| Author |
Message |
    
Radioreddz
New member
Username: Radioreddz
Post Number: 3
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, October 07, 2006 - 3:35 am: | 
|
who makes the m103hv is it from maco. and also what is the best height for max perfomance also can you mount on a push up pole and turn with the same style rotor as you could a Y Quad. this looks like a good antenna with the specs shown. i live in a romote area and don't know a lot of people have to do everthing my self looks to be easy to work with. i thought of getting a maco m103 but hated not being able to have a vertical side using a Yquad now but want to step it up a little thought of using a shooting star but installing it my self would be quite a task. |
Tech808
Moderator
Username: Tech808
Post Number: 11488
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, October 07, 2006 - 10:59 am: |
|
Radioreddz,
Yes, the M103-HV is a MACO BEAM and it works GREAT! 
And we LOVE our's. 
HEIGHT: 36'(Minimum) or 54' or 72'
The surface Radius of the Y quad is: 2.7 SQ FT
The Weight of the Y Quad is: 15-lbs
The Surface Radius of the M103-HV is: 4.5 SQ FT
The Weight is: 21-lbs
I would suggest a little larger rotor unless the rotor you are using is rated for more the the Y Quad.
I would also suggset guy wires at 36' and 18' and run a re-inforcing piece of pipe 1-1/2" or 1-3/4" thru the center of the Push Up Pole.
Hope this help's,
Lon
Tech808
N9CEF
CVC#2 |
Willeecue
New member
Username: Willeecue
Post Number: 7
Registered: 8-2006
| | Posted on Friday, December 15, 2006 - 9:01 am: |
|
I bought one of the M103HV antennas.
So far I have only put on the three vertical elements for 11 meters. To install the three horz elements I will need to clamp the boom to the tower just above the roof so I can reach the boom to install them.
So far I am pleased with the way it works but I wonder about the odd spacing of the elements.
Is this beam configured for max forward gain or max rejection.
The plans I have for a three element 10m beam show equal spacing. |
Willeecue
New member
Username: Willeecue
Post Number: 8
Registered: 8-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 9:29 am: |
|
OK I have had some time to work with my M103HV beam and make direct 'on the air' 'real time' compairson tests against the iMax 2000 with a radial kit installed.
This testing was done using ground wave contacts (no skip) to base and mobile stations 10 to 45 miles out in all different directions.
Here is what I have found ...
The beam is directional (4 s-unit null off the backside), a bit quieter, and a lot harder and more expensive (needs a rotator) to put up than the iMax 2000.
There is NO measureable or noticeable gain over the iMax 2000 either on transmit or receive.
Both antennas work equaly excellent.
If you think other stations will hear you louder if you replace your iMax 2000 with a three element beam ... forget it ... it aint gonna happen.
Been there done that and still have got both antennas in the air to prove what I am saying is true.
From what I am seeing it would take a five or six element beam to HEAR any difference or increase your transmitted signal to another station over the iMax 2000.
What I like most about the M-103HV is the fact I can have three horzintial elements on 10 meters in the same space that I have three vertical elements for 11 meters. |
Sitm
Intermediate Member
Username: Sitm
Post Number: 201
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Very interesting, I would have guessed that results would be different. |
Willeecue
Junior Member
Username: Willeecue
Post Number: 10
Registered: 8-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 9:33 am: |
|
Well I have been adjusting and trying everything I can think of to make my M-130HV 3 element beam to perform BETTER than my iMax 2000 w/ radial kit.
Many trips up the tower.
This morning I notice the wind has tilted the horzonital reflector a few degrees off level.
Other than crushing the tube how do you know when it is tight enough?
I think this will be my last trip up the tower to work on this beam as I am pulling it down and marking it off as a mistake.
For now I will stick with the iMax 2000 knowing that it is working just as good as a 3 element beam without the need for a rotator.
William Lee N5WRX
Corpus Christi, Texas. |
Patzerozero
Senior Member
Username: Patzerozero
Post Number: 3435
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 11:16 am: |
|
a friend has an m103 that we used to use from his mobile on the beach. 2-10' pieces of mast, a piece of 2" PVC bolted to the side of his trailer hitch, 35' of (old!)9086, an mfj259b, and less then 10 minutes to tune to 1.2 or 1.3:1 produced some rear rejection, lots of side rejection, & more then noticeable gain vs the a99 he previously used from the beach. if you're seeing lots of rear rejection & no forward gain, i would think your element spacing is incorrect. folks set beams up for local communications to knock out a lot of noise behind them when they plan on talking 1 direction. forward gain over a vertical may be small or non-existant, but quieting what's behind them was the desired result. it can also be done the other-max gain in the forward direction, with little effect to the rear. |
