I played with the Hustler when it was introduced, and got the impression it
was a loser 40 years ago. I now wonder if that lower mast is purposely
lossy. Or maybe just accidentally lossy and they ran with it. Looks good
on SWR meters which hams are infamous for. I would modify your observation
about the diameter of the bottom section to: The RF impedance of the lower
section really counts. How about trying either a copper braid or tube
around the Hustler or a copper plated base section under the bug catcher and
see what that measures.

--
Crazy George
Remove N O and S P A M imbedded in return address
"H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" wrote in message
...
QST
It's been a while since I posted all that bazooka data that made me stick
to
dipoles, so here goes:
I've been using Hustlers mobile for almost 40 years and find them
adequate;
The mast I bought in 1970 only recently failed.
I'm reworking my HF mobile installation around a TS-480HX and decided to
graduate to a screwdriver. I bought a Tarheel 200.
I prefer to operate a mobile antenna at it's resonant frequency and match
to
the impedance of the transmission line with a transformer.
So here I present the resonant feedpoint impedances of a Hustler (small
resonators), the Tarheel 200 screwdriver and a 103" whip on a bug catcher
on
a 54" Hustler base. All antennas on the same ball mount. Measurements by
MFJ. "Resonant" implies X=0.

band Hustler Screwdriver 103"/BugCatcher/54"
80 21 ohms 9 ohms 23 ohms
40 25 11 na
20 30 30
10 40 32

I really thought the huge bug catcher would do better.
The screwdriver shows encouraging results for signal improvement over the
others on 80 and 40.
Seems the diameter of that bottom conductor on the screwdriver makes a big
difference at the lower frequencies.
Since the TS-480HX has two antenna jacks, I think an additional small
screwdriver is in order; One for 80-20; One for 20-6.
73
H.
NQ5H

Building an antenna using a big copper pipe for the base is appealing.
It's the motor tune feature on 80 that attracted me to the screwdriver.
All a low SWR insures is that you aren't heating up your transmitter.
I use a field strength meter.
73
H.

"Crazy George" wrote in message
...
I played with the Hustler when it was introduced, and got the impression
it
was a loser 40 years ago. I now wonder if that lower mast is purposely
lossy. Or maybe just accidentally lossy and they ran with it. Looks good
on SWR meters which hams are infamous for. I would modify your
observation
about the diameter of the bottom section to: The RF impedance of the
lower
section really counts. How about trying either a copper braid or tube
around the Hustler or a copper plated base section under the bug catcher
and
see what that measures.

--
Crazy George
Remove N O and S P A M imbedded in return address
"H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" wrote in message
...
QST
It's been a while since I posted all that bazooka data that made me
stick
to
dipoles, so here goes:
I've been using Hustlers mobile for almost 40 years and find them
adequate;
The mast I bought in 1970 only recently failed.
I'm reworking my HF mobile installation around a TS-480HX and decided to
graduate to a screwdriver. I bought a Tarheel 200.
I prefer to operate a mobile antenna at it's resonant frequency and
match
to
the impedance of the transmission line with a transformer.
So here I present the resonant feedpoint impedances of a Hustler (small
resonators), the Tarheel 200 screwdriver and a 103" whip on a bug
catcher
on
a 54" Hustler base. All antennas on the same ball mount. Measurements by
MFJ. "Resonant" implies X=0.

band Hustler Screwdriver 103"/BugCatcher/54"
80 21 ohms 9 ohms 23 ohms
40 25 11 na
20 30 30
10 40 32

I really thought the huge bug catcher would do better.
The screwdriver shows encouraging results for signal improvement over
the
others on 80 and 40.
Seems the diameter of that bottom conductor on the screwdriver makes a
big
difference at the lower frequencies.
Since the TS-480HX has two antenna jacks, I think an additional small
screwdriver is in order; One for 80-20; One for 20-6.
73
H.
NQ5H

"Crazy George" wrote in message ...
I played with the Hustler when it was introduced, and got the impression it
was a loser 40 years ago. I now wonder if that lower mast is purposely
lossy. Or maybe just accidentally lossy and they ran with it. Looks good
on SWR meters which hams are infamous for.

The hustlers I tried had pretty lossy coils. I've never seen any
problems with the solid masts, but I've never tried the folding type.
In theory, they should be ok also, unless they have a problem with
dirt or corrosion. But the coils....
I hate those things....I once did a comparison using a large 80m
resonator against the coil on my homebrew plastic bugcatcher. It wuz
ugly...My homebrew coil was much less lossy. I'll never use a hustler
coil for anything serious. And being I'm always serious, that means
never... :/ MK