Mounting height of R5?
Frank Scutch
I just picked up an R5 to play with and initially have it mounted on a
10 ft mast in my back yard. I think it works fine considering it's
size. I have noticed that it doesn't really perform any better than
some of the wire arrays I'm already using in the yard.
Question: Would the antenna perform any differently at maybe 30 or 40
feet than it does at 10 ft? Before I go through the trouble of putting
it up higher... can someone tell me if will even matter? Seems I
remember a post where someone mentioned that there is no diffence in
performance. I'm not looking for a beam's performance out of a vertical
but just want to know if it's worth it. Thanks.
Frank, WB4AYJ
Steve Ellington
was way out in the clear on 2 acres of flat land. 40 meter performance
was amazingly close to that of my 160 meter loop at 65 feet. 30 meters
was good but 20 and above was way down in comparison.
I then put it on top of my 60ft tower. 40 meter performance was horrible
for any distance. The higher bands only slightly improved. In my opinion,
If you install one of these little verticals, no matter which kind, in an
open area above a decently reflective ground, it will outperform one that
is mounted high. However, if you have a lot of surrounding buildings,
trees, power lines etc. it will probably do better at greater heights
due to less absorbtion.
Last. Almost any resonant wire without traps will outperform a trap
vertical at any practical height. On 20 meters, a dipole mounted only 30
feet above ground has a very nice low angle lobe for dx work. Verticals
do too but the angle of radiation is soooooo low that a lot of signal is
lost in the ground and in surrounding objects not to mention the losses
in the traps.
Consider also that if a vertical has several traps, a certain amount of
RF will be lost in every trap, not just one. That all adds up. Personally
I tend to think the Butternut is the best choice. Just from experience
over the years, I seems like the strongest signals come from them. Gap
antennas are too weird for my liking.
BTW, putting the R7 on the tower was a frightful experience. I tilted the
tower over and bolted it on the top. The antenna sagged so badly in that
position that I was surprised it survived. I was extreemely flimbsey up
there and I doubt that it would have lasted through a stiff breeze. I
don't recomment trying this with out guying the antenna which would be a
real mess. I only did this as an experiment. Once I was satisfied, I sold
the R7 to someone who needed it worse than I. Your R5 may be a bit more
rugged due to it's shorter length.
--
Steve Ellington N4...@IGLOU.COM Louisville, Ky
AC6V
for DX. On the long haul it really performs well. Around the US -- its
just OK.
Don't compare an R5 with a dipole at 20 to 30 feet working domestically.
Dipoles at these heights, depending on the band, can have a quite high
angle of radiation and bomb into close in stations (several hundred miles)
Check out the R5, R7's on the long haul (DX as it were). Here the R5 is
mounted on an eight foot water pipe secured to the rear concrete block
fence. HOA problems prevent height.
I feel that the "half wave end fed" R5 has a very low angle of radiation
and is highly efficient compared with a 1/4 wave with a few skimpy
radials. I have had several 1/4 wave verticals ground mounted with six or
more radials and there is just no comparison. At my previous QTH, I had
inverted vees and dipoles at 25-30 feet -- great for working USA, but
forget DX, I'll take em at 80 feet tho.
Brag tape for the R5 follows: (got the qsl's for em)
106 countries with 6 watts into the R5 (early 90's) not easy but
achievable. Longest QRP Haul -- was Mozambique on 15 Meters -- 17,020
kilometers from San Diego with six watts!!
With 600 Watts (AL-811A) and the R5: -- A61, 3W, C9, 5X, A92, R1FJL, 9U,
9H, ZA, SU, 5T, Trindade, XT, S92, 3D2 Conway, Eritrea, 5R, XW, ZL8
Kermadec, Peter Isle and many log pages more -- these were the tough ones
and they are mostly long haul DX from here.
Interestingly I have a heck of a time getting to Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas
with an R5 -- suspect I'm going right over em. Bombs into W1, W2 and the
Carribean tho.
As in the previous reply, ground conditions and obstructions can make or
break you.
Another San Diego Ham here had the R5 at about 25 feet on his house and
switched to 8 or 9 feet to reduce TVI and saw very little difference.
E-Mail me if you want to correspond with him, he is not on the internet.
A station in Nevada tested the Gap, the R7 and the DX-77. The R7 and DX-77
were clear winners at HIS QTH with the R7 and DX-77 a push except for 40M
where the DX-77 had a slight edge.
Half wave, end fed, ground mounted - verticals do function very well --
but they "ain't no beam" even tho they may think so. Excuse the brag
tapes, but offered as proof of the pudding.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You can get more respect with a wet noodle and a linear than just a wet
noodle --- Big Al from Chicago. (The Untouchables Movie quote)
73
Rod
--
*****************************************************************
Hark! I Have Hurled My Words To The Far Reaches Of The Earth!
What King Of Old Could Do Thus ? --- AC6V
*****************************************************************
A Man May Know Of The World Without Leaving The Shelter Of His
Own Home!
Loa-Tsze
*****************************************************************
John Mitchell
says...
>
>>Question: Would the antenna perform any differently at maybe 30 or 40
>feet than it does at 10 ft? Before I go through the trouble of putting
>it up higher... can someone tell me if will even matter? Seems I
>remember a post where someone mentioned that there is no diffence in
>performance. I'm not looking for a beam's performance out of a vertical
>but just want to know if it's worth it. Thanks.
>
about 50 feet above the ground.,.
Works better than near the ground, I'd say, altho never actually tested
it on the ground.
Good Luck,
John
Woodybozak
garage...anyone want to buy it?) a random wire will out perform an R5 on
most any band - a dipole cut to the resonant frequency will do even more.
I think $200 for an antenna tuner plus a few dollars for a long-wire
antenna or simple dipole is a MUCH better use of funds, compared with the
$279 or so that Cushcraft wants for the R5. Don't get me wrong, I think
Cushcraft makes some good antennas, such as their 2 meter amateur &
commercial units. However, I think the R-series is WAY over rated in the
Cushcraft ads. But, if you don't have room for a random wire, dipole or
beam, I guess the R-antennas are better than nothing.
Woodybozak
first time I have heard any amateur rave about an R-series antenna. Maybe
I and the dozen or so hams I hang out with all bought the R5-L version...L
for LOUSEY!
We've done many, many side-by-side tests with the R5 vs. dipoles at
various heights. The R5 was ALWAYS at least 3 to 6 db down from the
dipoles on both local and DX. I did better with an MFJ tuner and a random
wire INSIDE my attic (and I have the QSLs to prove it) than the R5 at
different heights outdoors.
AC6V
Tom Carrubba
: Hi fellas:
: I just picked up an R5 to play with and initially have it mounted on a
: 10 ft mast in my back yard. I think it works fine considering it's
: size. I have noticed that it doesn't really perform any better than
: some of the wire arrays I'm already using in the yard.
: Question: Would the antenna perform any differently at maybe 30 or 40
: feet than it does at 10 ft? Before I go through the trouble of putting
: it up higher... can someone tell me if will even matter? Seems I
: remember a post where someone mentioned that there is no diffence in
: performance. I'm not looking for a beam's performance out of a vertical
: but just want to know if it's worth it. Thanks.
: Frank, WB4AYJ
Hi frank,
I went through the routine with my R5, it works well at 10 or 20ft..
I tried 30 and 40ft, but the swr match started to get flakey. I finally
settled for 20ft....it worked fine, and the swr match was as published.
73--
============================================================================
Tom Carrubba "To err is human, but to really foul
N. Babylon, NY things up requires a computer......"
KA2DFO packet radio| ka2...@kc2fd.ny.usa.na
============================================================================
Tom Carrubba
: Hi fellas:
: I just picked up an R5 to play with and initially have it mounted on a
: 10 ft mast in my back yard. I think it works fine considering it's
: size. I have noticed that it doesn't really perform any better than
: some of the wire arrays I'm already using in the yard.
: Question: Would the antenna perform any differently at maybe 30 or 40
: feet than it does at 10 ft? Before I go through the trouble of putting
: it up higher... can someone tell me if will even matter? Seems I
: remember a post where someone mentioned that there is no diffence in
: performance. I'm not looking for a beam's performance out of a vertical
: but just want to know if it's worth it. Thanks.
: Frank, WB4AYJ
Hi Frank,
I had a R5 and tried various heigths. 10 and 20ft seemed to be the best.
30 and 40ft, the swr match was not consistant. I also found the R5 does
not like sectioned masting...ie radio shack poles...my final install
was with a one piece 22ft mast from a fence supplier. The final resting
place was in a clear spot in the back yard, as far away from surrounding
objects. My back yard is only 35 x 50...
73
Steve Ellington
Measuring antenna performance by the number of dx stations worked and their
location means absolutely NOTHING.
Remember the old Gotham Vertical advertisements from the 60's?
"I worked the world with my Gotham Vertical"!!!
THIS MEANS NOTHING. Period.......
Only direct comparison test, A-B switching done several times or field
strength measurements give any meaningful data.
Thanks. Have a nice day. :*)
AC6V
style and objective approach, very much enjoy your posts and replies.
RE: Data and comparisons --- right on -- only way to compare em for sure.
Here in San Diego, we have had several Hams who did just that -- and the
R5 holds up very well. I have CC&R's so can't put anything above the roof
line so haven't personnally made comparisons.
I don't collect data, however, just QSL's from the aforementioned and tis
good enough for me.
Maybe its like analyzing the specs on a Corvette and then driving one!!
73
Keep up the excellent posts
AC6V
If u can't get an antenna up in the air (CC&R's etc) try an R5, R7 or
DX-77 they work! We restricted Calif Hams love em.
Listen for us in the pileups
73 Rod
Rich Mulvey
>Dont' take this wrong but I want to make a very clear statement here.
>
>Measuring antenna performance by the number of dx stations worked and their
>location means absolutely NOTHING.
>
>Remember the old Gotham Vertical advertisements from the 60's?
>
>"I worked the world with my Gotham Vertical"!!!
>
>THIS MEANS NOTHING. Period.......
>
>Only direct comparison test, A-B switching done several times or field
>strength measurements give any meaningful data.
>
Well, I have to disagree. :-)
While field-strength measurements are useful indicators, the end result
that most amateurs are looking for is "can I make contacts?" If the
antenna they use permits them to do so, then I could consider the
antenna to be effective, even if it just happens to be the gutters
on the house. :-)
- Rich
---
Rich Mulvey, aa2ys Rochester, NY USA
mul...@vivanet.com
aa...@net.wb2psi.ampr.org
aa2ys@wb2psi.#wny.ny.us
CHARLES J. MICHAELS
The pattern of a vertical half wave antenna depends on its
height abobve ground. See ARRL Antenna Book chapter 3 Fig 15 on
page 3-10 of the 16th edition.
As the height is increased higher angle lobes appear. These
may imporove short skip signals and make the added height desirable
but the power has to come out of the lower angle lobe. The nulls
in the pattern of an elevated antenna might also make sinals near
these wave angles very fade suseptable.
Charlie, W7XC
--
sholisky
local noise was lower. Get it away from those "detuning objects" and
enjoy.
As a compromise antenna, I don't think you could ask for more. No
turning the rotor, just grab the key and "pounce on em'". This is the
BIG advantage of the antenna.
73's Scott
PS- loads on 80..but..the noise...
Joe Fitter BV/N0IAT
>Dont' take this wrong but I want to make a very clear statement here.
>
>Measuring antenna performance by the number of dx stations worked and >their location means absolutely NOTHING.
>strength measurements give any meaningful data.
>
I disagree in-part. While field-strenght indications may be useful
to determine the amount of RF leaving the antenna, it alone tells little
about the angle of maximum radiation. Angle of radiation is
important when "working DX". I'd rather have an antenna of 50%
efficiency optimized for maximum raddiation angle of 16 to 18 degrees
with a 5 degree beamwidth, than an antenna of 95% efficiency with a
radiation angle of 45 degrees and same beamwidth. The high angle is
ineffective.
Now the problem....how does one measure field strength at a specific
angle of radiation? Anyone have some ideas?
Thanks, Joe
----------------------------------------------------------
Amateur Radio: BV/N0IAT Taipei TAIWAN Republic of China
ex. 7J1AOF (Japan) YU3/N0IAT (Slovenia) KA0ZDH (Novice)
Licensed Radio Amateur since 1986. Comments are mine only.
----------------------------------------------------------
Jari Jokiniemi
measurements or have an opportunity to switch between the antennas to
be compared, the differences must be outstanding in order to be
properly notified. When you have two antennas within, say 3 dB (which
is a lot), random variables may hide the true results. This is the way
you get opinions like "it works great", which truly means that the
fellow is satisfied with his antenna. It does not actually say
much about the antenna itself.
It is like measuring fever with a hand. You notice that yes indeed,
the poor fellow has fever, but you don't know how much.
--
Jari Jokiniemi, jari.jo...@tekla.fi, OH2MPO, OH3BU
Tekla Oy, Koronakatu 1, 02210 Espoo, 90-8879 474
Steve Ellington
: angle of radiation? Anyone have some ideas?
It's simple if you have a helicopter and a good FS meter
--
AC6V
Height question. He reported improved results with the R5 compared to a
dipole at 40 feet.
Son of a Gun! What can one say ?
R5's ARE!
DX IS! ---- AC6V
73
IT WAS AN INTERESTING ROUND ROBIN
Stransmann
I worked with the factory & ended up shortening it a foot and a half
before the SWR would even begin to come down! As for the "pileups"
someone mentioned in another post, I think the only "pile" is the line of
BS Cushcraft spews forth in its ads about the R5. Thank God for my TA-33
Mosley beam. Now THAT'S an antenna!!!
Fred
R5 around and up and down is the distance that the coaxial cable drops
vertically before you start a horizontal run with it. In one mounting I
had a mere 3 feet of drop on the coax before it ran horizontally to the
house. The noticable thing was the V.S.W.R. reading on 20 and 15 meters.
