RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: DB420 performance?
Looks like an Antenna Specialists to me. Chuck WB2EDV --- Original Message --- From: Merritt[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 4/30/2007 10:35:27 PM To : Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Cc : Subject : RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: DB420 performance? it was likely a lighter duty antenna... refer to the image below... http://sffma.net/images/147000/jan2006/DSC02920.JPG it may not even be sinclair.. if it isnt, who made it? note, this was after two hurricanes (katrina and wilma), but our two dB antennas made it through unscathed... there were several other of this type antenna (not dB) on the tower that were in similar shape --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Gary Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the sinclair i saw had the upper lobe broken off the mast, flying in the wind.. striking some 6 rigid copper feedline for a tv station! your mileage my vary but those antennas arent very neighborly! I think you're thinking of the older models. I don't think I have the upper body strength to snap any of the pieces, including the dipoles themselves, off of the HD models, even if I tried. They're made of very large tubing. I'd have to stand on it on the ground and pull with both arms to do any serious damage to the antenna, I'm sure. Even the older models were built like a tank. Much stronger than any of the other standard antennas on the market. I think you could climb on the Sinclair antenna and not harm it. They did make a lighter version with external cable harness that was not as hefty but still a very good antenna. I have a couple of the lighter NOS Sinclair antennas for UHF if anyone is interested. The model is 334-2. 6 db omni/ 8.5 db offset. $243.00 each. These are UPS shippable as they have a split mast with coupler. 73 Gary K4FMX Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: DB420 performance?
On 4/30/07, Merritt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it was likely a lighter duty antenna... refer to the image below... http://sffma.net/images/147000/jan2006/DSC02920.JPG it may not even be sinclair.. if it isnt, who made it? Yeah, don't think that's Sinclair... but maybe something older... those wings on the attach point don't look like anything I've ever seen from Sinclair. If I can find a photo of the newer Sinclair ... hmm, let's see... http://web.mac.com/wy0x/iWeb/Site/Squaw%20Mountain%20Trip%20-%20Fall%202006_files/DSCN0601.jpg That's a crappy photo of way too much stuff, but if you go straight up the right hand tower leg in the tower closest to the camera, the antenna at the very top, and the one on the side-arm way up there pointed to the right in this photo both the HD UHF 4-bay Sinclair types. On that same right hand side leg in this photo, side-mounted, is a 4-bay VHF Sinclair HD model, also. The bottom two bays of the VHF are kinda lost in the photo's clutter. You can spot the Sinclairs (and some DB's) because they use the longer 1/2 wave spacing arms to get them away from their masts... for a slightly different (usually more omni) pattern. It makes the VHF's look like they're sticking out there a long way from their masts. The tower photo was taken more for it's artistic qualities than for documentation, so -- it's not the greatest shot of any specific antenna... For fun, this shot is from the left side of that same tower leg... if you zoom it a lot, or look REAL hard you can see the buildings of Downtown Denver in the right-center between the trees. http://web.mac.com/wy0x/iWeb/Site/Squaw%20Mountain%20Trip%20-%20Fall%202006_files/DSCN0602.jpg (God I love big mountains! Who needs voted receivers! GRIN!) Here's a pretty good shot of the SRL-114, their cheap non-HD type older VHF array. I don't like these as much -- our club has one as a spare VHF antenna in case of major damage where we need to get something back on the air quick... http://web.mac.com/wy0x/iWeb/Site/CRA%20Work%20Day_files/DSCN0554.jpg This particular one was lying on my back porch there in the photos last summer for some much-needed maintenance and cleanup. It appears to still work fine, I just don't really think it'd survive at most of our mountain-top locations for long. And here's a couple of shots of a newer style Sinclair VHF 4-bay from behind (its the VHF 4-bay on the first position inboard on the right side near the tower). It's the non HD version, with an external harness (another thing I don't like much in rugged environments a long way from home).. http://web.mac.com/wy0x/iWeb/Site/Cheyenne%20Mountain%20Summer%202006_files/DSCN0581.jpg http://web.mac.com/wy0x/iWeb/Site/Cheyenne%20Mountain%20Summer%202006_files/DSCN0584.jpg And then, just for fun again... the shot of Colorado Springs from that site... http://web.mac.com/wy0x/iWeb/Site/Cheyenne%20Mountain%20Summer%202006_files/DSCN0600.jpg Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: DB420 performance?
On 4/30/07, Merritt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: while i havent used them my self, i have seen them fall apart on a tower.. the folded dipole sinclair antennas, on the vhf split.. we have some of their dB counterparts on the same tower, same age or older, and while electrically the dB antennas have degraded significantly, all the lobes are still attached! I specifically stated the heavy-duty (modern) models. Are you talking about the newer heavy duty models with the cable harness enclosed inside the mast and shipped as a single unit, or the older style that you mounted to your own mast with provided brackets? Also the HD models are made of much stouter material than the standard models. They also have low-IMD models for sites where passive intermod is a problem. the sinclair i saw had the upper lobe broken off the mast, flying in the wind.. striking some 6 rigid copper feedline for a tv station! your mileage my vary but those antennas arent very neighborly! I think you're thinking of the older models. I don't think I have the upper body strength to snap any of the pieces, including the dipoles themselves, off of the HD models, even if I tried. They're made of very large tubing. I'd have to stand on it on the ground and pull with both arms to do any serious damage to the antenna, I'm sure. be advised, there was a recent production problem with some andrew folded dipoles.. either the 224 or 264, i cant remember, but it is the one with the internal harness.. there was a production change leading to performance degradation after a few months in service, though i understand this has since been corrected.. Both manufacturers have seen problems like this over the long haul. It happens. Sucks when your antenna does it, too. I believe Skipp has had a problem with one of the made in Mexico Sinclairs about 1/2 a year ago. Nate WY0X
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: DB420 performance?
the sinclair i saw had the upper lobe broken off the mast, flying in the wind.. striking some 6 rigid copper feedline for a tv station! your mileage my vary but those antennas arent very neighborly! I think you're thinking of the older models. I don't think I have the upper body strength to snap any of the pieces, including the dipoles themselves, off of the HD models, even if I tried. They're made of very large tubing. I'd have to stand on it on the ground and pull with both arms to do any serious damage to the antenna, I'm sure. Even the older models were built like a tank. Much stronger than any of the other standard antennas on the market. I think you could climb on the Sinclair antenna and not harm it. They did make a lighter version with external cable harness that was not as hefty but still a very good antenna. I have a couple of the lighter NOS Sinclair antennas for UHF if anyone is interested. The model is 334-2. 6 db omni/ 8.5 db offset. $243.00 each. These are UPS shippable as they have a split mast with coupler. 73 Gary K4FMX
