--------------6338A12894EDD5AC6A420D16
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Here are the results of todays survey...very interesting comments:
Depending on how far back you go....it looks like a photo finish between
the TA-33
and TH3Mk3 -- however after a couple of re-reads I'd give the 1st place
price
to the TA33 with the A3 finishing a clear last.
Please no more input...I've got what I was looking for and appreciate
every response.
I've taken snippets from as many of the inputs as I could before my
wrist locked up.
Enjoy reading about your favorite low cost tri-band beam...
thanks,
dave
WA3GIN
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In favor of the Cushcraft A3
=====================
A gazillion Dxpeditions can't be wrong. Every photo of one of Martti
Laine's trips has an A3 in it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For what it's worth, a friend has an A3S and loves it. I bought one
used and can offer the following "hints". Note: mine isn't installed
yet.
o - Replace U-Bolts and hose clamps with stainless steel ones. The
galvanized ones RUST like you wouldn't believe.
Other than that, I've received glowing reviews of it. You can
download
the manual for it in pdf format from http://www.cushcraft.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Dave myself and others with me and in our club have used the A-3 many
times on many Dxepeditions and also here on the home front and It is a
great
antenna. Easy to assemble and perform maintenance on and a real
performer.
A good friend of mine has reached DXCC honor roll with it mounted on the
roof tower on top of his house. We have won various top honors in DX
contests when we have used the antenna from DX qth's and it really
breaks
down nice for portable operation if you ever intend to use it in that
regard. Good Luck and 73! Ed
These inputs sort of sound like the users didn't have any long term
experience
with the A3...just DXpeditions -- short runs versus up for 20 years.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
In favor of the Hy-Gain TH3-Mk3
========================
TH-3 is sturdier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
th3 and ta33 have better hardware. Early Th3s had plated hardware
instead
of stainless, the mosely was always all stainless. The a3 has always
struck
me as the bargain basement tribander.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're interested in performance coupled with very good hardware, I
would vote for the Hy-Gain. It the only one developed on a real antenna
range. This is the same range and engineers that produced the original
TH6
over 30 years ago which is arguably the most popular HF tribander ever
manufactured. Why was it so popular? Because it WORKED!
All of the TH series from the TH2 on up were/are *very good*
performers.
And, unlike the others, the hardware is robust and strong.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I put up a TH3-Mk3 10 years ago... bought it
used and only replaced the plastic end caps and the ballun. I am very
happy with the way it has performed. ... the hardware is
much better than the others....it still acts like the day I put it up!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TH-3! A great performing beam. Hygain discontinued it when they
brought
out the Explorer 14 and was forced to bring the TH-3 back by popular
demand. And
its construction is better than the A-3. And dont know how long
Mosely
will be around. If the 33 is anything like the Classic 33 the front
to
back would not be great. Yep, the TH-3!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My vote is for the Hygain TH3-Mk3.
It has a remarkable history and is well designed. If you look at the
history of the antenna, it has been around since the 50s and has earned
some repsect.
The TA-33 (Which I own and is up in the air) is easier to assemble and
install. But, I do not think it performs as well as the TH3-Mk3 which I
have owned and operated as well. (Actually, it was a very early model
made
in Duncan, OK with the old blue plastic traps which went to heck in UV
light) I retrapped the antenna with Thunderbird traps from Hygain years
later and was a great performer. I think this antenna has more
"engineering" behind it as well...
The A3 is OK and have operated that antenna as well.
Vote goes this way. TH3 #1. A3 #2. TA-33 #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAve, I would pass on the A3, but it's very close on the other 2. But
the
TA33 has less traps, so less stuff to clean out. You MUST clean out
traps
on any 20 year old antenna. I'v used TA33s and TH3's, and find them both
quite good.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nix on the TA-33. I'd take the HyGain TH-3-MK3 and the Cush as a 2nd
choice. I base this on the best trap construction which is HyGain hands
down and I've used all 3 types of antennas. HyGain is defiitely best in
this list.
These folks seem to be more tuned into performance followed by
structural
integrity...most mentioned the TA33 as an almost equal to the TH3Mk3 but
pulled towards the Hy-Gain!
