| Author |
Message |
    
Paleface
| | Posted on Saturday, December 29, 2001 - 7:11 pm: | 
|
Just a thought, but how much better is the Maco 103 over the PDL-II? My biggest concern here is wind. It's not un common for us to get hit with 70 mph winds. I'm running my Amtron 99 with the kit at this moment, but fighting over deciding between the 103 and the PLD-II. I don't recall, but I think the rejection is better on the PDL-II then on the 103 and the 103 has a bigger wind load. (I don't talk flat side, but might consider it some time)I've talked to several people that use the PDL-II and they really rock. So Is the 103 really that much better to get? |
Highlander
| | Posted on Monday, December 31, 2001 - 2:35 pm: |
|
I think the Quad is the better antenna. |
Scrapiron63
| | Posted on Monday, December 31, 2001 - 5:17 pm: |
|
Paleface, you will get lots of opinions on antennas as you know. I've run the PDL's several times in the past, couldn't tell they had much separation from front to back, but most dual polarity beams I have found are like that, including the Moonraker and Shooting Star, not bad-mouthing them now, as I have a Shooting Star at the present. I think they leak thur the back because of the flat side, but its handy to have both flat and vertical in one beam. I have tried most ever type and shape of beams in the past 30+ years, from a two element to the 32 ft Laser 400, I never tried the 40 ft Laser 500, but have helped put them together and test. I have run stacked beams up to the 26 ft. 6 element Hornets. I've also had several destroyed by winds. The Maco 3 element is the best for the money I have found. I run 3 element Hornets, Hygains, Mosleys, and have stacked most of them. When the Maco 3 first came out, I would not even try one, they looked to be backwards from all the other 3 element designs. The driver up front close to the director, just didn't look right. All the others are reversed. Then someone traded me a used M-103, since I have one tower that's easy to raise and lower, I stuck that funny looking 103 on there, checked it out with a friend about 50 miles away, and I've had one up every since, the side and back rejection is great on mine, and the front has a pretty large pattern, so you don't have to turn it as much as some of the others, like the Maco Maxium 5 element and larger beams. Windload is another factor for me, I live on a mountain, we had a 80+ mph wind here a couple years ago, didn't bother the 3 element at all.
Now lets hear somemore opinions, Scrapiron |
Marconi
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 08, 2002 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Once again, I agree with ScrapIron. He has more experience with beams than I do, but I have had similar results. The only exception may be the results for the PDL II. I find they work great and can show a very effective reflector response if setup correctly. I guess location could make some differences in reflection but I think the PDL is probably the best two element beam made.
I don't remember when, but I seem to recall some years back that the old Wilson M103 used balanced spacing in their setup. I think that at some point Maco may have optimized the design and their settings to a more modern idea that makes the antenna more broad banded. I believe the rejection may have also been improved with the mod. I think the old Wilson used 3/4” – 5/8” – 1/2” material in their reflector and 3/4” – 5/8” for the other two elements. I think Maco uses only two sizes of tubing and it is smaller with less tapering. So, it is a little lightweight compared to the older M103
I have been very impressed with the new M103 when they are setup correctly and tuned well. One installation at 76’ worked exceptionally well. Others were set between 25 to 40 feet high and they worked fine, but the higher one gave a bit stronger signal and seemed to be a lot more directional with much improved rejection.
I also agree, there may be some interaction between the horizontal and vertical sides of dual polarity beams, but that may be really hard to tell when they are set up correctly.
To me, one of the sure signs of improper match and tune is a lack of the reflection response, little change in SWR as you go away from resonance, and maybe little seeming gain on receive as you switch from your ground plane to the beam. If this happens you may be seeing a very low SWR also, but I think that tells me that losses may be hiding the real SWR indication your meter is showing.
Marconi |
Scrapiron63
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 08, 2002 - 8:16 pm: |
|
Your right Marconi: if your beam is anywhere near as high as your ground plane, and you don't see a big jump when switching to the beam, you can bet your a-- that thing ain't put together right. I have decided over the years, after using all types of beams, the biggest jump is from a ground plane to at least a 3 element beam. After that, you can go to the monster beams, and not see as much improvement. And, you get into the wind and stripped rotor problems. You or someone posted about letting a beam 'temper' or 'age' in, I've found that to be true also, they get better after several days or weeks. I have no explanation for that, but know it happens. I don't know if Maco changed the three element when they bought out Wilson or not. The 3 element i'm using now, I built from a Hornet 6 element. I used the element spacing and lengths per maco specs. The old Hornet beams were built with stainless steel, boom, clamps, elements, everything. So, I have a heavy duty 3 element, the boom is one piece, 2"ID stainless. The only part thats maco is the gamma-match, and its the heavy version. scrapiron |
|
