I'M NEW TO HAM RADIO AND WOULD LIKE TO GET A SMALL BEAM, I'M RUNNING AN ICOM IC735 WITH AN ALPHA DELTA DX-CC WIRE RIGHT KNOW IT WORKS WELL BUT THE BEAM WOULD BE BETTER. IF THE CHOICES WERE THE CUSHCRAFT A3S OR THE TENNADYNE T-6 WICH WOULD YOU GO WITH AND WHY. I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR REPLYS. THANKS JERRY
-
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.
FIRST BEAM
- Thread starter KJ4BAE
- Start date
The T-6 is a log periodic, right?
My choice between those two, based purely on the specs and reading eham reaviews (I haven't owned either) would be the T-6. You get all the bands 10-20m and also no traps. With the A3S you only get 10,15,20m (I like 17m). Anytime you can do without traps, you're better off. I'm someone else will add some other considerations, as well.
My choice between those two, based purely on the specs and reading eham reaviews (I haven't owned either) would be the T-6. You get all the bands 10-20m and also no traps. With the A3S you only get 10,15,20m (I like 17m). Anytime you can do without traps, you're better off. I'm someone else will add some other considerations, as well.
I guess you would have to decide if you want to cover 17 and 12m as well. The A3S has 3dB MORE gain and has only 4.36 sq. ft. of surface area versus the 6.2 sq. ft. of the T-6. The A3S also requires a turning radius of 15.5 ft. versus the T-6's 20 feet. Mole is right about it being nice to eliminate traps but a log periodic array has much LESS gain for the same number of elements of just about any antenna.That's the sacrifice for wide bandwidth.
Now believe me when I say I am not a big fan of Cushcraft.It has more to do with service outside of the USA then the product itself. They will not send parts outside the USA.
However my old A3 has been through it all from a hurricane to extreme ice conditions and I will admit I had to replace the centre insulator on the driver element but that is not too bad for and antenna that is 30 years old.
Now believe me when I say I am not a big fan of Cushcraft.It has more to do with service outside of the USA then the product itself. They will not send parts outside the USA.
However my old A3 has been through it all from a hurricane to extreme ice conditions and I will admit I had to replace the centre insulator on the driver element but that is not too bad for and antenna that is 30 years old.
You might give serious consideration to a five-band (20/17/15/12/10 meters), two-element quad. With a boom length of about ten feet, mine tends to favor 15 meters a bit, but I have full coverage of all bands except ten meters, and I don't use the upper portion of that band so it's no big deal.
Jerry,
Well, it depends on what you are looking for really. If it's primarily a small beam, then the A3s. If it's from one end of the spectrum to the other, then the T-6 (that one end of the spectrum to the other thingy is an exaggeration). Between the two, the A3S would have more gain on the covered bands. BUt it doesn't cover all the bands (no WARCs).
Having said that, I've had an A3. Not as high as it should have been, and didn't really cover the frequencies I wanted at the time. It did work, just not as well as it could have, sort of. It eventually came down and I haven't been all that interested in getting another beam. Different interests. Oh well.
One major factor you might want to check into before plunking down a bunch of money, is all the other thingys you'll need for a beam. That includes a rotor, tower, guys, and all that stuff. If you've already got them, or thought about them, good enough. The @#$ beam will be the cheapest single part of the whole mess! Sort of.
- 'Doc
Well, it depends on what you are looking for really. If it's primarily a small beam, then the A3s. If it's from one end of the spectrum to the other, then the T-6 (that one end of the spectrum to the other thingy is an exaggeration). Between the two, the A3S would have more gain on the covered bands. BUt it doesn't cover all the bands (no WARCs).
Having said that, I've had an A3. Not as high as it should have been, and didn't really cover the frequencies I wanted at the time. It did work, just not as well as it could have, sort of. It eventually came down and I haven't been all that interested in getting another beam. Different interests. Oh well.
One major factor you might want to check into before plunking down a bunch of money, is all the other thingys you'll need for a beam. That includes a rotor, tower, guys, and all that stuff. If you've already got them, or thought about them, good enough. The @#$ beam will be the cheapest single part of the whole mess! Sort of.
