2
$\begingroup$

The NEC4.2 comparison in the answer below shows one example, for a practical set of installation conditions.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

NEC4.2 comparison of an inverted V, center-fed dipole with a linear center-fed dipole:

AUTHOR EDITS:

  1. The apex angle in my plots here is mislabeled. The correct value is 120°.
  2. The graphic below compares the elevation pattern gains at 90° azimuth intervals for these two configurations; posted in response to the comment of rclocher3.

enter image description here

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Interesting, I never considered an inverted-vee to be a DX antenna. The two 3D radiation plots look nearly identical, except for the scale. Would you please consider adding 2D radiation plots that show gain vs. elevation angle for the broadside direction? $\endgroup$ – rclocher3 Jun 29 at 15:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Doesn't really look like either one is high enough to be especially good... $\endgroup$ – Phil Frost - W8II Jun 29 at 19:36
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for adding the gain patterns! So at 0.19λ elevation, which is not ideal for DX work but is fairly common, the inverted-vee is a better DX (low-angle) antenna in one direction (towards the ends?) than the horizontal dipole; in the orthogonal direction (broadside?), the horizontal dipole beats the inverted-vee at every elevation angle. Interesting! $\endgroup$ – rclocher3 Jul 29 at 23:28
  • $\begingroup$ I think that an inverted-V helps reduce some nulls off the ends, but I don't know the specifics. In any case, they only need one high support, which of course can save money vs. a high horizontal dipole. $\endgroup$ – Mike Waters Jul 31 at 2:18

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.