| Author |
Message |
    
mikefromms
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 1:32 pm: | 
|
A lot of groundplanes are advertised as having such a broadband as to cover 26mhz through portions of the 28mhz. Just how many of you have antennas that cover CB and all the way through the 29mhz band where you can transmit on the 10 meter repeaters (without a tuner)? Does anyone have one of the new Big Sticks that covers the 29mhz? Everyone should chime in here, hopefully, on one of these questions. Let's have some good discussion! Love it.
mikefromms |
bruce
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 2:43 pm: |
|
mike you can build a very big discone .... VERY BIG! |
Twa77
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 3:36 pm: |
|
imax 2000 is the closest to doing this. i had one i couldn't believe how broad this antenna WAS. it was blown over a month ago in 60 mph wind. now i am going to get the astroplane for this reason. mike you have an astroplane right how is the tx and rx vs others.
tonyfromsouthdakota |
Buck
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 7:42 pm: |
|
I have the Imax and it is very broadbanded....I can go from 26-29 with no problems. I have had it up for over a year now and am very pleased with it. It dont look pretty when the wind blows but she is still standing strong
Buck |
mikefromms
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 9:38 pm: |
|
I'm still working the bugs out of my AP. It is working fine. I think I need to get it up a couple of more feet and know I will replace the cheap coax. This antenna should be no problem in the wind. It is light. Mine is working fine. I just wish mine was more broadbanded like everyone else's AP seems to be.
Mikefromms |
mikefromms
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 10:11 pm: |
|
Buck, I wonder if a person could tie rope to the middle of the I-max 2000 to stabilize that sucker in the wind? Shouldn't interfere with performance, I don't think. What's your take?
mikefromms |
Kc0gxz
| | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 6:24 am: |
|
mikefromms
Yes you can. My son did that with his using nylon rope and it worked out fine. It does stretch some and you have to occasionally retighten the lines.
You guys with the I-Max 2000s!!! I have said that in many of my posts about the great broadband the I-Max has. It appears that there are many, many nonbelievers out here when it comes to (what I call) The Mighty Max.
I'll say it again. 24 feet long. A 5/8 wavelength. AND A BANDPASS OF 3 MHZ. AND A BAND PASS OF 3 MHZ. AND A BAND PASS OF 3 MHZ. No other antenna on the market has that capability. For the first time since I have been on this forum, I'm hearing other Max owners making that same claim. Finally!!!
You other guys can play with your little Top Ones, Big Sticks, Skylabs and the others all you want. The Skylabs make a better 6 meter antenna than they do a CB antenna. And if you don't believe it, just ask our very own (6 Meter Guru) Bruce. I don't think there is anyone more knowledgable on the forum when it comes to 6 Meter antennas than him.
I'm not saying that the Skylab or the others are a piece of junk. But lets be honest with our selves here. The Skylab is only a 1/4 wave antenna for crying out loud. If you want to compare it to other 1/4 wave antennas, then fine. But there is NO comparison of a 1/4 wave with a 5/8 wave. And if you ARE going to compare them, then tell me just what you ARE comparing. 1/4 antennas have far to high of a radiation angle to talk any respectable "local long distance". A 1/2 wave is better suited for that and a 5/8 wave is even better yet. And the ONLY way you are going to compare them is when you are talking with a station of 20 or more miles away. NOT IN TOWN, where you can blow everyone a 9+ with a coat hanger.
If you want to talk LOCAL LONG DISTANCE, use a 5/8 wave antenna such as the Maco V-5000, or a Maco Alpha V 5/8, or the I-Max 2000. All three of these antennas have a reputation for kicking some serious long distance a$$ on the air. Sticks and weird or funny shaped antennas just aren't going to cut it.
The only advantage the I-Max has over the other two mentioned 5/8 wave antennas is the fact that it has a 3 MHZ BANDPASS, and when the rings are set correctly, the I-Max WILL cover 12, 11, and 10 meters. EASILY.
Admittedly, bandpass is not important to many people that want to use their antenna to just talk around town on the CB band or a few frequencies above. ANY antenna will work for that. And come to think of it, most people haven't got a clue what a "bandpass" is let alone what it means. To some, (like me) it is important. To others, it is of least importants.
Look at it this way. Every base antenna on the market works to some degree. Some work better than others. For local long distance contacts, a 1/2 wave WILL out-perform a 1/4 wave of equal length and heigth. A 5/8 wave of equal length and heigth WILL put the 1/4 and 1/2 wavelengths in the basement. They won't do it in town, but they sure will in "local long distance" communications.
A 1/4 wavelenght antenna of any brand, design, shape, color, length, or heigth, is the LAST thing I would EVER consider putting in the air again. Many years ago I used them. That's because there wasn't many to choose from for the early CBers. If you wanted something better, you had to build it yourself.
The 1/4 wave antenna is (in my opinion) a wavelength of the past. But manufacturers still build them ONLY because people still by them. And they continue to sell well because almost all people that buy them do not understand the differences in wavelength or what it means. And if they DID know the difference, they wouldn't be buying a 1/4 wave. Why do that when you can have a 5/8 wave? However, like I said before, the 1/4 wave works fine for the average CBer around town and when skip conditions are there.
The 5/8 wave antenna is not for everyone. However, it IS A MUST for the SERIOUS radio operator. He will settle for nothing less. He's the guy that knows that the heart of his station is his antenna. NOT his radio. Is he going to buy a antenna with a weird shape thinking that, "Gee, with a shape like that, it just has to be a good one". Not hardly. No, he's the guy that probably has studied a little bit about Wavelength, Ground planes, Take-off angles, Bandpass, True Db gain, Wave patterns. You know, junk like that.
And when it's all said and done, he won't be the one asking, "How does my antenna compare with type/brand X, Y, or Z"? He won't be asking because he already knows he's talking 40+ miles away SSB with fire in the air.
But, on the other hand, if you want something that will blow them all away, (INCLUDING the 3 mentioned 5/8 wave antennas), then get a 4 element beam and be done with it.
73s
Jeff, kc0gxz |
Diggerodell
| | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 1:41 pm: |
|
i will never give up my imax 2000 or a-99...both have worked very well for me!!!!!!!!
UNDERTAKER |
bruce
| | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 3:21 pm: |
|
jeff....
My skylab still kicks **** on 52.525
Nothing wrong with the skylab but a 5/8 would be better as for bandwith my skylab is @ 52 mhz more than +/- 1.5 mhz wide for 2/1 ..... about 800khz at cb. |
mikefromms
| | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 6:19 pm: |
|
My funny looking AP is blowing smoke locally and in DX. I made the mistake of mounting it too close to roof and some metal and using poor coax. Once the bugs are worked out I think it will do the job. It is a real 5/8 wave antenna. I read the test done on the most poplar groundplanes right here on this site and Top One beat everyone in under 30 ft and didn't do too bad over 30 ft. I will go on record to say this, in all fairness: if I'm not satified with the Top One after I go up a few feet and replace the coax; then, I will buy the I-max 2000. I wish those new Big Sticks could cover CB and go all the way through the 29 mhz band. It looks a lot stronger than i-max in build and appears easier to get up.
mikefromms |
Bassbug
| | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 6:46 pm: |
|
Jeff and Under Taker. Im going to hold you to what you are saying. I have read alot over the last year or so on ground planes. As far as skip and ground wave the 5/8 wave ground plane is the best for distance because in theory the closer the antenna is able to radiate at a full wave is best. But I know for a fact not all five eights wave are created equal. The design of the antenna may limit it to a specific frequency coverage. I know by what I have read that the matching coil in the base of the antenna does alot for matching the coax to the antenna. To a blance feed. I beleave this is what makes it so broad banded. I am in the process of putting up seven section of tower and a ten foot pole for my new Imax 2000. I have never used it. The only thing that I have went on is my past knowledge and understanding of how antennas work. I hope what you say is true on how well this antenna performs. I am going to find out shortly. I do not invest into anything unless I do my homework first. A few years back, The first groundplane I had ever bought was a starduster which it was actually the P-400 made in Italy. As far as a local antenna if that is all I wanted it would have been my best choice, but as far as distance talking and hearing, it was lousy. My mistake I had made then was I had went by word of mouth because of starduster in its day was a great groundplane. And people loved them for local talking because they were very strong locally. But for long distance there poor on transmit and receive. My love for the cb has always been long distance talking. I was very disappointed with my starduster. and I know my next step up over the IMAX-2000 would be beams because of the low take off angle. |
bruce
| | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 8:12 pm: |
|
bassbug THE BEST 5/8 wave ive ever used was a mosley DI-6 mine lasted almost 30 years and was retired only because im not at this time able to repair the insulator damage from 30 years of UV. Right now im running a ( HATED ) skylab and there is nothing wrong with this antenna the " takeoff angle " is just fine. Now TRUE 5/8 wave antennas have some gain and a somewhat lower take angle but on skip this would not show up as a major change the major change would be in TOTAL antenna gain. The best antenna i ever ran on 6 was 2 stacked 4 elm hygain beams about 12 DBD gain very nice at almost 60 foot. With this antenna running only about 10 watts i worked 35 states and a number of countrys around the western hemespere. As for diffrence my guess is youll see 1/2 s unit better with the imax over the skylab. |
Alsworld
| | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 10:42 pm: |
|
mikefromms,
I have been on the road moving since you have joined us here. I am still in transition. You originally feared about the IMAX 2000 breaking. I have only heard one report of that happening, and that was here on this forum about the time you joined us. The antennas are very flexible, but they are designed that way.
I talked through 2 seperate tropical storms from Florida. The antenna was almost horizontal and whipping like a fly rod. The signals remained solid and constant. I now have the antenna in transmit with me without any cracks, and it will go up here at my new home within weeks.
It is extremely broadbanded as what you are looking for. Mine was up at 45 ft at the base previously, and with the trees on my new property, I hope to get it higher.
I do not know how many reports of broken IMAX 2000's you had based a previous thread here on Coppers forum, but it is flexible by nature, and it helps it survive. I also had done my homework and it's the antenna I chose. I have no regrets. I feel there will be a difference between the A99 and IMAX 2000, just by the nature of a 1/2 wave vs, a 5/8 ths wave. Locally, maybe no one will notice, but over distance, it all counts.
It's your cash, so do it what you wish, but your initial dissappointing opinion with the IMAX 2000 (in my own opinion) was unfounded, or based on limited experiences you had read about. If you put an antenna that low, please follow Tech833's advice. If you want a good broadbanded antenna, reconsider.
Once I have mine back up and everything properly grounded, I would be happy to tell you my SWR readings across the bands, but that may be a few weeks. I understand every station is different, but I would be happy to report my findings once the move is settled and the station is set back up.
Let me know.
I don't mean to sound like some jerk, but it's a pretty darn fine antenna and I think you may be chasing some pretty minute details between it and all the other antennas.
Alsworld |
Buck
| | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 12:13 am: |
|
I can also give you SWR readings from 26-29 if you wish..I agree with Al 100%. You wont be disappointed in the I2K
Buck |
Kc0gxz
| | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 4:34 am: |
|
Bassbug
I need to make something clear. Most everyone on the forum knows how I feel about the I-Max from the way that I rant and rave about it. And just so everyone knows, just because I use it, I DO NOT CONSIDER THE I-MAX TO BE THEE BEST 5/8 WAVE ANTENNA ON THE MARKET. The 3 VERY most important things that concern me about antennas are their wavelenth, broadbanding, and over-all length. The longer the antenna, the higher the antenna, the farther away it's going to be heard. It's as simple as that. (That goes for ANY antenna).
If broading wasn't a factor, I would be using the Maco V-5000, or a Maco Alpha V 5/8. It's just that the I-Max allows me to easily run 3 Meg WITHOUT a tuner.
Also, unlike most people, Dbd gain means absolutely nothing to me. The main reason is because you can't get a straight answer from any of the manufacturers about the gain of their antennas. The only one that was ever honest with me about it was the original builder of the Antron 99 and he claimed it was less than a 1 db gain. The I-Max and the 2 mentioned Maco 5/8 antennas are very close to a 1 Db gain. There are people out there that actually believe the I-max has a 9.9 db gain. There isn't a vertical CB antenna on this planet that has a gain like that. It's all hype and bullsh!t.
