Hi Mark,
I suspect the current -- and hence the radiation -- from the bottom of the vertical radiator is somewhat suppressed by proximity to gull wing radials. When I first installed a 160 vertical using two gull-wing resonant radials eight feet high I had to increase height of the vertical radiator to achieve resonance at 1830 kHz. I had to shorten the radiator to the classic length w hen I later replaced the gull wing radials with sixty 120 foot radials laid on the ground. A little work in EZNEC would shed some light on this. 73 Frank W3LPL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark K3MSB" <mark.k3...@gmail.com> To: "topBand List" <topband@contesting.com> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 5:04:33 PM Subject: Topband: FCP vs Gull Wing Elevated Radials This kind of goes with the other thread that has morphed into the FCP topic, but is a bit different. With an FCP feeding the INV-L, the bottom of the INV-L will be at least 10 feet off the ground. With my existing trees I can barely get up 50 feet from the ground. So, the INV-L will have 40 feet of vertical radiator. Using a pair of resonant gull winged radials feeding the INV-L at the base, the vertical part will be 50 feet. From what I’ve read, the FCP is a better solution over a pair of resonant gull wing radials, but I’ve also read that vertical length of an INV-L is important. So there’s a tradeoff to be considered. Comments? Due to real estate considerations, I can put up only 2 one-half wavelength resonant radials Mark K3MSB _________________ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _________________ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector