Hi Jeff, 

Come on now...  me fight anyone over an opion?  :-) 

Actually I really like Sinclair Products... what I didn't enjoy was 
the end result of a large Antenna Project using the 4-Bay 138-174 
systems, which were a technical and financial train wreck. Sinclair 
has since updated that Antenna Model. What they didn't do was help 
us resolve the problems with the antennas we already had. I/we were 
blown off numerous times by Sinclair's Tech Support. So my fire 
and brimestone toward Sinclair is over their lack of support and 
follow up over that event. I've also had and heard a number of war 
stories about issues internal to Sinclair since they changed 
control/management/ownership. 

I like and buy every Sinclair Antenna I can get my hands on (thank 
you Robin) when they pop up surplus. They tend to be very pricey 
so I don't buy a lot of them brand new... 

Those of you enjoying the folded dipole antenna style should take 
note about the world of difference between the Decibel (narrow band) 
versus the Sinclair (wide band) feed designs. And of course the 
wide/narrow band designs can be found cloned by other mfgrs. 

There is a case to stay with narrow band Decibel type folded dipoles 
and another case for the much wider band Sinclair style folded 
arrays. Just depends on what antenna bandwidth fits your application. 

So we agree... the Sinclair folded dipole antennas would be another 
great choice/option. Got any for sale...?  :-) 

cheers, 
s. 


> "Jeff DePolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Knowing full well that Skipp may fight me on this recommendation, 
> I'd lean toward a Sinclair SD214 or SD218 (big mama) dipole array.
> They're available in a split that covers 220.
>                                               --- Jeff WN3A
>
> > After spending so much time chasing the DB-224JJ information down 
> > I'd probably buy and use something else, which I have done. I'll 
> > keep the JJ Model in my mind as I pull down a few more of the 
> > Nationwide 220 ACSB Trunking Systems in the spring time. 
> 

>

Reply via email to