- 1. [TowerTalk] MFJ 1792 correction vs HF2V (score: 1)
- Author: Dinsterdog@aol.com (Dinsterdog@aol.com)
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 09:59:53 EDT
- Last night, I mentioned in reply to N4KG's response to my listing of accomplished Butternut HF2V'ers that I thought the Butternut could beat any three foot top loaded antenna. I got data of the anten
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-09/msg00165.html (10,348 bytes)
- 2. [TowerTalk] MFJ 1792 correction vs HF2V (score: 1)
- Author: ValErwin@aol.com (ValErwin@aol.com)
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 10:37:32 EDT
- Tower Dudes and Dudettes: Don't have any experience with the MFJ antenna but did just take down an HF2V. I found my modified HF2V antenna to be an excellent performer on 80 and 160M. I defeated the 4
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-09/msg00169.html (7,652 bytes)
- 3. [TowerTalk] MFJ 1792 correction vs HF2V (score: 1)
- Author: 2@vc.net (2)
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 08:50:25 -0700
- morning, // It would be nice if they made a dipmeter option for their analyzer that dipped. It would be nice if their 8877 amplifier had: 1. a tank that was designed by a person who understood skin-
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-09/msg00171.html (10,527 bytes)
- 4. [TowerTalk] MFJ 1792 correction vs HF2V (score: 1)
- Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com)
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 10:34:27 -0600
- The HF2V also requires RADIALS, as does the MFJ-1792. A set of light weight non-conductive guys could easily be placed within the space devoted to radial placement. Even steep guys are better than NO
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-09/msg00173.html (11,105 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu