Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Zero-Five vs. DX-Engineering 43 ft - Build Quality  (Read 6537 times)
KE0Q
Member

Posts: 19




Ignore
« on: January 08, 2013, 12:44:39 PM »

I'm planning on putting up either a Zero-Five or a DX-Engineering 43 ft. vertical antenna.  I want a free-standing antenna and would like to know which of these two antennas have the best mechanical stability.  I live in an area where winds are generally not a problem but could get some ice buildup.  Your input would be greatly appreciated.  73, Tim - KE0Q
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 5893




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2013, 01:04:08 PM »

I studied them at Hamvention and I do like the base mount better on DX. Better design and easier to tilt over.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
A9KW
Member

Posts: 105


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2013, 02:06:54 PM »

I studied them at Hamvention and I do like the base mount better on DX. Better design and easier to tilt over.

What year was that you saw the zerofive there.
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 5893




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2013, 02:58:30 PM »

I studied them at Hamvention and I do like the base mount better on DX. Better design and easier to tilt over.

What year was that you saw the zerofive there.

DX had a sample of a zero 5 mount there last year.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
K3VAT
Member

Posts: 715




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2013, 03:52:18 PM »

I'm planning on putting up either a Zero-Five or a DX-Engineering 43 ft. vertical antenna.  I want a free-standing antenna and would like to know which of these two antennas have the best mechanical stability.  I live in an area where winds are generally not a problem but could get some ice buildup.  Your input would be greatly appreciated.  73, Tim - KE0Q

Tim, 
Both these antennas have been extensively commented upon over the past couple of years.  You can use the eHam search engineer specific for this Forum and spend some time studying the comments/reviews/opinions. 
See: http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php?action=search.  I recommend checking out as many of these as possible, then come back to the Forum with specific questions.  That way your chance of getting meaningful comments is enhanced.  GL, 73, Rich, K3VAT
Logged
A9KW
Member

Posts: 105


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2013, 04:06:25 PM »

I studied them at Hamvention and I do like the base mount better on DX. Better design and easier to tilt over.

What year was that you saw the zerofive there.

DX had a sample of a zero 5 mount there last year.

So they said
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 5893




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2013, 04:32:50 PM »

I studied them at Hamvention and I do like the base mount better on DX. Better design and easier to tilt over.

What year was that you saw the zerofive there.

DX had a sample of a zero 5 mount there last year.

So they said

So they did. Big difference in how it tilts and securing it works. I may have some pics somewhere. Both are well built material wise but like DX tilt base better.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
KB6HRT
Member

Posts: 111




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: January 09, 2013, 05:16:25 AM »

Have been using a 43' Zero 5 for years now, never a problem, ( up-down easy and simple) takes wind no problem! The guy
who owns the company is a prince of a guy and stands behind the antennas 110%.  I brought a Z5 10-40 GP from him an used it until I replaced it with a tower an a mini beam. My Z5 10-40 would do 6-80m using the radios tuner, Great costumer service. There could be better antennas out there but not a better company to deal with overall...............KB6HRT
Logged
WB7TXG
Member

Posts: 21




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: January 09, 2013, 05:53:16 AM »

I purchased the Zero 5 a few years ago (43 ft ) with tilt over base and ordered balun recommended by Tom from DX engineering. We often have several days of high gusty winds here in S Idaho.. Some over 60 mph.. Antenna is mounted in ground per Toms recommendation. Only 16 radials.. I'm lazy.. Antenna has performed flawlessly since install.. You would not be disappointed with either.. Pay attention to the balun or unun you purchase.. I use mine exclusively on 40 but have also used on 80,160...

Tom is very quick to reply to emails should you have questions...
Logged
KF7CSO
Member

Posts: 345




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: January 09, 2013, 07:42:00 AM »

It seem to be a six of one, half dozen of another type of deal. Both are very well built and from great companies. I ended up buying a Zero-Five because of the owner. He answered every call prior to and after the sale personally. Tom is very hands on.

I live at the base of the Sierra Nevada range and get wind gusts of up to 80 mph now and then. Sometimes I neglect to tilt the antenna down but it survives.
Logged

Eric
KF5RGB
Member

Posts: 16




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: January 10, 2013, 01:13:45 PM »

Personally I went with the ZeroFive, buddy of mine went with the DX Engineering model and in all honesty from what I could tell they are very simular. As far as the tilt mounts go DX Engineering's is made of 3/16" stainless vs 3/8" aluminum for the ZeroFive making it double the thickness. And one other thing, we both went with remote tuners at the base of the antennas, from what I've read going with a local tuner at your radio causes a lot of feedline losses thereby reducing the amount of transmit power avaiable to the antenna.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 01:30:31 PM by KF5RGB » Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 5893




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: January 10, 2013, 01:35:35 PM »

Well even 3/16 SS is stronger than 3/8 aluminum here. But that aside I like how DX tilts because you do not have to removed bolts like on a zero 5. The are both well built otherwise.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
KF5RGB
Member

Posts: 16




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: January 10, 2013, 02:00:15 PM »

That could be debatable depending on the grade of metal being used but whatever......
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 5893




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: January 11, 2013, 08:38:50 AM »

That could be debatable depending on the grade of metal being used but whatever......

I have worked with a lot of aluminum alloys. Stiffer alloys are more prone to crack when over stressed and also more prone to corrode. Because of this they use thicker softer alloys.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
KF5RGB
Member

Posts: 16




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: January 14, 2013, 12:12:34 PM »

Personally I'd be a whole lot more concerned about the antenna (either one) giving away due to the wind & collapsing than I would about the mount! I would think the chance of either mount failing you would be virtually nonexistent. As far as which one is better seems more like a matter of personal opinion, I debated both of them & bought the one I found the best deal on. To the best of my knowledge their both pretty much equal & built to similar specs from what I can tell. The only complaint I have about any of the 43 ft verticals is they require the additional expense of a remote tuner to get the best signal strength out of them & avoid any losses in the coax.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 12:41:54 PM by KF5RGB » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!