Callsign
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: TransWorld Adventurer 2010 Antenna

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-assoc
ad: l-WarrenG
ad: l-Waters
ad: l-tentec
ad: l-gcopper
ad: l-rl
ad: l-innov
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    46

    Default TransWorld Adventurer 2010 Antenna

    Has anyone had good experience using TransWorld's Adventurer (2010) antenna in a degraded location, i.e. in my case it would be just 15 feet from a two story home and within 5 feet of some trees (spruces, about 15 feet tall). Obviously way below what TransWorld recommends, which is about 30 feet from buildings/trees/etc. I've read great reviews of this antenna and while it's not inexpensive, if it would work for me in my mega-CC&R policed QTH that would be great. Even if that worked out for me, I'd initially have to operate after dark. Anyway, if anyone has been successful with a similar location, thanks in advance for your input. 73, Brian KR6B Boise, ID

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Southwestern CT
    Posts
    4

    Default

    For what it's worth, I was in a QSO with someone who was using one of them yesterday afternoon on 20 meters. He was using an FT-897 at 100 watts.

    According to him, he was on the balcony of his condo in south florida (near Ft. Lauderdale). 2nd floor, blacony opens to the north. Balcony is about 6 feet deep, with about 3' of that extending beyond the building. Balcony has steel safety rails up to about waist height.

    He was about 20 over S9 in CT. He claimed that he usually gets very good results with the antenna and that he's close to WAS as well as all the Canadian provinces. He did admit that some of those states were worked while portable away from home, but claimed that most of them were worked from his balcony.

    I have no way of validating any of that, but I was asking because I've been thinking of one of those for some portable ARES applications I have in mind.

    You might also want to look at the Buddipole.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KR6B View Post
    Has anyone had good experience using TransWorld's Adventurer (2010) antenna in a degraded location, i.e. in my case it would be just 15 feet from a two story home and within 5 feet of some trees (spruces, about 15 feet tall). Obviously way below what TransWorld recommends, which is about 30 feet from buildings/trees/etc. I've read great reviews of this antenna and while it's not inexpensive, if it would work for me in my mega-CC&R policed QTH that would be great. Even if that worked out for me, I'd initially have to operate after dark. Anyway, if anyone has been successful with a similar location, thanks in advance for your input. 73, Brian KR6B Boise, ID
    I've got one and have it mounted through a glass and metal patio table on the patio about 6 feet from the back of my house and about 15 feet from some pretty good size trees and busshes. I have a rotatable dipole (that I can't rotate) in my attic. I constantly compare the 2 and most of the time they are pretty close , but once in a while one will outshine the other by quite a bit.

    This thing is built like a tank. I first assembled mine in my great room with 18' high ceilings. I had it standing up against the fireplace wall and when my wife came home I thought she was gonna have a heart attack. She is the HOA pres. and doesn't have much of a sense of humor about what I put out on the patio. I told her I will take it down in the spring. It only takes about 10 minutes to assemble it or take it apart.

    I recently bought a second antenna with the idea of phasing them, but I don't know if it will work or not. I haven't really had time to experiment with it either.

    I work mostly CW and the bandwidth is very good on all bands except for 20 meters. When it came it was resonant close to 14.275 and I haqd to stretch the 20 meter coil in the matching box a little bit to bring it down in my ball park. They explain how to do it in the manual. On the other bands it covers the whole band with no problem. I don't have any troublr working all over the world with my 100 watts.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WA8KJP View Post
    This antenna is similar to other short antennas and they will work like any electrically very short antenna, not great. A big mistake is made when inefficient antennas are tried on 20 meters instead of 80 or 40 meters. When 20 meters is really open, a super crummy antenna that is radiating about 5 watts from a 100 watt transmitter can seem to work unbelievably well. However, its not the antenna, it's the excellent propagation.

    This antenna is pretty pricey. You might want to consider one of those Parz End antennas. They are only 30 ft. of wire on 20 meters but it can be made very stealthy. There is reliable science to support why these antennas work well and they are dirt cheap.
    You're right. It probably would not work very well on 80 or 40, since it is designed to work as a half-wave vertical dipole only on 10-20 meters.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Brighton UK locator IO90XU
    Posts
    2,940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WA8KJP View Post
    This antenna is similar to other short antennas and they will work like any electrically very short antenna, not great. A big mistake is made when inefficient antennas are tried on 20 meters instead of 80 or 40 meters. When 20 meters is really open, a super crummy antenna that is radiating about 5 watts from a 100 watt transmitter can seem to work unbelievably well. However, its not the antenna, it's the excellent propagation.

    This antenna is pretty pricey. You might want to consider one of those Parz End antennas. They are only 30 ft. of wire on 20 meters but it can be made very stealthy. There is reliable science to support why these antennas work well and they are dirt cheap.
    Do you have personal experience of top and bottom capacity hatted vertical dipoles?

    These antennas work FAR better than your typical short vertical. The top and bottom capacity hats result in pretty uniform current distribution along the vertical parts of the dipole, and the result is they only lose very slightly compared with a full size 20m vertical dipole. I know this from personal experience, and having built this type of antenna myself. There is reliable science to support why these antennas work well. It's eroneous to make a comparison between any vertical and something like a horizontal/sloping end fed - RF is at different elevations. The only reasonable comparison is between something like the Transworld Backpacker or the Force 12 Sigma 5 and a full size vertical.

