Just a note on verticals. Don't write off running a vertical with limited
radials or not on the ground. It's not the right way to do it but can still
give reasonable results if there is no other option.
I run a quarter wave vertical on 40M with the base of the aerial about 12ft
up and just 4 quarter wave radials sloping down to ground. It was the only
way to do the job, because of buildings that would prevent any radials at
ground level. Good enough for 800 - 1000 Qs on 40 in any of the big RTTY
contests.
Cheers,
John GW4SKA
----- Original Message -----
From: <ki6dy@sbcglobal.net>
To: "'RTTY Contesting'" <rtty@contesting.com>; "Don Hill AA5AU"
<aa5au@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 2:39 AM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY Contesting
>I agree with Don, the C4 is a great antenna. I owned one for several years
>and was really happy with it. I have since upgraded to the C31-XR which is
>obviously a better antenna but with conditions as they are, I don't think
>stacked mono-banders would make a big difference. Conditions just down
>right stink right now. I have gone the vertical route for the low bands as
>well and also agree that a 80M wire of some sort at a reasonable height
>would be better. For 80M, I am using an inverted vee at 56 feet and can
>work all over the US with the occasional DX. When I had the vertical,
>radials were kinda of a pain, always got in the way of yard work since they
>were not buried. You may be able to construct or purchase some type of
>shortened wire 80M antenna with loading coils that could fit on your lot.
>IMO horizontal is better than vertical on the low bands because of the
>noise pickup.
>
> Best of luck in your choice.
>
> 73 de Bob (KI6DY)
>
> --- On Wed, 3/25/09, Don Hill AA5AU <aa5au@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> From: Don Hill AA5AU <aa5au@bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] RTTY Contesting
> To: "'RTTY Contesting'" <rtty@contesting.com>
> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 9:22 PM
>
> Hi Stu and welcome back to RTTY contesting. I show you in my log for a
> WPX RTTY
> contest back in the 90's. Glad you're back...
>
> There are probably a lot of readers on this reflector who would die for a
> C4 at
> 33 feet. With conditions so poor on the higher
> bands right now, it's understandable that you may be frustrated with the
> antenna's performance. But I have to say that the antenna
> should perform better on 40 meters than a vertical since you may not have
> the
> room for a lot of radials. I have owned both the HF6
> and HF2 verticals (still have an HF2). Although both antennas are good
> antennas, they are not great. Your C4 will outperform
> either of these verticals. Now, if you just don't have room for an 80M
> wire, then you may consider the HF2 because sometimes it's
> nice to have two antennas on 40 meters. If you plan on doing any SO2R
> RTTY
> contesting, then you could consider the HF6. But then
> again, a multi-band inverted vee at 30' may even outperform the verticals.
> And the C4 will rock on the high bands when the sunspots
> come back, even at 33 feet!
>
> I would advise against mounting either of the Butternut antennas above
> ground
> unless you must. I've tried this without success;
> probably because of the lack of room to install a lot of radials. One big
> consideration is the type of ground you have. Here in
> Louisiana it's easy to bury a lot of radials even if they are shorter than
> you would like to have them. The ground is soft and
> fertile for the most part. Normally in a small lot you don't want your
> radials laying on the ground where people can trip over them.
> If you can't bury a lot of radios, then the vertical is out of the
> question. I've read of some that mount their verticals above
> ground but the situation of raised radials makes this solution impractical
> for
> small lot owners.
>
> I also live on a small lot, but luckily I've been able to get the apex of
> my 80M inverted vee up 50 feet and there is no comparison
> to the HF2 on that band. The inverted vee is so much better that I took
> the
> vertical down. I was able to work into Europe a couple
> times on 80M using low power with the vertical, but the wire is always
> better.
>
> Hope this helps. Maybe others can chime in with their experiences.
>
> 73, Don AA5AU
> http://www.aa5au.com
> http://www.rttycontesting.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtty-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On
> Behalf Of Stu Ritter
> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 2:44 PM
> To: RTTY Contesting
> Subject: [RTTY] RTTY Contesting
>
> Hi,
> I'm a contesting newbie.
> I've been away from HF in any form for 15 years and am just starting up
> again. I've done 2 RTTY tests and really enjoyed it. A lot
> different than it was 20 years ago! I was a TTY'er in the Army in the
> early
> 60's.
>
> I live on a smallish city lot and have my tower on my roof with a C4 at 33
> feet. That's all I can do! I was thinking that it would
> be nice to have another antenna besides the yagi.
> I really do not have room to put up efficient wire antennas due to lack of
> height. I worked the BARTG with 40 and 80 meter dipoles
> with peak height of 30 feet. Not too good. The 80 wire had loading coils
> due to
> lack of room.
>
> I've thought a vertical mounted on the roof at 13 feet would be a good
> second antenna, either for just 40/80 and or a multi-band
> version like a Butternut HF6V.
>
> I'd like to have some feedback from experienced RTTY contesters.
>
> thanks,
>
> Stu
> N0LEF
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|