You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
The Feb 2025 Radioddity Giveaway Results are In! Click Here to see who won!

Reply to thread

Message

I have yet to find out what the big deal is with a 43 foot antenna. It still needs a tuner of some sort to work all bands. Is it better than a 53 foot antenna? Why not use 47 feet instead? Nobody has ever said what it is that makes a 43 foot antenna good. Being a vertical it still needs a good groundplane.

Agreed

Yes all forms of loading are a compromise and traps do indeed have losses. The trick is to use heavy wire and as little as possible to function.

The other thing to consider too is the take off angle. The vertical will have a decently low TOA with a good groundplane but the horizontal dipole must be quite high to achieve the same angle of radiation making it somewhat harder to achieve. It may work like gangbusters out to 600-1000 miles but be crushed by the vertical,especially on 40m, when talking a few thousand miles.

I was pretty sure you were just joking about the comparison to RPC. LOL

OK enough talk..........I have a vertical antenna to go mount while the weather is still decent today.

<blockquote data-quote="Captain Kilowatt" data-source="post: 604368" data-attributes="member: 39">I have yet to find out what the big deal is with a 43 foot antenna. It still needs a tuner of some sort to work all bands. Is it better than a 53 foot antenna? Why not use 47 feet instead?&nbsp; Nobody has ever said what it is that makes a 43 foot antenna good. Being a vertical it still needs a good groundplane.AgreedYes all forms of loading are a compromise and traps do indeed have losses. The trick is to use heavy wire and as little as possible to function.The other thing to consider too is the take off angle. The vertical will have a decently low TOA with a good groundplane but the horizontal dipole must be quite high to achieve the same angle of radiation making it somewhat harder to achieve. It may work like gangbusters out to 600-1000 miles but be crushed by the vertical,especially on 40m, when talking a few thousand miles.I was pretty sure you were just joking about the comparison to RPC. LOLOK enough talk..........I have a vertical antenna to go mount while the weather is still decent today. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big Grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Captain Kilowatt, post: 604368, member: 39"] I have yet to find out what the big deal is with a 43 foot antenna. It still needs a tuner of some sort to work all bands. Is it better than a 53 foot antenna? Why not use 47 feet instead? Nobody has ever said what it is that makes a 43 foot antenna good. Being a vertical it still needs a good groundplane. Agreed Yes all forms of loading are a compromise and traps do indeed have losses. The trick is to use heavy wire and as little as possible to function. The other thing to consider too is the take off angle. The vertical will have a decently low TOA with a good groundplane but the horizontal dipole must be quite high to achieve the same angle of radiation making it somewhat harder to achieve. It may work like gangbusters out to 600-1000 miles but be crushed by the vertical,especially on 40m, when talking a few thousand miles. I was pretty sure you were just joking about the comparison to RPC. LOL OK enough talk..........I have a vertical antenna to go mount while the weather is still decent today. :D [/QUOTE]

Top Bottom