You didn't say how long your tower sections are. I have an old 60 ft Rohn. I'm using a 24 ft mast but only 20 feet of it is above the top of the tower. With the I-Max being a 24 foot antenna, that puts the tip at 104 feet, give or take a few inches.
Was I you, I would go with at least 20 ft of heavy duty masting. And make it so you can easily raise or lower the mast through the top two tower sections for ease of installing or replacing antennas.
If your radio-to-antenna requires 100 feet or more of coax, I suggest using Belden 9913. It has excellent shielding and very little loss. Do not settle for anything less. You won't regret the extra expense for the coax. Trust me on that. Since you're going to the expence of a I-Max and a tower, don't skimp on the coax. Do it up right the first time.
Plan this thing out well in advance. The less time you spend on your tower, the better. Tower work is always dangerous. I use a 3 1/2 inch wide multi-layered leather climbing belt (with large D-rings and a 3 ft safty chain that will go through the tower framework) for all tower work. I do not like nylon belts and safty ties because I have seen the sharp edges of the tower metal cut through them. And by all means, NEVER do tower work alone. Have someone there.
High towers with long masts have a tendency to attract lightning, especially when in opened areas. They can easily withstand a lightning hit but chances are slim that your I-Max will survive. I lost one due to lightning hitting the mast and it blew my Max to pieces. "No means of grounding the I-Max or A-99". They're cheap enough to replace but it still means a couple of trips back up the tower to remove the remnents and install a new one.
When you're done with this tower and antenna project, your Max sure is going to look pretty way up there. "Just don't look at it in heavy winds. It will make you sweat." If everything is done right and all goes well, you're going to be heard a long ways off.
Good luck and 73s my friend.
Jeff, kc0gxz. |
mikefromms
| | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 7:17 am: |
|
Thanks for all the responses. I would like to comment on the remark about funny looking antennas. I guess they all look funny to somebody. I really don't care about looks.
Thanks for the reports on the I-max. It seems like a lot of antenna to get up. If it performs that much better than its competitors then I'm sure it's worth the extra trouble. I'll say one thing, it's about the newist antenna design I've seen in awhile. That's thing is 24 ft. long.
Do give me the swr reports. I'm interested.
Mikefromms |
Tech808
| | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 9:16 am: |
|
Mikefromms,
Trouble? NO it is one of the easiest Antennas to put up and set for lowest SWR reading's.
I have sold many of these and yes they do Sway in the wind but, I have three neighbors within a 1 Block area of our house and we have had over 30 days where we have had wind gust in excess of 70 mph so far this year. Last week was the best yet when we got wacked with 75-80 Plus.
All are still up and working well! They do look scary when they are bent over, but all have been up for over two years now with NO Problems.
As for SWR Reports, That depends on Radios, Coax, Length of Coax, Type used, Type of Mounting used, Height, How many Meters or Amps, TVI Filters and other equipment that you have in line as well as how many jumpers and how and where you have it mounted & grounding.
And how good you are at soldering the connectors to the Coax.
 I would guess that almost 95% of the problems that people have come to me with about thier Antenna's and SWR problem's have been COAX related.
Every station is different with different factors involved.
And how picky you want to be and how much work you want to do.
On My 305 as well as my SG Beams I run a 1.1 to 1.2 SWR across the bands. When I put the beams up about three months ago we had them up and down at least 20 times re-adjusting & checking them till I was satisfied.
If you decide to put up any Fiberglass Antenna do what I did after a "Very Helpful/Informative" suggestion from Tech833.
COAT all fiberglass with White Auto Primer before assembly. It helps them to last longer, resist UV better and look better over the years.
I even pulled my Anttron 2 Meter antennas down and very lightly sanded with 360 paper, and then coated with primer. After 15 plus years still working and looking great.
Lon
Tech808  |
Bassbug
| | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 10:42 am: |
|
Thanks, kcOgxz and Lon 808. I have a old Rohn tower aso. 10 foot sections with the top section being 9 foot. I have two foot sticking out of concrete. I had dug a four foot deep hole three by three foot wide for the concrete. I would like to say that I like this form very much. It kind of reminds me of the old days back when I was a kid I would go with the father to a cb coffee break jamboree at the fair grounds. Their would be people that would commute from all around the neighboring states just to go the jamboree. I remember as a child I would meet so many nice people as well as people that I had talked to on the radio for so long. Funny thing about radio,some of the guys I talked to that had the real deep scary voices,when met,would be short and small not scary at all,and the guys that had that small weak voice were big and scary when met face to face, but had huge hearts. LOL
I remember as a child I had so much fun. This is what this forum reminds me of. You get the chance to meet radio operators from all around. We have this in common, we all love our radios. And love to meat new people. |
Tech833
| | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Jeff,
You are neglecting the takeoff angle. In free-space, you argument is solid. However, over unperfect ground, you are leaving out half the equasion.
Mounted only 1/4 wave above ground, a 1/4 wave antenna will have a stronger signal on the horizon than a 5/8 wave. Why? Because of the broad lobe.
If you do a little experimenting with the various RF modeling programs avaialable, you would be shocked and probably edit your post very quickly.
At 104 feet above ground as you are, the Imax is a solid performer! That is a fact. At Mike's elevation of only 25 feet to the tip, the Imax would be a major disappointment. In the SW and MW broadcast field, we would call that a 'cloud warmer'. |
Buck
| | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 5:29 pm: |
|
Here are a few figures....I am using some OLD Rg-8 coax( I had it gave to me 15 yrs ago and it was used then) I do have a 200' roll of 213 that I bought for 2 meters. I only used about 25' and I keep meaning to put it up but you know how it is....The 8u is doing its thing and there is always something better to do than play on the roof Anyway here are my swr readings for you Mike
25.165- 3:1
25.500- 2.5:1
26.000- 1.8:1
26.500- 1.5:1
27.000- 1.2:1
27.500- 1.4:1
28.000- 1.9:1
28.500- 2.3:1
29.000- 2.7:1
29.699- Well over 3:1
I hope this helps you out some Mike....I do need to get that coax switched around and maybe it will make some improvements on my readings
Buck |
mikefromms
| | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 6:59 pm: |
|
I wish I could get an antenna up over 100 ft. I had a big stick in the top of a pine one time and I could hear and broadcast all over the country. Dead blame old pine beetles killed my pine tree.
Mikefromms |
RCI 2990
| | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 2:01 am: |
|
Well i used to own a Imax 2000 until my ex G/F took it with the house we bought together, oh well. Anyways I liked it for a fiberglass antenna and it was VERY broadbanded. 1.2=1 across all 40 clear up to 27.905. I now run a moonraker 4 and a sigma 4 as the standby.. I have in storage a avanti sigma 5/8 and a hy gain Penetrator 500 that someday ill put up and give a try out.. Hmm I wonder what that cocky KcOgxz thinks of these antennas? He seems to know a lot about antennas.................. LOL
|
bruce
| | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 6:56 am: |
|
buck your numbers are about what i would expect |
mikefromms
| | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 7:14 am: |
|
RCI 2990, Sounds like you have an array of choice antennas. Many folks claim that Penetrator 500 is the best GP ever.
Buck, that's very good broadband coverage. I can see where (if you wanted) you could shorten your antenna and get better readings in the 29 mhz. My goal is to have good swr beginning @ least at the CB band and running through the 29 mhz. I don't really care about going below 26.895. Thanks for the readings.
Mikefromms |
Buck
| | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 9:53 am: |
|
Yea I think good swr readings could be easily achieved from 26.900 - 29.000. It would just take a little adjustment with the tuning rings.
Buck |
RCI 2990
| | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 1:00 pm: |
|
Mike..
The P 500 and the avanti sigma 5/8 were at one time the best you could get . I have both and they are NOT for sale. LOL!! Hey man, if you are happy with that astroplane then thats all that matters so dont let some people diss your antenna and "keep on ah' keepin on"!!!! But I must say man, the I max 2000 is a freaking AWESOME antenna and well worth the $$$$!!! When I had mine I loved it and if i didnt have all the good old classic antennas in storage I have now in my posession id no dought get another one. They are that good and they are VERY broadbanded as well!!!!!! |
mikefromms
| | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 6:59 pm: |
|
I appreciate the comments very much. I think I will start a new post concerning the groundplane kits and who runs them. I did read the article and it is very good.
