I guess your right if it breaks all your going to loose is 1 section $10 repair.
Strange, nowhere on the web is any info on there new -5, gave me a bad feeling.
Looking foward to the project, hope it works out well with my AH4

Jay N1FDX

Thanks Guy's for your comments.

I ordered the old -1 style. I think I liked the base arrangement a bit better even though it seems a little more difficult to lower. I don't expect to take it down more than a few times a year. Add some guy wires in the winter to support the ice load. The new seem to use a few pig tails to bond everything together and just a few details that didn't seem to sit right.
I guess the original is a proven design. I can seem to find anyone or any reviews on the -5.
Jay N1FDX

I guess it seems that if the difference of a few feet in lenth don't matter much the new mount style will bind less on up and down. It does seem like a simpler arrangment.

It does not say it's 40.4' however if you add the sections up on the -5 if starts with the insulator a 36" section and 14 32" sections.
The -1 starts with a 32" section at in the insulating channel base then the 36" and 14 - 32"
I called DXE and there tech support did confirm my finding and said he didn't know that then went on to say they are electrically the same and the perfromance is identical ??

What Bands...

I guess my best answer would be as many bands as possible hi hi.. 80 thru 10 would be nice. A little 160 would be a plus. I know it won't shine on 10, 12 & 15. And 160 would be wishful thinking but am hoping to get on the band.
I'm going to use an Icom AH4 at the base.
I just took down a Butternut HF9V. It worked OK, 80 was extremly narrow as expected but the antenna didn't impress me. I think my old Cushcraft R8 worked better on the specified bands.

When I talked to them I asked and they didn't say that the -5 was going to replace the -1. They said they developed the -5 to be competitive, I think with Zero5.
After looking at the manual on the -5 and comparing it to the -1 it seems the -5 is only 40.4' tall. then they supply a 24" peice of wire that goes from the radiating element to the tunner otherwise you mount the UnUn right at the base of the radiating element.
Money in had and confused on which to buy,

The new base has a single bolt as a pivot point ant the vertical feed point is elevated over the radial fiels about 12-14". They use a 2" diameter peice of material to isolate the radiator from the base, I think an added week point over the original model. I don't think I'll lower it very often.
I think with the new base you don't have to pull it up and kick it over befor lowering.

Hi,

DX Engineering release a new version of the 43' vertical with a Saf-T-Tilt base. They still offer the original stainless steel tilt base model. Has anyone used either.
DXE-MBVE-1 original tilt base
DXE-MBVE-5 new Saf-T-Tilt
Any info or opinions would be great.
I am in the process of buying one just not sure which.
Installing over a radial field with a Icom AH-4 at the base.

Thanks
Jay N1FDX

 
I use an Icom IC-T90a which is a tri-band, one band at a time. It does do cross band spit even thought the manual says not. I program the uplink in 1 vfo and down in the other and turn on split.
Works OK with just a 3 element 2m homebrew beam.
Just a challenge and pleased with the results.

Jay N1FDX

Thanks Dave, you are a weath of knowledge.

In the back of my mind switching from the Butternut to the Hustler won't be a big job but am I being foolish. Will I gain enough to make it worth the work other than the Butternut is a bear to work with.

With the DX Engineering parts you listed above for extended performance 80 meters does that antenna still maintain it's performance on the other bands ??

I've looked at the MFJ antennas and have also thought about there 43ft vertical with a tuner in the shack or remote at the antenna as DX Engineering advertises as one of there packages.

Thanks for the ideas, I will look into those parts at DX Engineering. I'd like the added band width.

Looks like I see a project developing.

I assume those are direct add on / replacment parts for the BTV's

I am thinking about changing to a Hustler, I think it's easy to work with in comparison. I ahve a lot of time into tuning and 17 meters needs a tuner to be useable. I am getting about 50khz below 2:1 on 75 meters with 32 25-30ft radials. I also have a homebrew choke between the 75 ohm matching section and the feedline to the shack.

Thanks again for your reply,

If I understand it right the Hustler is a little more efficient on 75 meters than the Butternut otherwise there about he same. The Hustler them would seem to be a better value even with the add ons for 12 & 17. I think it's construction is a little more robust. What kind of band with would you see on 75, with the Hustler, about the same as the Butternut...Narrow with a modest radial field.

Thanks for your tecnical information. I negleted to add the I was not tring to conpare the R8 to the HF9V on 75 meters. How would the performance tecnicallt play out on the rest of the bands 40-40-15 & 10 betwenn the Butternut and the Hustler ??

Thanks