"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:31:31 GMT, "Jerry"
wrote:

Hi Richard

That is an interesting antenna (AS-2815/SSR-1). I didnt know how to
feed
it, but I see how you did it.
If that *is* used to communicate with polar orbiting satellites, I'd
expect the DCA to outperform it.
I have demonstrated fairly well that the DCA outperforms the Quad Helix
for reception from NOAA polar orbiting satellites. I'd be curious to
know
what the Navy would think of the DCA for a replacement of that
AS-2815/SSR-1.

Jerry KD6JDJ

Hi Jerry,

Well, I got most of the structural details down OK. However, the feed
is by guess and by golly. In the pictures you can catch a hint of it
(especially when you compare to my file), but this does not say if
there is a phasing harness hidden inside the stanchion tube.

As for the Navy being interested in your DCA, I've been on the vendor
list for years, and worked with their RFPs the same time. It is not
for someone who isn't ready to seriously commit a lot of time to
paperwork.

As for the others following this about crossed antennas, helical
antennas, there is one model the Navy uses that has interesting design
(Art will probably claim it proves what ever flavor theory he is
selling today) the AS-2227/SRN-9:
http://www.combatindex.com/hardware/...v/as-2227.html
http://www.combatindex.com/hardware/...as-2227_01.jpg

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard

You got good results from your "guess" at how to feed that Droop Cross
Navy antenna. I'm impressed. The fact is - I wouldnt advise the Navy to
change that antenna if it is functioning properly. It is simple and it is
rugged looking.
As you know, I am not on the selling end of anything, including antennas.
I do like to state that the DCA antenna design concept performs better for
horizon to horizon coverage of polar orbiting satellites than any other omni
azimuth antenna.

Jerry KD6JDJ