I am happy with the AP. I know what to do now to make some improvements. But if I tire of it in the next few months I might just put up an I-max 2000!
Mikefromms |
Kc0gxz
| | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 11:38 pm: |
|
Tech833
You are absolutely correct.
Yes indeed, the I-Max is a poor performer when mounted at a 1/4 wave. A 1/2 wavelength off the ground I could live with if I REALLY had to. And speaking of 1/4 waves and takeoff angles, I don't believe that a 1/4 wave antenna mounted at 104 feet would be all that great either.
I never recomend to my customers (or anyone asking) that the TIP of an I-Max, or for that matter, any 5/8 wave antenna, be less than 36 feet in the air. In my opinion, anything less than that only hampers the long range performance capabilities of a good 5/8 wave designed antenna. Then again, that's only MY opinion.
In reference to my July 03 post, I was trying to give a general comparison of the mentioned antennas and wavelengths. I did not discuss "takeoff angle" in the posting because it is something that I RARELY see mentioned on the forum unless it's mentioned by you or other Techs. I try to keep my postings simple. Not only that, I can not write or get across to people "imformatively" as well as you can. And I mean that sincerely.
I read ALL of your posts with great interest and especially the reviews you do in the (my favorite) "Subscriber Preview" section. I can't say enough good things about them and the (has to be time consuming) professional way they are layed out and written. Questions come up constantly that are already answered in your "Reviews" and I try to remind people occasionally to refer to your reviews.
I am trying to be helpful to others here and share with them my 30+ years experience in the CB-Ham business. But, possibly, many of my ideas and suggestions may very well be out-dated in this generation of todays high-tech CB. However, if you or any of the other Techs feel that I (at any time) have given incorrect imformation or suggestions, DO NOT HESITATE TO CORRECT ME. When I am wrong, I WILL stand corrected.
I am not too old to learn something from you educated Pros. And believe me, not only have I learned plenty of new ideas and tricks from you, but also from many of the other members here.
73s.
Jeff, kc0gxz. |
Tech833
| | Posted on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 6:13 pm: |
|
But Jeff, without your help here, many questions would go unanswered. You are not wrong, I just thought you may have overlooked something. I was adding to your comments, not trying to discredit you.
Also, I don't know everything. As soon as I think I do know everything, I will try the walking on water test and see what happens. If I am wrong about something, I expect you to correct me. |
mikefromms
| | Posted on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 11:20 pm: |
|
Man, that I-max is broadbanded. That's a lot of coverage. I can see where it could be tuned to get cb and then go all the way to 29.990 in good style.
mikefromms |
Taz
| | Posted on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 11:54 pm: |
|
You could always just go up and retune the antenna when you go up that high. |
Kc0gxz
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 12:39 am: |
|
Tech833
oooooooohhh. The old walking-on-water test!!!
The last time I tried that, I was commercial fishing off the coast of Campeche Mexico with my older brother on his 60' grouper boat. We lived in Bradenton Fla at the time and used to go down there every year with a crew of 4 for a few weeks of Red Snapper fishing.
I took a header in the drink. Very humbling experience since I failed to Walk-On-Water.
Jeff, kc0gxz. |
bruce
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 4:46 am: |
|
thats ok 833 .....
I know you know where the rocks are ( OLD JOKE ) |
Tech833
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 5:26 pm: |
|
Well Jeff,
I suppose it's a good thing you cannot walk on water. If not, you would have had a bump on your head. |
mikefromms
| | Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 1:07 pm: |
|
Well,after rereading these posts I feel the need to explain something. I said I would get an Imax if I became dissatified with the AP...well, I went a step further an got a beam type antenna with GP, the thunder 8xb. Still, if it's just a GP I ever need I'll get the Imax. And for anyone who can only run a low to the ground GP get the AP. It does what it is designed to do, no doubt.
mikefromms |
|