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
In favor of the Mosley TA-33
=====================
The Mosley will out last by far either of the others -- that is,
mechanically and structurally, the Mosley is your best bet --
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hy Gain may be a bit ahead, SLIGHTLY, in electronic performance,
MAYBE, but, all things equal, the Mosley will last and last and last and
last and last -- I know, I have had one up at 90-ft. in Wisconsin's
weather, UNTOUCHED by human hands, for over 15 years -- my neighbor has
had his up untouched forover 25 years --
Performance -- not all that bad -- I run barefoot at 150 watts and have
329
DX total on that Mosley -- not bad for a trapped
tribander, I think --
And, it has outlasted KLM's, Hy Gains, SEVERAL!!!!!! Cushcrafts (which
are
JUNK in comparison. structurally and mechanically!!) --
So, all things equal, including price, go for the Mosley and it will be
a
much better longer lasting all around good perfoming antenna
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd pick the one that is mechanically the best. Fewest parts to fall
off and devoid of castings (if at all possible). No matter how good the
antenna performs, it's not worth squat if it falls apart in the air.
Had TA33 many years ago. It worked Ok. Did not like the boom
attachment insulators.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have the th3mk3 its an ok antenna. I think that the others especially
the mosley are more rugged and trouble free though. performance should
be
similar.The th3s have been known to trap water in the traps and
for the plastic weather seals to dryrot and crumble hence the water
problems
Bottom line
mosley
cushcraft
higain
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI Dave I would vote for the TA-33 I have one that is 30+ years old and
still going strong. Actually I beleive any of the 3 are fine antennas
and
If you had them side by side I doubt you would notice alot of
difference, I
have been pleased with the Mosley folks. Please publish the results of
your
survey I believe the group would be interested.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVE:
STAY AWAY FROM THE CUSHCRAFT. LOUSEY CONSTRUCTION, VERY LOUSEY
CUSTOMER
SUPPORT AND WHEN A CORPORATION'S PEOPLE LIE TO YOU, THEY DON'T GET
ANYMORE
OF MY ANTENNA MONEYS!
HY-GAIN IS NOW IN TRANSITION TO MFJ, DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL "FALL
OUT".
I'D STICK WITH THE MOSELEY ELECTRONICS TRI-BANDER, TA-33. BTW,
YOU CAN ADD A
40-MTR KIT (AS I DID) AND MAKE IT FOUR BANDS. HOWEVER, MAKE YOUR COAX
FEED
MULTIPLES OF ELECTRICAL HALF-WAVELEGNTHS AND IT WILL THEN FEED A
HALF-WAVE
ON 44O-MTRS, A FULL-WAVE ON 20-MTRS, THREE HALF-WAVES ON 15-MTRS AND TWO
FULL WAVES ON TEN. BE SMART, DO IT THAT WAY. TUNES GREAT ON THE CW END
OF
THE TA-33/40. WITH THE 40-MTR KIT. YOU ROTATE THE 40-MTR DIPOLE UNTIL
YOU
NULL THE NOISE/QRM/QRN. IT WORKS FOR ME IN CONTEST AND DXing.
WHY? IT IS SIMPLE TO WORK ON, REPAIR AND DOES YOEMEN SERVICE.
I'VE HAD MINE SINCE 1962. WITH ONLY ONE EXCEPTION OF A BURNED 20-MTR
COIL,
MY FAULT...AS YOU CANNOT PUT 1500 WATTS OF 3775 SIGNAL INTO A 20-MTR
COIL
AND EXPECT IT NOT TO BURN THE PHENOLIC COIL CAST!
THAT'S NOT MOSELEY'S FAULT. IT WAS THE LOOSE NUT BEHIND THE "KEY
DOWN" FAULT!
ANY QUESTIONS?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TA33 is the winner hands down as it covers both phone and CW
sections of
all bands and radiates a fairly good signal across the bands unlike the
others which only work well in one segment of the bands, either CW or
phone.
Even with a tuner the other two are not effective except where they are
set
during assembly. If you only care about one mode, they'll all perform
similarly when set for the mode of your preference.
Constructionwise, the TA33 is constructed a lot better than the other
two,
with near double wall tubing overlaps throughout. It also is a bit
heavier
in weight than the other two. Many TA33's have been up and working in
excess
of 35 years where the HyGains up this long are a rarity by comparison. I
don't believe CushCraft came on to the scene until the 70's sometime, so
the
oldest ones are still much less than 30 years old.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave;
#1= TA-33 gets my vote. Althjo their all on 14' booms, I simply feel the
TA-33 is a workhrse tried and true and the one I owned in the Canal Zone
1976 is still down there !!
