On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:31:42 EDT, Bill Horne wrote:

I've been using an inverted vee for 80 meters, with mediocre results.
I'm willing to experiment with other designs and I like the simplicity
of verticals, but I've got to get something up before the weather turns,
so if you've used a vertical on 80 meters, please answer these questions
for me.

1. Performance?
2. Is noise worse/better/the same?
3. Is a quarter-wave radiator essential, or can it be shorter?
4. Loading/tuning?

73,

Bill W1AC

I have not used a vertical on 80 meters, so I cannot answer questions 3 and 4.
However, I do have some opinions:

Whether a vertical is better than an inverted-V depends upon what you want to
accomplish. If you want maximum DX, then the main radiation lobe of your
antenna should be at a low angle re. the ground. A vertical antenna has a low
angle. A horizontal antenna (an inverted-V is mainly horizontal) must be up
about one wavelength (80 meters, 271 feet) to get a low-angle radiation lobe.

But, if you want to contact stations in your state or region (in your case, New
England and neighboring states), you want the radiated energy to go nearly
vertical, so that it bounces off the ionosphere and returns nearby. A
horizontal antenna mounted low does this. I live in the desert southwest near
Las Vegas where we have no tall trees to tie antennas to. I have a half-wave
80-meter dipole mounted about 25 feet (0.09 wavelength at 80 meters) high. It
gives me nearly-vertical radiation. I have good coverage of Nevada, southern
California and Arizona. But no DX. However, I don't chase DX; I'm content to
chat locally.

Local interference from lightning, power lines and most other non-intentional
sources is vertically polarized, so a horizontal or inverted-V would pick up
less of this type of noise. Distant interference from any source would be
reflected by the ionosphere and be of random polarization.

73 de Dick, AC7EL