| KO5Y |
Rating:      |
2003-08-10 | |
| 160, 80, 40 and 20 meter vertical |
Time Owned: more than 12 months. |
I have had my Voyager IV since 1991 and while it is beat by almost anything on 20 meters, it is a real performer on 80 and 40 meters. Certainly while there are better 160 mtr. antennas, it is without question the best 160 meter that I have ever owned. I have tried many manufactured antennas for 160 and they are poor compared to the Voyager. Bandwidth is as described in the manual. My suggestion if you think that moving your Voyager to a different location is in the future, please tighten a self tapping screw through each hole without the tubes being mated prior to assembly. Then remove the screws supplied by Gapp from each aluminum tube. Next use a small round file to insert on the inside of each tube where previously a screw had been inserted. This removes the horrible burr that results when one first drives a screw into an aluminum tube. Then when you first assemble the antenna the reinsertion of each screw does not make nearly if any burrs as the pieces are fitted together. Then when moving time comes, it is much easier to remove the tubes from one another after taking the screws out.
I have worked over 120 countries on 80 meters with my Voyager in a combined CW and SSB mode.
Over 80 countries on 40 meters are documented in a similar mode configuration. Six countries have been worked on 160.
The fellows at Gapp are wonderful with cooperation and support for any problems or replacement parts.
So I can highly recommend this vertical. |
|
| W7LVC |
Rating:  |
2003-05-02 | |
| Very poor antenna |
Time Owned: 6 to 12 months. |
I purchased the Voyager IV and proceeded to install it precisely as shown in the manual. I have 5 acres and selected a spot where it was at the highest elevation on the property and on a level spot. Guys were exactly as instructed, as was assembly and radials, even to the point of using RG-58 for the radials as Gap used.
Aside from the presence of a few trees some distance away from the antenna, I can't think of anything that could possibly be done to make the installation more perfect. SWR looks good, coax is brand new 213, assembly was double checked for accuracy, but the %$*@ thing just doesn't work very well. Sure I get some unexciting contacts, but I could probably get that throwing a wire out the window and not even tuning it.
If you do it right, this antenna is a lot of work to get together and then erect, which is in itself a feat. I can now see that the manufacturer's claims are grossly inflated. It is useless on 160 (one of the main reasons I bought it) and poor on 80. 40 is OK, but I can spend a lot less and get better antennas for 40. 20 is poor. I talked to the manufacturer and even they admitted the antenna is not really a 160 meter antenna, unfortunately this was after I had purchased and erected it. If it isn't a 160 antenna, why advertise it as such.
I have used Hy-gain and Hustler verticals (not on 160) and they performed immensely better than this Gap. There are a lot of other negative reviews on this antenna, so a word to the wise.
If you're in the market for a new antenna, steer clear of this one, and perhaps Gap antenas entirely. Their claims to having "discovered" an entirely new technology is bull. What they've discovered is a new way to separate hams from 400 plus dollars and give them very little in return. |
|
| chris carroll |
Rating:      |
2003-04-14 | |
| OUTSTANDING |
Time Owned: more than 12 months. |
I have had the voyager operating in Sydney for 1 year and now in vk1. The antenna was easy to put together and the instructions were precise and logically laid out.The sheer size of this vertical spells good performance on the low bands and on 75/80m this antenna easily out performed an 80m dipole at 55'. The signal to noise ratio on receive is excellent and the antenna was under 2 to 1 swr from 3.5 to 3.8mhz.On 160m the voyager was adequate and is very dependant on conditions however working around vk and zl was no problem. On 40m the antenna is an excellent dx performer and is only 5db down on a 40m dipole at55' but once again is quieter on receive and seems to suffer less man made noise that a quarter wave vertical mounted 5' above ground. The swr was almost flat across the band from 7mhz to 7.3mhz.On 20m the voyager works but is at least 12db down from a 6 ele log yagi at 42' but allows a low band op to play on 20m as the manufacturer intended. The support from Gap is outstanding and both Rich and Chris are professional and competent people who enjoy good customer relations. This Antenna is a superior vertical to all other multi-band verticals i have owned. There is no tuning required, the antenna is highly efficient(90%),and resonant and is well made and designed. I would highly recommend this vertical for those wanting to work the low bands who have space or height limitations. Thanks to Gap for finally designing an efficient and superior vertical antenna.
