Building these antennas this weekend

Best antenna will go to mom's attic.

Awesome. Real world tests results too.

My money is on the McLapp.

Just one tip:

If you want to get better low UHF and/or VHF-hi, make the elements on the bowtie 10 inches. You can always trim some off, but if you want to add length later it means a complete re-build. If you will lose a bit of gain on the upper UHF channels, so it may not be an acceptable mod in your area.

Well the VHF seem to be coming in pretty strong on the 4 bay that is up here now (NBC 4 comes in great and PBS on 2 even)
and I already made the whiskers. I just have to solder and staple. I have a bunch of CM 9444 baluns coming too.
Home Depot sells these planks of polar for about $4 that are 1/4 inch thick and with a few wire staples it comes out solid. (hopefully they do not interfere.)
It's a nice quick project. I'm thinking the thinner wood also reduces the need for PVC spacers also.
I have all the line dimensions figured out that will touch the wood (after some geometry) so I can draw them and line up things perfectly.
Luckily, they have a big roll or 10 AWG mag wire at work that no one uses that I can borrow from.

I think the Hoverman is more difficult to manufacture properly, and thus my money is on the Quad Bowtie.

Originally Posted by EscapeVelocity

I think the Hoverman is more difficult to manufacture properly, and thus my money is on the Quad Bowtie.

.

I agree. If you're building an indoor (attic) antenna, you can use some easy building techniques for a bowtie antenna.

Originally Posted by Goodrat

Well the VHF seem to be coming in pretty strong on the 4 bay that is up here now (NBC 4 comes in great and PBS on 2 even)

Just want to make you aware that you made a little (and common) rookie mistake. With digital the TV display channels no longer necessarily reflect the channel the channel is broadcast on. Your channel 2 is actually broadcast on channel 18, and your channel 4 is broadcast on channel 22. Your VHF stations are WSVN 7 on 7, WPTV 5 on 12, WPEC on 13, and WDFL on 11. If you look at your TVfool report the number in the real column is the actual radio frequency channel while the virtual column indicates the display channel. Most broadcasters moved out of low VHF due to the high noise and interference levels in that band. The virtual (display) channels allow them to keep their "brand" after moving.

I'll take a look at that again with the frequencies.
As far as the Hoverman being more difficult, why is that guys? Just two wires and 90 degree on most angles.

It has to do with straightening wire and multiple bends in one longer piece of single wire.

Originally Posted by Goodrat

Best will go to mom's attic.

I can't see the pictures?!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I can't see the pictures?!

You need to be a registered member (free) to view the pictures. Just for clarification, the 2 pictures are diagrams, with one being an McLapp antenna and the other being a Gray-Hoverman antenna.

I got those bends pretty good and I draw the proper lines on the wood to double check.
I see now about channel 7. That is my lowest frequency. I didn't realize what "real channel" was. I thought I had to go down to 54MHz.
I just spent hours on a few sites to make sense out of the channels I'm getting.
This site is a big help here:
RabbitEars.Info

The Gray-Hoverman is definitely a great design and is probably superior overall. I have the Antennacraft version that is designed for channels up to 83...and it is fantastic. One nice thing about it besides it high gain on UHF is that it is isnt very directional on lower UHF and thus can be used in a situation where high gain in one direction is needed but you are trying to capture some higher signals off the backside....without the need for a rotor.

Originally Posted by EscapeVelocity

The Gray-Hoverman is definitely a great design and is probably superior overall. I have the Antennacraft version that is designed for channels up to 83...and it is fantastic. One nice thing about it besides it high gain on UHF is that it is isnt very directional on lower UHF and thus can be used in a situation where high gain in one direction is needed but you are trying to capture some higher signals off the backside....without the need for a rotor.

As far as I know he wasn't going to use a reflector, and since the station groups are basicly 180 degrees from each other he should be good. I had a reflectorless Gray-Hoverman in the attic of my old house and could pull in KZCO (15kW on channel 17) from Denver at 48 miles and second edge from the north and all the Colorado Springs stations from the south (25 miles LOS). I'm planning on building another Gray-Hoverman for my current set up since the signal on Fox 31 KDVR (RF32) keeps going down. I don't know if it is the time of year, or equipment degradation, but I figure if I can get more gain it will help. All the other staions are fine and adjusting the antenna doesn't help.

Originally Posted by EscapeVelocity

The Gray-Hoverman is definitely a great design and is probably superior overall. I have the Antennacraft version that is designed for channels up to 83...and it is fantastic. One nice thing about it besides it high gain on UHF is that it is isnt very directional on lower UHF and thus can be used in a situation where high gain in one direction is needed but you are trying to capture some higher signals off the backside....without the need for a rotor.

I agree with EV to some extent, however, I have a 16-Bay AntennaCraft Hoverman and in my location, it is a poor performer compared to smaller (physical area/size) antennas. I live in an RF-soup with tons of multipath to try to control. In a head-to-head contest my Hoverman in either an 8-Bay or 16-Bay configuration is a looser compared to a tiny (old-style) DB-2 with ten feet of additional height.

My point is, never count on the promises seen in antenna ads. Physically testing different antennas is the only way to know which one is best at your particular location.

Jim

Originally Posted by Goodrat

This site is a big help here:
RabbitEars.Info

Rabbitears is Trip's site. So, if you see his posts, you know who to thank.

Well, I will build one of each and see how it goes.

Here are the channels I watch with the current 4-bay (9.5 x 9 no reflector, no PVC)
NyChannels.jpg
That should be named "mychannels", not ny

http://www.dtvusaforum.com/members/g...enna-large.JPG

I bent the 90 degree angles on the GH today by drilling a hole close to the size of my wire near the edge of my work bench. Then pulled each proper length from under and hit each 7" length with a hammer the proper direction. Nice idea. All built. I will compare signals this weekend with current 4 bay (with the connectors on the whiskers) then build another 4 bay using this stable method and compare that.

Well, here is tonight's test. My new GH Vs my original McLapp with the connectors on the whiskers. The first McLapp is a month ago and possibly without a splitter to two other TV's. The next test was an hour apart today. Not sure what is going on with 25-1 (ABC from West Palm Beach) but the McLapp had 29% before trying the GH, but gone when I switched back. Maybe it was tilted slightly. But it is a little cloudy out.
McVsGH.jpg
So, looking at the "Real Channel" column. I have less signal on the lower frequencies (real ch 13 and below) with the Gray-Hoverman (GH).
I will build another McLapp tomorrow using the same build technique as as the GH as in the diagram in the first post, to compare apples to apples.