Call Search

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Friends Remembered
Survey Question

DX Cluster Spots

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

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
Author Topic: Vertical comparisons  (Read 2806 times)

Posts: 343

« on: April 05, 2013, 06:56:16 PM »

How do the "radialless" verticals, like the R5, R7000, MA5V, Gap ones, compare in performance to the standard 1/4 wave verticals that are roof mounted with radials?  Does one tend to outperform the other?  I am looking how each performs for DXing and longer haul communications.

73 John AF5CC

Posts: 1757

« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2013, 07:33:21 PM »

I had a 5BTV here and did not have a lot of radials. I can say that compared to my Cushcraft R-8, it was a dummy load.

I sold it before I got the R-8 so I never did get a full compliment of radials under it.

I suspect that over a proper radial field, they would be quite comparable.

73 de N4CR, Phil

Never believe an atom. They make up everything.

Posts: 179

« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2013, 08:22:31 PM »


If you want some objective information comparing verticals check out:

HF Vertical performance and test methods and results available through Champion Radio Products.

Written by Ward Silver N0AX and Steve Morris K7LXC. They compared quite a number of verticals (6BTV, Butternut, R8, CP6, Gap Titan and others) against full quarter wave reference vertical antennas over a 64 radial ground screen. (They have a picture of the helium balloon lifting the 80 meter wire thats kind of cool). They carefully detail their test methods which is something I found very educational. I believe the book answers your very questions and understanding test methods will help anyone in discerning the available data.

I love discussing antennas with other ops, because there's nothing like talking to someone who owns a particular model to find out details about how they hold up in actual use, what parts fall off first  Grin and how the customer service was. But the comment "if I can hear them I can work them" that you often hear probably doesn't really answer your questions. 

A generic comment: If you are looking for an antenna that "does well" on 80-10, the Butternut 6 band and Hustler 6BTV tended to lead the pack because the other antennas either didn't have 80 meters (R-8) or were well behind these two in measured gain. (IIRC the Titans 80 meter gain against reference was something like -19 dB, way behind all the others) Remember that these two were tested over a pretty decent radial system. If you are looking for something that covers 40-10 the R8 fared well on most bands but that was a "tighter" race in terms of gain measured. You should seriously think about what bands you wish to cover, how much money you wish to spend, how much room you have, then look at the data to see what fits.

Good luck 73 de WB0FDJ Doc


Posts: 2276

« Reply #3 on: April 06, 2013, 10:08:52 AM »

The analysis of a flat plane ground mounted radial system is useful but,There is one viable variance that deserves a comparison with the quarter wave family of vertical radon's and that is to include an elevated sloping radial system consisting of 4 symmetrically distributed IE a (+). tuned 1/4 wave radials. *note not horizontal radials equally distributed but sloped radials of equal distribution.
The results will indicate that the antenna system will respond positively to the addition of active, sloped, tuned, elevated radial systems because the radials DO contribute to added radiation Field strengths out in the far Field IF the ground clutter. The definition of this particular technique is center fed dipole because the lower second half as in a dipole is split into 4 equal parts and when the slope angle is greater than 45 degrees they radiate adding power to the far Field pattern.
Pages: [1]   Go Up
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!