Many complaints about Cushcraft parts problems and the recent sale of
Hy-Gain to MFH are also factors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would take the Mosley. I had a Classic 33 which is like a TA-33 and I
feel
it worked better than my A-4. for whatever it's worth
These folks seemed to be the hardiest of the respondents...focused on
longevity, construction and decades of excellent customer service
something
that many crushed Cushcraft with in their remarks. Also, the big
questions
about Hy-Gain is what will it be like under MFJ???
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Other comments from the peanut gallery:
================================
I would get a C3E by Force 12. . . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Personal Opinion is ... the Bigger the Better!
I just bought a Force12, EF-420 full-sized 4 element Monobander!!!
I'd take these guys up on their remarks but no one has offered me a free
Force 12, yet!!!
**************************************** EOF
******************************************
--------------6338A12894EDD5AC6A420D16
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
Here are the results of todays survey...very interesting comments:
<P>Depending on how far back you go....it looks like a photo finish between
the TA-33
<BR>and TH3Mk3 -- however after a couple of re-reads I'd give the 1st place
price
<BR>to the TA33 with the A3 finishing a clear last.
<P>Please no more input...I've got what I was looking for and appreciate
every response.
<BR>I've taken snippets from as many of the inputs as I could before my
wrist locked up.
<P>Enjoy reading about your favorite low cost tri-band beam...
<P>thanks,
<BR>dave
<BR>WA3GIN
<P>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
<P>In favor of the Cushcraft A3
<BR>=====================
<P>A gazillion Dxpeditions can't be wrong. Every photo of one of
Martti
<BR>Laine's trips has an A3 in it.
<BR>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<BR> For what it's worth, a friend has an A3S and loves it.
I bought one
<BR>used and can offer the following "hints". Note: mine isn't installed
yet.
<P>o - Replace U-Bolts and hose clamps with stainless steel ones.
The
<BR>galvanized ones RUST like you wouldn't believe.
<P>Other than that, I've received glowing reviews of it.
You can download
<BR>the manual for it in pdf format from <A
HREF="http://www.cushcraft.com";>http://www.cushcraft.com</A>
<BR>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<BR>Hi Dave myself and others with me and in our club have used the A-3
many
<BR>times on many Dxepeditions and also here on the home front and It is
a great
<BR>antenna. Easy to assemble and perform maintenance on and a real
performer.
<BR>A good friend of mine has reached DXCC honor roll with it mounted on
the
<BR>roof tower on top of his house. We have won various top honors
in DX
<BR>contests when we have used the antenna from DX qth's and it really
breaks
<BR>down nice for portable operation if you ever intend to use it in that
<BR>regard. Good Luck and 73! Ed
<P><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">These inputs sort of sound like the users didn't
have any long term experience</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">with the A3...just DXpeditions -- short runs
versus up for 20 years.</FONT>
<BR>////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
<P>In favor of the Hy-Gain TH3-Mk3
<BR>========================
<P>TH-3 is sturdier.
<BR>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<BR>th3 and ta33 have better hardware. Early Th3s had plated hardware
instead
<BR>of stainless, the mosely was always all stainless. The a3 has
always struck
<BR>me as the bargain basement tribander.
<P>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<BR> If you're interested in performance coupled with very good hardware,
I
<BR>would vote for the Hy-Gain. It the only one developed on a real antenna
<BR>range. This is the same range and engineers that produced the original
TH6
<BR>over 30 years ago which is arguably the most popular HF tribander ever
<BR>manufactured. Why was it so popular? Because it WORKED!
<P> All of the TH series from the TH2 on up were/are
*very good* performers.
<BR>And, unlike the others, the hardware is robust and strong.
<BR>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<P> I put up a TH3-Mk3 10 years ago... bought it
<BR>used and only replaced the plastic end caps and the ballun. I
am very
<BR>happy with the way it has performed. ... the hardware is
<BR>much better than the others....it still acts like the day I put it
up!
