Thanks for all the reports. The X9 has a 28' boom.
Tom - N1MM
----- Original Message -----
From: Tyler Stewart <k3mm@erols.com>
To: Tyler Barnett <tbarnett@fairway.stdio.com>; <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 1999 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Re: X9 vs C32XR, etc
>
>I thought they were auditioning the Pro 57 not 67...
>
>Also, the KLM KT34Xa was the only other 32' boom range antenna. The
Skyhawk
>is 24' if I remember correctly, along with the X9, and the Mosley Pro 57,
and
>TH7.
>
>... the other Ty. K3MM
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Tyler Barnett <tbarnett@fairway.stdio.com>
>To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
>Sent: Thursday, May 20, 1999 23:55
>Subject: [TowerTalk] Re: X9 vs C32XR, etc
>
>
>>
>> In reply to Tom's request (N1MM), here is what I recall:
>> The test "protocol" was a transmit station (where each yagi was mounted),
>and
>> a receive station, where a reference dipole was situated.
>> They were just over a mile apart, on each side of a bay, most of the path
>over water.
>> Think the tower height was 55', not sure, maybe it was 66'.
>> At the end of the day, as the saying goes, they plotted the combined gain
>from
>> 20, 15, 10 vs the boomlength of the antenna. It was quite interesting to
>see a
>> number of good tribanders sitting squarely on this line, which seemed to
>indicate
>> to the presenters that all the gain that could be obtained, was being
>obtained.
>> The longest boom was the C31XR at 32', followed by Skyhawk, TH7, etc.
>> The conclusion was that you couldn't really tell much difference on the
air
>> between any of them. The smaller C3 was called an over-achiever, due to
the
>> performance it got from being admittedly less of an antenna than it's
bigger
>brothers.
>> The poor Mosely PRO-67 got bad numbers again this year.
>> I may open up a can of worms here, but I have a good friend with one of
>these,
>> who is active every day on the bottom end of the bands, and he is as loud
as
>> anyone in Europe, from first-hand conversations of his contacts.
>> I personally made a QSO with a friend in Wales from his station, using
100W
>and
>> this PRO-67, and I thought it worked every bit as good as my TH7, maybe
>better.
>> I wonder if the PRO-67 has a cleaner pattern, and "takes off" with less
>pattern
>> spillover to detect a mile away. Who knows.
>> Tyler N4TY
>>
>> --
>> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
>> Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
>> Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
>> Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
>> Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
>>
>
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
>Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
>Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
>Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|