If you believe the manufacturers' numbers, you are giving up over 2 dB of gain on most bands if you go with the Cushcraft. That would be significant for me. Plus, there is the old ham axiom of "LP's
Plus, you'll expereinece more overload to your receiver, and potentially cause more interference with log, as it is broadbanded. Heavier too! David Hachadorian <k6ll@adelphia.net> wrote: -- Original
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- Cushcraft rates the LP gain at 6.4 dbi and SteppIR rates the 3-el at 6.6 dbi, a difference of .2 dB, not 2. Where did your info come from? If the gain is within
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- Yes, I saw that mentioned in the archives. Did this actually happen to someone or is it just conjecture? What RX? How bad? Was an attempt made to cure it with ba
Just for the other side... I've got the Cushcraft log at 55' in Central Florida. My primary HF contest rig is a Yaesu MKV Field. While my installation is not a "big gun", I work anything I hear- usua
I'm looking to get a new antenna and would appreciate some comments on comparing the 3-element SteppIR and the 8-element Cushcraft log periodic. The performance in terms of gain, F/B, bandwidth, SWR,
For me the visual impact of the SteppIR is a clear advantage. I'm looking forward to upgrading my 3 element with the new 30/40m driven. This small antenna size lets me add additional antennas for VHF
Bill, I think you're looking at some incorrect claims (2 el SteppIR perhaps?). Here are the results of a comparison between the ASL2010 and 3-el SteppIR in AO. The Cushcraft half elements were offset