<BR>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<P>TH-3! A great performing beam. Hygain discontinued
it when they brought
<BR>out the Explorer 14 and was forced to bring the TH-3 back by popular
demand. And
<BR>its construction is better than the A-3. And
dont know how long Mosely
<BR>will be around. If the 33 is anything like
the Classic 33 the front to
<BR>back would not be great. Yep, the TH-3!
<BR>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<P>My vote is for the Hygain TH3-Mk3.
<P>It has a remarkable history and is well designed. If you look
at the
<BR>history of the antenna, it has been around since the 50s and has earned
<BR>some repsect.
<P>The TA-33 (Which I own and is up in the air) is easier to assemble and
<BR>install. But, I do not think it performs as well as the TH3-Mk3
which I
<BR>have owned and operated as well. (Actually, it was a very early model
made
<BR>in Duncan, OK with the old blue plastic traps which went to heck in
UV
<BR>light) I retrapped the antenna with Thunderbird traps from Hygain
years
<BR>later and was a great performer. I think this antenna has more
<BR>"engineering" behind it as well...
<P>The A3 is OK and have operated that antenna as well.
<P>Vote goes this way. TH3 #1. A3 #2. TA-33 #
<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<P>DAve, I would pass on the A3, but it's very close on the other 2. But
the
<BR>TA33 has less traps, so less stuff to clean out. You MUST clean out
traps
<BR>on any 20 year old antenna. I'v used TA33s and TH3's, and find them
both
<BR>quite good.
<BR>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<BR>Nix on the TA-33. I'd take the HyGain TH-3-MK3 and the Cush as a 2nd
<BR>choice. I base this on the best trap construction which is HyGain hands
<BR>down and I've used all 3 types of antennas. HyGain is defiitely best
in
<BR>this list.<FONT COLOR="#00CC00"></FONT>
<P><FONT COLOR="#00CC00">These folks seem to be more tuned into performance
followed by structural</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#00CC00">integrity...most mentioned the TA33 as an almost
equal to the TH3Mk3 but</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#00CC00">pulled towards the Hy-Gain!</FONT>
<BR>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
<P>In favor of the Mosley TA-33
<BR>=====================
<P>The Mosley will out last by far either of the others -- that is,
<BR>mechanically and structurally, the Mosley is your best bet --
<BR>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<BR>The Hy Gain may be a bit ahead, SLIGHTLY, in electronic performance,
MAYBE, but, all things equal, the Mosley will last and last and last and
last and last -- I know, I have had one up at 90-ft. in Wisconsin's weather,
UNTOUCHED by human hands, for over 15 years -- my neighbor has had his
up untouched forover 25 years --
<P>Performance -- not all that bad -- I run barefoot at 150 watts and have
329
<BR>DX total on that Mosley -- not bad for a trapped
<BR>tribander, I think --
<P>And, it has outlasted KLM's, Hy Gains, SEVERAL!!!!!! Cushcrafts (which
are
<BR>JUNK in comparison. structurally and mechanically!!) --
<P>So, all things equal, including price, go for the Mosley and it will
be a
<BR>much better longer lasting all around good perfoming antenna
<BR>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<BR>I'd pick the one that is mechanically the best. Fewest parts
to fall
<BR>off and devoid of castings (if at all possible). No matter how good
the
<BR>antenna performs, it's not worth squat if it falls apart in the air.
<P>Had TA33 many years ago. It worked Ok. Did not like the
boom
<BR>attachment insulators.
<BR>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<BR>I have the th3mk3 its an ok antenna. I think that the others
especially
<BR>the mosley are more rugged and trouble free though. performance should
be
<BR>similar.The th3s have been known to trap water in the traps and
<BR>for the plastic weather seals to dryrot and crumble hence the water
<BR>problems
<P>Bottom line
<BR>mosley
<BR>cushcraft
<BR>higain
<BR>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<BR>HI Dave I would vote for the TA-33 I have one that is 30+ years
old and
<BR>still going strong. Actually I beleive any of the 3 are fine antennas
and
<BR>If you had them side by side I doubt you would notice alot of difference,
I
<BR>have been pleased with the Mosley folks. Please publish the results
of your
<BR>survey I believe the group would be interested.
<BR>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<P>DAVE:
<BR> STAY AWAY FROM THE CUSHCRAFT.
LOUSEY CONSTRUCTION, VERY LOUSEY CUSTOMER
<BR>SUPPORT AND WHEN A CORPORATION'S PEOPLE LIE TO YOU, THEY DON'T GET
ANYMORE
<BR>OF MY ANTENNA MONEYS!