- 'Doc
HELLO ALL, THANKS FOR THE REPLYS. THE REASON I SAID SMALL IS MONEY BIG IS MORE MONEY. I HAVE A 1.5 ACRE LOT SO ROOM IS NOT A PROBLEM. RIGHT NOW I'M LEANING TOWARD THE T-6 FOR THE EXTRA BANDS. I'M LOOKING TO GET THIS DONE FOR AROUND 1000 DOLLARS WICH MAY NOT BE POSSABLE. I'M STILL IN THE PLANNING STAGE OF THIS PROJECT. CAN YOU BUY A QUAD LIKE THAT OR DO YOU HAVE TO BUILD IT?
Jerry - please turn off your CAPS LOCK. It's very difficult for a lot of us to read what you're trying to say when it's all capitals.
As for the quad, CUBEX Homepage is a good place to start. I've heard reports that they're out of business, but I can't confirm or deny that. I built my quad some years ago, using some of Cubex's parts (the spiders and boom-to-mast clamp), and I used my own spreaders, wire, boom, etc.
There's a lot of reference material out there on quads. The ARRL Antenna Book is one. "Cubical Quad Antennas" by Bill Orr and Stu Cowan is another.
Because of their aspect, some people call them "Cubical Quads", but "quad" is all you need to call them.
As for the quad, CUBEX Homepage is a good place to start. I've heard reports that they're out of business, but I can't confirm or deny that. I built my quad some years ago, using some of Cubex's parts (the spiders and boom-to-mast clamp), and I used my own spreaders, wire, boom, etc.
There's a lot of reference material out there on quads. The ARRL Antenna Book is one. "Cubical Quad Antennas" by Bill Orr and Stu Cowan is another.
Because of their aspect, some people call them "Cubical Quads", but "quad" is all you need to call them.
Quads are not log-antennas, don't cover continuously like the logs do. More like multiple discrete bands like the A3S. Quads are typically 'larger' than the average beam antenna, there's just more to building one than a boom and a few elements. So, they are typically heavier. They have different characteristics than a 'beam' antenna, some nice, some not so nice. (I'd love to have one, but ain't holding my breath .)
Building a directional antenna isn't ~that~ hard. The biggest 'problem' is finding all the 'little things', like clamps, etc. I wouldn't rule out building. After that, it's up to you (and your wallet).
- 'Doc
.)Building a directional antenna isn't ~that~ hard. The biggest 'problem' is finding all the 'little things', like clamps, etc. I wouldn't rule out building. After that, it's up to you (and your wallet).
- 'Doc
30 foot push-up pole and beam/rotor? 'Nuther one'a 'them' questions, sort of. Just how strong/heavy-duty is that pole? That'll make a big difference, really adequate guying too. And just how much of a 'fudge-factor' are you going to think is enough? As a very rough guess, I'd say that A3S would be sort of pushing the limits. Anything larger/heavier than that is going to really require some extra care. For instance, how you gonna get the thing on top of that pole? Lay it down then pull it up? Ooooo, is that gonna be a trick! Stand it up, collapsed, then extend it? Maybe not quite as 'tricky', but you'll definitely need help doing it. Or I would anyway !
Beats me, I don't want to guess...
- 'Doc
!Beats me, I don't want to guess...
- 'Doc
It's actually a 50' push up that is only up 30'. The top sections are bolted together. What all that means is that it's quite a bit stronger than the average 30' push up. Guyed at each section, with four guys on each set. I used to have an Interceptor 10K on it, which is a pretty big/heavy antenna. It would take two guys to push it up....
I'll admit I am not all that familiar with push up masts,I prefer freestanding towers myself, but I tend to agree with Doc. An A3S is about all I would want to risk on one.It has about 4.6 sq. ft. of wind loading area and can be pretty squirrely in a good wind. I have seen mine squirming all around like a bowl of jello in a good wind and that just causes weird stresses on things.The mast should have a loading spec for it anyway.
- No one is chatting at the moment.