Thing is....So did my model when using "medium" ground quality.
But I know in the real world, my vertical smoked the dipole on long
haul/low angles. I'm almost positive that the verticals are
"underpowered" when
modeling, unless you bump up the ground quality. Or at least when used
on the low bands at night. To make the model of my dipole vs vertical
actually pan out as in real life, I had to bump up the ground quality
to
"excellent". Even then, it might have been a bit lower than real life.
I'm not sure what to make if this....
I'm not the only one to notice this also.... Talk to W8JI about his
nearly
300 ft dipole vs his verticals on 160m...He always thought the dipole
would be
better. After all, modeling says it should be. But it didn't quite pan
out...
I basically ignore Cecils bad experience, because #1, his vertical
needed more radials,
and he never used it for long haul paths. So of course, the vertical
should
have lost in his case. Heck, even with my vertical, that was a bit
better than his,
I had to get over 1000 miles to start seeing the vertical overtake the
dipole.
Those dipole vs vertical modeling plots are *very* misleading. Or to me
anyway...
Myself, I think the ground qualities applied are in error for some
reason..
They overly stunt the vertical when modeling...Either that, or my
ground here is
really good...My ground quality is pretty good, but it's not *great*,
being I'm
in the city cement jungle of Houston. MK