Just getting back into HF, and I'm trying to get an antenna up on my
small lot which backs up to a hillside. There are two locations
available without erecting more infrastructure. One would be about 20
feet up at the base of the hill, and the other is about 50 feet up the
hill, but only 10 feet off the ground.

So the question: Is it more important to have the antenna farther
from ground, or father up the hill but closer to ground?

In the future, I'd love to put a tall antenna at the tallest part of
the hill, but I'm looking for something temporary right now.

Thanks.

--
Lance Orner -- K7API

Lance,
The 'first' thing that comes to mind is to get the antenna
as high as possible. Then theres the 'second' thing that comes
to mind which is which is going to be more practical to do? I'd
go for the highest to start with. Nothing says you can't change
it later.
'Doc

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 20:25:34 GMT, Lance Orner wrote:

Just getting back into HF, and I'm trying to get an antenna up on my
small lot which backs up to a hillside. There are two locations
available without erecting more infrastructure. One would be about 20
feet up at the base of the hill, and the other is about 50 feet up the
hill, but only 10 feet off the ground.

So the question: Is it more important to have the antenna farther
from ground, or father up the hill but closer to ground?

In the future, I'd love to put a tall antenna at the tallest part of
the hill, but I'm looking for something temporary right now.

Thanks.

FWIW, the centers of my dipoles are near the top of a 40' tower near
the top of a hill behind my house. The ends of the 160m dipole are
about 8' off the ground, but about 60' to 80' below the base of the
tower. It works, but I don't have anything to compare it to. It's
the only mounting option I have unless I want to get a couple of
push-up masts to elevate the ends of the dipoles more. (They would
still end up below the base of the tower.

73,
Ed