 both had effective
grounds. The difference remaining is that the inverted L is topped
loaded(desireable), and the HFV-2 is bottom loaded with a lossy system(bad
news).
I hope this helps.
73 Jay W7CW
1AB Ranch
Gillette, Wyoming
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
Submissions: topband@contesting.com
Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-topband@contesting.com
|