Cheers from Chris. |
|
| AC5E |
Rating:    |
2002-06-28 | |
| flexible, but not really flimsy |
Time Owned: more than 12 months. |
Yes the Voyager is flexible; about as flexible as an equivalent length of PVC. But with caution and a little help you can get it up and guyed off. Getting it up is a little like driving on ice. Do nothing suddenly!
My Voyager has been up more than five years, through a hurricane and several 100 MPH plus winds. And it's still up. I have mine guyed at about 15, 30, and at the top, with parachute cord.
It works adequately on 160, although a 140 feet of Rohn 25 would be better. It's sure better than the loaded 160 Meter dipole I also have up.
It's better on 80, I have worked several DX stations with 10 Watts or less.
It's better yet on 40, although I don't work 40 much.
It doesn't do on 30, and I have never tried it on 20 so cannot make a comment about those bands.
73 Pete Allen AC5E |
|
| KC5TJG |
Rating:   |
2002-06-28 | |
| Flimsy |
Time Owned: more than 12 months. |
I've written a review for this antenna before and rated it 5 stars based on its excellent performance. However, I noted in that review, and other reviewers have also noted, that the antenna is pretty easily destroyed by strong winds. I've just lost my second Voyager in less than 2 years. Sorry, but an antenna that has to be replaced every year or so and that costs as much as this one isn't for me! In hindsight, the signs that the antenna are structurally unsound are abundant. When lifting the antenna up, it bends over in a great big arc and just when you think it's going to buckle, it springs up into position. An adequate mast wouldn't bend like this. Too, look at how many of the reviewers mention that their Voyagers came down in storms. What we ought to be reading is that the Voyager survived, not succumbed, to high winds. If you buy this antenna do yourself a big favor and guy it at at least 3, maybe 4 points. This advice, along with sturdier construction, is something that GAP should provide.
----------------------
Earlier 5-star review posted by KC5TJG on 2002-04-15
I just put up my second Gap Voyager, the first having been bent double by 85-90 mph wind gusts. (Maybe these beasts would benefit from a third set of guy lines.) Like another reviewer, my choice to buy a second Voyager was based on great success with the first. I use the antenna primarily on 80 and 40. If you want to operate at the low end of 80 meters, be sure to make your own counterpoise--61 ft works well for me--rather than the 57 ft recommended in the manual. To lower the SWR at the bottom of 40 meters, I replaced the jumper wire on the bottom section of the 40-meter tuner rod with a 2-1/2 foot length of 1/2 inch tinned copper braid. (The 40-meter rod is the one that goes the furthest down toward the ground.) One more suggestion: replace the metal clamps that attach the very short (3-in) insulators to the mast with something nonconductive, like nylon cable ties. My first antenna arced over at 1500 watts on 40 meters until I did this.) The antenna works like a dream on 80 and 40. On 160 meters, the Voyager is a bit weak, but it is still superior on both transmit and receive to my inverted-V 160 meter Carolina Windom from Radio Works. For 160, though, you're better off with an inverted-L (mine has only 30 radials.) I seldom use the Voyager on 20 meters; almost anything does a better job on that band. But keep in mind that this is built to be a low band antenna.
As for putting the thing up, the other reviewers are a bunch of sissies! My wife and I put this thing up by ourselves! Just push it up SLOWLY with your helper pulling by the lower set of guys!! It bends like crazy before it finally lifts off and swings into the vertical position. |
|
| AA5CH |
Rating:    |
2002-04-16 | |
| Jury still out here |
Time Owned: more than 12 months. |
My Voyager has been up for over one year now, and I still haven't decided if I like it or not.
I experienced some difficulty in assembly. The instructions were very cryptic at times. On several occasions, I had to drill new holes because those of some mating sections did not align properly. The heads of several of the sheet metal screws twisted off during tightening, using both a cordless screwdriver and the supplied manual nut driver.
One end of one of the lower sections was damaged in shipping and I didn't notice until after sliding two sections together and tightening the screws. When I realized the end opposite to the one I had just secured was bent and would not mate with the next section, I attempted to disassemble the first two sections.
Apparently, cuttings from the sheet metal screws and the mast sections became wedged between the two sections and I was physically unable to break the interference fit...even using a bench mounted vice grip, plumber's wrenches, and some 250 pounds of angry ham. I had to order two replacement sections instead of one. Had I been a bit more observant, I might have avoided that situation, but I'm now concerned that the antenna cannot be disassembled should I ever want to move it to another location or sell it! Perhaps prepping the mating sections with some kind of conductive grease would help.
I set landscape timbers in quickcrete for the guy supports, and the result is a pretty nice looking installation. I used a small waterproof PVC junction box and flex conduit to protect the coax where it exits the ground and mates with the Voyager's coax. I liberally applied silicon sealant wherever an electrical connection is made.
Installing the antenna went well, and after the counterpoises were attached and buried, the resonant points and bandwidth were very close to those suggested in the manual.
In fairness to the Voyager, the antenna I compare it to is one that those who would purchase and install a Voyager would generally not be able to erect....a 40-50 foot high 160 meter doublet fed in the center with ladder line.
To date, I have seen little or no evidence that the Voyager outperforms the doublet on any frequency. I need additional evaluation on DX signals on 80 and 40, where the Voyager should have an advantage. I want it to be better, but it hasn't been obvious to me yet.
The Voyager has survived several significant thunderstorms and some icing with no physical damage; however, a static discharge or lightning strike did damage the top loading capacitor. Although I had to get help to get the antenna down and back up, replacing the capacitor only took a couple of minutes and it wasn't a terribly expensive part. I have recently experienced front end damage to a general coverage receiver connected to the Voyager..this even though I "religiously" disconnect and ground all antennas when storms are in the forecast. I am suspicious that because the Voyager "floats" above ground electrically, it MAY be more prone to static discharges. Perhaps others can address this possibility.
In summary...the Voyager was a little difficult to assemble, but some of that difficulty was my fault. I took care to install it per the recommendations in the manual and was rewarded with SWR and bandwidth specs very close to those claimed. I have seen little evidence that the Voyager significantly outperforms a 160 meter center fed doublet (zepp, if you will) at a similar height. However, I acknowledge that one factor in selecting a Voyager would be a lack of space for stringing up 260 feet of wire.
I'm not trying to contradict the previous reviews. I have been witholding judgement, and still haven't reached a final conclusion, but when I saw the recent posts, I thought it might be time to share what I had so far.
73,
Brad
AA5CH
|
|
| K8DXX |
Rating:      |
2002-04-15 | |
| Confirmation of Previous Review |
Time Owned: more than 12 months. |
I am a confirmed Voyager IV junkie. It is a good/quiet listener and really gets through on 80 and 40. I also lost my second Voyager in an early March windstorm here in Michigan (sustained winds of 80+ mph). Fortunately, I was able to combine pieces from my first antenna with parts from the 2nd to make the thing fly again. I also discovered an arching problem on the shortest stand-offs. GAP was aware of the problem and recommended affixing the standoffs with the "screw thing" outside the insulator, thus increasing the space between the hose clamp and the very hot end of the tuner rod.
Truth be told, my 2nd GAP was not a mechanical failure. It was due to the parting of a lower guy rope, one that was 10 years old... clearly my fauly. BTW... I have gone with the thinner Kevlar guy rope from Radioworks. Its not quite as strong but doesn't stretch like dacron.