<P> HY-GAIN IS NOW IN TRANSITION
TO MFJ, DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL "FALL OUT".
<BR> I'D STICK WITH THE MOSELEY
ELECTRONICS TRI-BANDER, TA-33. BTW, YOU CAN ADD A
<BR>40-MTR KIT (AS I DID) AND MAKE IT FOUR BANDS. HOWEVER, MAKE YOUR COAX
FEED
<BR>MULTIPLES OF ELECTRICAL HALF-WAVELEGNTHS AND IT WILL THEN FEED A HALF-WAVE
<BR>ON 44O-MTRS, A FULL-WAVE ON 20-MTRS, THREE HALF-WAVES ON 15-MTRS AND
TWO
<BR>FULL WAVES ON TEN. BE SMART, DO IT THAT WAY. TUNES GREAT ON THE CW
END OF
<BR>THE TA-33/40. WITH THE 40-MTR KIT. YOU ROTATE THE 40-MTR DIPOLE UNTIL
YOU
<BR>NULL THE NOISE/QRM/QRN. IT WORKS FOR ME IN CONTEST AND DXing.
<BR> WHY? IT IS SIMPLE TO WORK
ON, REPAIR AND DOES YOEMEN SERVICE.
<BR>I'VE HAD MINE SINCE 1962. WITH ONLY ONE EXCEPTION OF A BURNED 20-MTR
COIL,
<BR>MY FAULT...AS YOU CANNOT PUT 1500 WATTS OF 3775 SIGNAL INTO A 20-MTR
COIL
<BR>AND EXPECT IT NOT TO BURN THE PHENOLIC COIL CAST!
<BR> THAT'S NOT MOSELEY'S FAULT.
IT WAS THE LOOSE NUT BEHIND THE "KEY DOWN" FAULT!
<BR>ANY QUESTIONS?
<BR>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<P>The TA33 is the winner hands down as it covers both phone and CW sections
of
<BR>all bands and radiates a fairly good signal across the bands unlike
the
<BR>others which only work well in one segment of the bands, either CW
or phone.
<BR>Even with a tuner the other two are not effective except where they
are set
<BR>during assembly. If you only care about one mode, they'll all perform
<BR>similarly when set for the mode of your preference.
<BR>Constructionwise, the TA33 is constructed a lot better than the other
two,
<BR>with near double wall tubing overlaps throughout. It also is a bit
heavier
<BR>in weight than the other two. Many TA33's have been up and working
in excess
<BR>of 35 years where the HyGains up this long are a rarity by comparison.
I
<BR>don't believe CushCraft came on to the scene until the 70's sometime,
so the
<BR>oldest ones are still much less than 30 years old.
<BR>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<P>Dave;
<BR>#1= TA-33 gets my vote. Althjo their all on 14' booms, I simply feel
the
<BR>TA-33 is a workhrse tried and true and the one I owned in the Canal
Zone
<BR>1976 is still down there !!
<BR>Many complaints about Cushcraft parts problems and the recent sale
of
<BR>Hy-Gain to MFH are also factors.
<BR>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<P>I would take the Mosley. I had a Classic 33 which is like a TA-33 and
I feel
<BR>it worked better than my A-4. for whatever it's worth
<P><FONT COLOR="#3333FF">These folks seemed to be the hardiest of the
respondents...focused
on</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#3333FF">longevity, construction and decades of excellent
customer service something</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#3333FF">that many crushed Cushcraft with in their
remarks.
Also, the big questions</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#3333FF">about Hy-Gain is what will it be like under
MFJ???</FONT>
<P>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
<P>Other comments from the peanut gallery:
<BR>================================
<BR>I would get a C3E by Force 12. . . . .
<P>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<P>My Personal Opinion is ... the Bigger the Better!
<P>I just bought a Force12, EF-420 full-sized 4 element Monobander!!!
<P><FONT COLOR="#993366">I'd take these guys up on their remarks but no
one has offered me a free Force 12, yet!!!</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#993366"></FONT> <FONT COLOR="#993366"></FONT>
<P><FONT COLOR="#666666">**************************************** EOF
******************************************</FONT></HTML>
--------------6338A12894EDD5AC6A420D16--
--
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
|