wrote:
On 26 Oct 2006 11:04:49 GMT, Steveo wrote:

+++Yeah I was looking at the JO GUNN STAR and comparing it to the Maco
Comet. +++The comet is lighter and less expensive but I don't know about
durability. +++The 3 + 3 has a bit better rejection and gain numbers, if
they're to be +++believed.
****************

Steveo

I used an antenna like the Star back in the 70's called a Gizmotchy.

One of these?

http://www.gizmotchy.com/

I've heard good things about those..I didn't find the price section so I'll
have to go back and do a little research later. I'd forgotten about them.
Thanks for the reminder, beerkeg.

I
had a four element version. One thing that that beam had was a very
deep null at about 120 degrees both sides from the front. Easily knock
down a signal 6 or 7 S units no trouble. Had the top of the driven
element at about 36 feet and it worked very well ground wave. I could
talk with 5 watts easily here in Florida 100 miles just about every
night.

Sounds decent.

The Star has a bit unbelievable rejection numbers. Still the design
does not appear to be a bad one from what I can determine by looking
at the pictures and limited description. From the boom length of the 4
element and three element designs it seems to be somewhat similar to
what I had. My 4 element was on a 13 foot boom. It could have been on
a slightly shorter boom.

james

Have you looked at the maco comet quad? (I posted the url earlier) I'm
trying to decide which has the most bang for the bucks, along with the wind
load and durability considerations.

Thanks for your input, keg.