PDL-II or Maco Comet 6 element?????????? Help?
Professor
with the other...
--
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Professor
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JKirkpa883 <jkirk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990424202035...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
> Which to buy need advise, please
> Thanks Jim
JKirkpa883
Wildcat
much better front to back and side to side rejection. The PDL-II (AV-122),
because of the spacing between the driver and the reflector (about 4')
sacrifices side to side rejection. If you live in an area thats prone to
icing in the winter-time, dont get either beam because the element hubs
crack under the weight of ice on the elements, and its a bitch constantly
taking down a beam for repairs.
From a maintenance point of view, a small quad style beam can be handled by
one person very easily as compared the larger quads and yagi's.
If you go with the PDL-II, install a rejection kit on the reflector before
you put up the beam. It will reduce the "Q" of the antenna, however it will
increase the directivity of the signal somewhat.
Good luck.
JKirkpa883 wrote in message
<19990424202035...@ng-fe1.aol.com>...
Toll Free
you have said!
Not to be an asshole about it, but .......
> I would go with the Maco.
I have one, and find that the quad performs at least as
well, if not better talking long distance....
. The addition front director element will provide a much
better front to back and side to side rejection.
The front director element will help it to approach what the
quad has by it's inherent design! It is commonly known that
a quad can approach the same design goals as the yagi with
one less element.
The PDL-II (AV-122),
> because of the spacing between the driver and the
reflector (about 4')
> sacrifices side to side rejection.
Not the ones that I have put up, or helped put up. They
perform as well as, if not better than the yagi
counterparts... And just as good as the additional element
yagi's!
If you live in an area thats prone to
> icing in the winter-time, dont get either beam because the
element hubs
> crack under the weight of ice on the elements,
The PDL-2 is known for being a harsh environment antenna. I
know of more than a couple hams that use them in Alaska....
That would be about as harsh an environment that I know
of...
and its a bitch constantly
> taking down a beam for repairs.
So do it right the first time!
>
> From a maintenance point of view, a small quad style beam
can be handled by
> one person very easily as compared the larger quads and
yagi's.
yes, that is true! The PDL is easily worked on and
installed by a single person!
>
> If you go with the PDL-II, install a rejection kit on the
reflector before
> you put up the beam. It will reduce the "Q" of the
antenna, however it will
> increase the directivity of the signal somewhat.
Not from what I have seen... Maybe if you are fudging the
antenna together it will help, but on a properly tuned and
installed PDL it will do absolutely no good, and will
actually DECREASE its front to back! When I put one on, it
also decreased the overall bandwith of the antenna.
Make your own conclusions... These are two different
people, who have installed the same antennas, but had
different outcomes.
Toll Free
Wildcat
>I have one, and find that the quad performs at least as
>well, if not better talking long distance....
As compared to what? The comparison the original poster stated was between a
PDL-II 1/2 wave folded dipole and a Maco 6 element 1/2 wave folded dipole
that has a director, which the PDL does not have. If what you're saying is
true, than the PDL-II should only have slightly less performance than the
Moonraker 4 which has 2 director elements of which we know that this is
definately NOT the case.
>Not the ones that I have put up, or helped put up. They
>perform as well as, if not better than the yagi
>counterparts... And just as good as the additional element
>yagi's!
No ones comparing the PDL to a Yagi. The comparison was between the PDL-II
and the Maco 6 element which are practically the same antenna except for the
fact that the Maco has a front director element and the PDL does not.
>The PDL-2 is known for being a harsh environment antenna. I
>know of more than a couple hams that use them in Alaska....
>That would be about as harsh an environment that I know
>of...
The only advantage, weatherwise, is that the PDL-II has is a low wind shear
load as compared to other beams. You should try going outside the morning
after a New England ice storm and check out a PDL-II (if its still
standing). The plastic element hubs on the PDL dont stand up to any weight
at all. I cant tell you how many times Ive awaken to the sound of the wind
whipping one of the elements, hanging by the loop wire, up against the side
of the mast or the side of my former house.
Ive bought a half dozen replacement hubs over the years because when the
elements or the wire loads up with ice, its all over.
>When I put one on, it
>also decreased the overall bandwith of the antenna.
You're right, thats why I said a rejection kit decreases the antenna Q.
>Make your own conclusions... These are two different
>people, who have installed the same antennas, but had
>different outcomes.
Again I agree with you. I started playing around with the Avanti line in
1969. Ive modified them, rebuilt them and have copy-catted them by building
my own over the years. They are great antennas depending on what one is
trying to get out of them.
PS. The only Avanti I never owned was a Moonraker 6, but I always wished I
had.
Tom
experience. I owned a PDL-II while I was living in Syracuse, N.Y. I put
the thing up and didn't have to touch it again until I took it down
about 11 years later when my parents moved. As you may know Syracuse
gets some pretty tough winters including plenty of snow and ice. All
through that time, the darned thing had this magnificent 1.1:1 match on
my favorite frequency using vertical polarization. I used a small tv
antenna rotator since the antenna is really quite light. The gain and
rejection were good. Overall, a very nice antenna.
Toll Free wrote:
> I have found the exact opposite holds true with everything
> you have said!
>
> Not to be an asshole about it, but .......
>
> > I would go with the Maco.
>
> I have one, and find that the quad performs at least as
> well, if not better talking long distance....
>
> . The addition front director element will provide a much
> better front to back and side to side rejection.
>
> The front director element will help it to approach what the
> quad has by it's inherent design! It is commonly known that
> a quad can approach the same design goals as the yagi with
> one less element.
>
> The PDL-II (AV-122),
> > because of the spacing between the driver and the
> reflector (about 4')
> > sacrifices side to side rejection.
>
> Not the ones that I have put up, or helped put up. They
> perform as well as, if not better than the yagi
> counterparts... And just as good as the additional element
> yagi's!
>
> If you live in an area thats prone to
> > icing in the winter-time, dont get either beam because the
> element hubs
> > crack under the weight of ice on the elements,
>
> The PDL-2 is known for being a harsh environment antenna. I
> know of more than a couple hams that use them in Alaska....
> That would be about as harsh an environment that I know
> of...
>
> and its a bitch constantly
> > taking down a beam for repairs.
>
> So do it right the first time!
>
> >
> > From a maintenance point of view, a small quad style beam
> can be handled by
> > one person very easily as compared the larger quads and
> yagi's.
>
> yes, that is true! The PDL is easily worked on and
> installed by a single person!
> >
> > If you go with the PDL-II, install a rejection kit on the
> reflector before
> > you put up the beam. It will reduce the "Q" of the
> antenna, however it will
> > increase the directivity of the signal somewhat.
>
> Not from what I have seen... Maybe if you are fudging the
> antenna together it will help, but on a properly tuned and
> installed PDL it will do absolutely no good, and will
> actually DECREASE its front to back! When I put one on, it
> also decreased the overall bandwith of the antenna.
>
> Make your own conclusions... These are two different
> people, who have installed the same antennas, but had
> different outcomes.
>