Also, GAP tech support has always been there for me. Great foldk to deal with.
Bill / K8DXX
----------------------
Earlier 5-star review posted by K8DXX on 1999-09-18
I am now on my second Voyager IV. The first one was uprooted and bent in half by a tornado. So you can assume I think a lot of these antennas because I erected a second! Assembly on the ground is straightforward. Instructions and labeling are generally OK. Some times, the pre-drilled holes don't line up but that's not problem with this type of aluminum. The base consists of two 30 inch aluminum "angle irons" that you drive into the soil. The antenna sits on a big SS bolt that is insulated from the base by nylon bushings. Before raising, make sure that the capacitor at the top is connected! Most Voyagers are shipped to resonate at 1850 on 160, You can special order other caps/160 meter freqs. Putting it up is a chore. You need 4 - 5 people (brave ones). The antenna is totally un-self supporting as it is guyed at 2 levels to four points on the ground (I used big Rohn tower anchors but that's overkill). As stated, the counterpoise can be run in any direction. Bandwith at my QTH on 160 (120 Khz.) 80, 40, 20 (full band). As a listener, the Voyager is quiet. 160 performance seems only "so-so". On 80, it stomps. I broke the Heard Is. DXpedition running 100 watts in the 80 meter DX window. 40 is equally spectacular. 20... well, its there. All in all, its a great performer and can withstand any weather, except tornadoes. 73 |
|
| K9UVK |
Rating:     |
2002-02-28 | |
| Better than expected |
Time Owned: 6 to 12 months. |
I installed the Voyager six months ago; I was looking for an adequate antenna for 80 that would also let me do some operating on 160. All of the reviews indicated that it does poorly on 160 but, since I couldn't put up a wire, I decided to "settle" for the vertical.
On 80, I have worked into all continents on CW and into Europe, Africa, Central and South America on SSB.
160 has been a pleasant surprise. In the six months, I have worked 42 states and a number of "close-in" countries, primarily on CW. Last night I even busted a 160 meter SSB pileup to work TI9M, with only 200 watts. While it will never be a super hot DX antenna, I feel that I did get my money's worth.
I don't use the antenna on 20 or 40 as I have a 10-15-20-40 meter beam at 72 feet and a 12-17-30 meter beam at 85 feet. |
|
| SM0MFG |
Rating:      |
2001-05-17 | |
| New dimension! |
Time Owned: 0 to 3 months. |
Although there was a part missing in the box and the struggle with the erection of this monster-vertical, Its worth all effort! I live between two hills and due to the lenght of this antenna I now have possibility to reach out. The first station copied on 80m was VK9NS calling CQ! I answered direct with one call barefoot with 100Watts and he came back to me!
Next QSO was 5H3RK working split and again I busted the pile-up with only 100Watts!
Have worked a little on 40m, 3B6RFand some other DX and It kicks ass!
On 20m It performs as any other vertical I used before and 160m is not tested yet.
Reason for buying was DX 40/80 work for me. Expensive in Sweden, maybe better to order from Germany If You live in Sweden!! |
|
| AB7CE |
Rating:   |
2001-03-25 | |
| Not what advertised |
Time Owned: 0 to 3 months. |
| Purchased a Voyager DX recently based on their advertised specs. Works as advertised on 80 and 40 mtrs. But any other antenna will beat it hands down on 20 and 160 mtrs, especially 160. The bandwith on 160 barely makes 60khz. They advertise at least 90khz at less than 2:1. With a simple 160mtr dipole up 30ft, you will hear 5-9 signals that dissappear when you switch to the Voyager. Transmitting is just as pitifull, even at its 1:1.5 sweet spot. The quality of materials seems very good. Should not be called a 160mtr antenna by any standard, however. E-mails to GAP about peaking 160 have gone unanswered. Will probably try converting it to a center loaded vertical for 160, 80 and 40 mtrs. |
|