It was considerably higher than it should have been and much higher than
advertised in that configuration. The present mounting has the coaxial
cable running approximately 20 feet vertical before it starts a
horizontal run. It is now 10 feet higher than the mounting that gave the
high V.S.W.R readings. And you guessed it, the V.S.W.R. readings are now
what would be expected from the spec sheet information.
I have noticed no other visible characteristic in performance though.
(It performs as I expected a vertical without a real ground field to
perform. Yet it gets the job done.)
Information for what it is worth. Very unscientific, but true ham radio
style of checking things out. ;-)
Fred
Fred Peerenboom
internet: peer...@dmapub.dma.org
Amateur Radio: ke8tq@n8acv.#day.oh.usa.noam
a3...@lehigh.edu
rites:
actuall worked. Of course I converted it from an R4 so maybe that's why it
works. I took down my dipole at 40 ft height. The R5 was about 2 s units better
I have followed the adice of Cushcraft and I mounted the R5 so the base is 15
ft above ground. I do still have a ground mounted Hustler 5BTV with radials
and the R5 is still 2 to 3 sunits better on comparable bands.
No I don't have any stock or employment connections with Cushcraft.
Guess we still can't defy nature and make any vertical work better tan a
dipole if the earth under the vertical has lousy RF characteristics. Maybe we
should get a better earth producer instead of just condemning the antenna
porducer. :-)
73's Dick K8WHA
Frank Scutch
height on the R5. Presently, I've got the R5 on a 10 ft TV mast in the
back yard.
As Rod mentiioned, I used it quite a bit past weekend and made direct
comparisons to an 85 ft dipole fed with 450 ohm line at a height of
about 40 ft.
Most of my informal testing was done on 17 and 20. Based my comparisons,
the R5 seemed to be working best for me on 20. I'm in Florida and
worked quite a few of stations in the Midwest and California. From the
signal reports I received the R5 was consistently 1 to 2 S units better
than the dipole. I was using a Drake C line and noted this on my end as
well. On 17, the dipole would occasionally beat out the R5 but only on
contacts of say less than a 1000 miles i.e. Texas etc.
Thanks for the input.
Frank, WB4AYJ
Tom Skelton
>==========Joe Fitter BV/N0IAT, 2/25/96==========
>
>n4...@iglou.com (Steve Ellington) wrote:
>>Dont' take this wrong but I want to make a very clear statement here.
>>
>>Measuring antenna performance by the number of dx stations
>worked and >their location means absolutely NOTHING.
>>Only direct comparison test, A-B switching done several times or field
>>strength measurements give any meaningful data.
>>
>to determine the amount of RF leaving the antenna, it alone tells little
>about the angle of maximum radiation. Angle of radiation is
>important when "working DX". I'd rather have an antenna of 50%
>efficiency optimized for maximum raddiation angle of 16 to 18 degrees
>with a 5 degree beamwidth, than an antenna of 95% efficiency with a
>radiation angle of 45 degrees and same beamwidth. The high angle is
>ineffective.
>
>angle of radiation? Anyone have some ideas?
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Amateur Radio: BV/N0IAT Taipei TAIWAN Republic of China
>
>ex. 7J1AOF (Japan) YU3/N0IAT (Slovenia) KA0ZDH (Novice)
>Licensed Radio Amateur since 1986. Comments are mine only.
>----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
JOE!
Please say hello to my former host Tony BV2TA. I visited Tony
in November
of 1994 for an evening, and had the pleasure of operating his
station to work
some W/K, UA and JA's on 40 meter CW. If he has email, please
let me know
his address. 73, Tom WB4iUX
Tom.S...@ColumbiaSC.ATTGIS.COM
z...@cais.cais.com
On 26 Feb 1996, Stransmann wrote:
> I have to agree, Woody. My R5 ain't worth the powder to blow it to hell!
> I worked with the factory & ended up shortening it a foot and a half
> before the SWR would even begin to come down! As for the "pileups"
> someone mentioned in another post, I think the only "pile" is the line of
> BS Cushcraft spews forth in its ads about the R5.
It sounds like the old axiom that a vertical radiates poorly in all
directions equally has once again been proven! Sorry to hear about your
bad luck however.
That being said, I've had two people tell me the Uni-Hat vertical performs
better than a dipole down to 160 meters. One of them is Lew McCoy,
W1ICP, who said that he ran side-by-side tests with one. The bad news is
that the thing costs $500.
>Thank God for my TA-33 Mosley beam. Now THAT'S an antenna!!!
Now that's a classic if there ever was one! I've traveled the world over
and I've seen them everywhere. I had mine up for 15 years and in all that
time I never had to touch it. The SWR never varied in all that time and I
worked the world with it, frequently at QRO to the max. I only took it
down because I moved. I still have it cleaned to a high polish and boxed
awaiting my next QTH which I guarantee WILL be a place where I can put it
back up.
73,
K4KYO