[FQP]Mobile Station Signals
ku8e at bellsouth.net
ku8e at bellsouth.net
Fri May 2 17:03:25 CDT 2003
Doesn't worry me much because of my success in the past with this setup. The reports we got when John/K4BAI and I went out in GQP that we were one of the louder rover signals. From the experience I gained on our trip it seems the propagation in the central/southern part of FLA is much different then up north. We did much better on Sunday when our route took us down by the Orlando/Tampa area.
I think next year I am just going to hop on I-95 and just drive all the way to MIA the first day and then head back up I-75 the next. That way the majority
of the trip will take us where the skip zone favors us.....
Maybe we should have 2 point and 3 point FLA zones..... kinda like in CQWW to offset the difference !!
> From: "Jim White, K4OJ" <k4oj at tampabay.rr.com>
> Date: 2003/05/02 Fri PM 02:49:53 EDT
> To: ku8e at bellsouth.net
> CC: fqp at kkn.net
> Subject: Re: [FQP]Mobile Station Signals
> Bad news, Jeff... while I keep getting e-mails regarding signal reports
> of the mobiles I am afraid you have never been at the top of the heap -
> obviously you got out ok with so many QSOs but the relative reports have
> both you and Charlie down at the bottom....
> WHAT IS MOST FASCINATING is that to a large degree I think we are
> looking at of all things propagation and skip zones! The same mobile
> can have luminating reports or pw reports... I never would have thought
> that starting with a compromised signal that would matter but I gues my
> logic is just backwards... if anything having all the factors in your
> favor possible, including being the right distance away, is even MORE
> important when you start with a compromised signal....
> I will summarize the reports when they stop coming in...
> ku8e at bellsouth.net wrote:
> > Charlie,
> > I used the Hustler tri-mount with the 20/15/10 meter resonators on it and we seemed to get out pretty good. I was using the short mast - the 3 ft - not the 6 ft. The GQP was the first time I used it this way. In the past I used the Hustler resonators seperately. The 2nd antenna on the car was a Hamstick for 40.
> > Also, I am also a firm believer if you take the time to tune your antennas and not rely on an antenna tuner your signal is going to be better too...
> > This combination seeemed to work well for us and I never felt like our signal was "weak". I did notice the rate picked up the further south we got so I'm sure propagation and skip zones played a big role on who was strong/weak....
> > Jeff KU8E
> >>From: "nf4a" <nf4a at knology.net>
> >>Date: 2003/05/01 Thu PM 05:33:24 EDT
> >>To: w3dya at juno.com, fqp at kkn.net
> >>Subject: Re: [FQP]Mobile Station Signals
> >>The first day of the contest, I "felt" weak....I assumed it was conditions
> >>because on Sunday, I didn't have any problems with stations hearing me or
> >>working me if I called them....I can now say that after reading some of the
> >>comments, I wasn't that loud on Sunday either....
> >>I will have a different antenna system for the next FQP....
> >>I really think that if you mount more than 2 resonators on a mast, you
> >>begin to have reduced radiation...I was running 4 (40-10) on the same
> >>mast....I think I will have one mast for 40 and 20 CW and then a second
> >>mast with 40 SSB and 15 and 10 (next year, I doubt 10 will be a
> >>factor)....This time last week, I had a 12 foot mast with 40 and 20 on it
> >>and it was working great, but when I added 15 and 10, I had to take the
> >>mast to 8 feet to make it work on 15 and 10....I could tell something was
> >>happening, although the analyzer seemed to say everything was ok...maybe
> >>the load was ok (after all, an analyzer will like a dummy load) but
> >>radiation wise, I was sucking....
> >>Charlie NF4A
> >>FQP mailing list
> >>FQP at kkn.net
> > _______________________________________________
> > FQP mailing list
> > FQP at kkn.net
> > http://kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/fqp
More information about the FQP