    Pete
    Last edited by M3KXZ; 02-22-2009 at 04:17 PM.
    Pete M3KXZ
    GQRP 11767, SKCC 10219.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Shropshire. England.
    Posts
    17,215

    Default

    It sounds like the name of that plane which flew non -stop around the world a few years ago.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M3KXZ View Post
    Do you have personal experience of top and bottom capacity hatted vertical dipoles?

    These antennas work FAR better than your typical short vertical. The top and bottom capacity hats result in pretty uniform current distribution along the vertical parts of the dipole, and the result is they only lose very slightly compared with a full size 20m vertical dipole. I know this from personal experience, and having built this type of antenna myself. There is reliable science to support why these antennas work well. It's eroneous to make a comparison between any vertical and something like a horizontal/sloping end fed - RF is at different elevations. The only reasonable comparison is between something like the Transworld Backpacker or the Force 12 Sigma 5 and a full size vertical.

    Pete
    I've got a Force 12 Sigma 5 also. As you know they are basically the same design. The Sigma 5 is a lot lighter and more suited for portable operation. I think the TW2010 backpacker is the same antenna I have except it is manually bandswitched. The 2010 weighs at least twice what the Sigma 5 does and requires a box about twice the size also.

    Performance between the two is about identical, with the TW-2010 being more suited for a more permanent installation. There is no comparison in the remote control box and the matching box with the TW2010 being much nicer and more heavy duty, but of course adding to the weight.

    Sometimes it is hard to remamber that this antenna is about 10 feet tall and sitting less than 10' from my house, and is basically ground mounted, and sometimes the harsh reality of it hits you like a ton of bricks. Still, in my opinion, it is a darn good comprimise antenna.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    10,414

    Default

    For performance, it's hard to imagine that the Adventurer will perform any better than, say, a hamstick mounted on a car. I would guess that that hefty price tag (eHam sez $399...ouch!) buys you convenience more than performance. I looks like it's a breeze to setup and operate without the usual hassles when coming up with an original, cheap solution to an antenna problem.

    Sounds like the problem you're dealing with is the necessity for a stealthy antenna. This will obviously do that for you, but there are other, much cheaper, solutions to the stealth problem. There's always the "flagpole" solution...another is a dipole in the attic, if there's room, or, my favorite, a wire antenna made from #26 wire. That wire is invisible (sometimes even when you know it's there), and with trees around, you could throw up some kind of sloping wire that nobody would know is there. That'll give you the kind of length you need. You'll need a tuner for matching, but that won't come anywhere near the expense of the adventurer. The other thing is that #26 wire doesn't last long when used like this....but it's cheap & when one get broke, just put another one!

    Whatever you do, have fun!

  9. #9

    Default

    Brian:

    Like the Buddipole [which I own], the TWA is a highly convenient antenna - it's perfect for locations where supporting structures are questionable, and speed of antenna erection valued. None of these antennas claim to perform miracles, although I've had some good results with my BP, even on 75 meter.

    Pretty much any of these compact antennas benefits from a correct setup in terms of location, elevation, and wiring [counterpoises for the BP when vertical for example, the feed line routing for the TWA]. higher mounting is almost always better for any antenna and these are no different.

    Sounds to me like you have a tree that's almost 1/4 wave tall on 20 meters -have you considered a Spruce Tree Vertical? After all, ground mounted radials are not visible. After the tree grows you can add wires for 30 meters and eventually, 40 meters...<G>

    I wish I could afford to spring for the TWA cause I'd love to do a side by side with my Buddpole - although the ability of the BP to go all the way to 80 meters is a big advantage in MY eye, portable 80 meter NVIS operation is pretty good and I've gotten decent results with it - at least within my needs - up to about 600 miles on SSB is acceptable to my needs.

    My last comment however, is that I strongly suggest whenever possible, a permanent antenna for a fixed QTH - Almost any fixed full-size antenna will outperform a reduced size antenna. But HOA's are a real mother, so I understand the problem.

    BTW, I find painted aluminum tubing VERY easy to conceal within the canopy of a tree. Not that you need to know that or anything. Krylon makes a set of camo colors in spray cans that really sticks well to clean aluminum tubing, although I cannot imagine why that information would be important to you.

    And an SGC or MFJ remote tuner located at the base of a tree has a remarkably small footprint and they can match a remarkable variety of wires/tubes. But you probably don't need to know that either...<G>

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WA8KJP View Post
    Ham radio history is filled with claims that some "miracle antennas" that are very short work like full size antennas . Lets see the proof! Anybody can use words like 'great' , fantastic, unbelieveable, blah, blah, blah. Where's the proof?????

    Just because you can make a few contacts with them means nothing. If somebody has compared them, A/B style, or some other way, lets hear it.
    Who kicked your nest? I re-read the thread, none of us are making 'miracle' claims. I made some comments that I've been happy with my PB, and that I thought it would be interesting to A/B against the TWA but that I can't afford that.

    Another guy said he's WAS on one? does not seem to be an outrageous claim for super-performance to me.

    For portable operation, having a free-standing and self-supporting antenna can be useful. One wants them to work as well as possible within their limitations to be sure.

    My favorite 'portable' antenna is the Discone at the Titan missile site, but the antenna is not itself portable.

    Hey, when Gordon West reviews the Tac-Comm and publishes it in CQ, we can certainly discuss the TWA and BP on this site.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •