Re: GAP antennas
Had the smaller model of the GAP antenna. It covered 80M - 6M. Same
idea/design except no top hat.
On 80, it was several S units worse than a low dipole. That held for
local, DX and long haul DX.
On 40M it performed about as well as a 40M dipole at 40'. It did do
better sometimes on longer haul DX. It was also a dog on 20M despite
a good SWR.
Like the guy who sold it to me said: "You will work everything you
hear on 80". Probably true-- since RX signals were so poor.
By the way, the GAP design for this antenna had a capacitor inside the
top tubing. One needed the correct capacitor for the band segment
being covered. I seem to recall that there were four such caps needed
to span the 75/80 meter band. Naturally, the unit came with the wrong
one.
73 de Brian/K3KO
K7LXC@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 1/24/01 6:36:14 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> w8ji@contesting.com writes:
>
> > One thing for certain go for the GAP, performance will be very
> > predictable!
> >
> > There is no doubt at all the GAP will never have a good signal, no
> > matter what. With the GAP, you'll easily be a couple S unit's
> > weaker than you would with a simple low dipole.
>
> Yep, our experience with one on 160M was the same. We were at the ocean
> for a 160M contest and heard everything but could only work 1/3 of the
> stations we heard. It did work semi-okay on 80 and okay on 40 though.
>
> Cheers, Steve K7LXC
> Tower Tech
>
> --
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
|