|
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
|
|
You can
write your own review of the TGM Communications Hybrid Quad.
|
GD7JWR
|
Rating: 5/5
|
Sep 9, 2011 14:52
|
Send this review to a friend
|
|
MQ26SR
|
Time owned: more than 12 months
|
The MQ-26SR i have owned for over four years, but it was taken down 12 months ago because of a change in qth,
since then i have been using a vertical and wire antennas including a g5rv which i think are a very noisy antenna, over the past two weeks the tower as been errected and the 26sr put back up, i can only say good things about this antenna, price is great, weight, looks and results are all great, no this is not a full size beam but i am sure you wont be dissapointed
|
|
2E1MPC
|
Rating: 5/5
|
Oct 12, 2010 00:22
|
Send this review to a friend
|
|
tgm/mq1 hybrid
|
Time owned: 6 to 12 months
|
|
Having tested this aerial against ma5b , i found it to be equal in performance, and much easier on the eye , up at 15 meters above ground it hears stations my doublet doesnt on 20m , front to back rejection isnt great, but what do you expect from the design and size ,, I wouldnt swap mine for a gold pig ,,,, mike m0mpc
|
|
ZS1BOB
|
Rating: 4/5
|
Apr 2, 2010 08:08
|
Send this review to a friend
|
|
TGM 36SQR
|
Time owned: more than 12 months
|
I bought the 36SR 5 yrs ago. I have a small property and my tower is situated at the rear corner of my home. A larger beam would have projected over the property of 2 neighbours. The TGM is ideal for my requirements.
I'm not going to expand on the merits & faults of this antenna, I accept that it is a compromise.
It does seem to work well enough.
I did notice that at 10m height it sometimes works equally well off the side. the tower has been upgraded to 12m, I expect that the side-effect will diminish. It does have Quad characteristics, after all.
The advice I would give to someone assembling it is to fill the spoke holes with a Silicone grease or an anti-seize compound ie. COPASLIP etc.
My TGM spent some time on the ground & was moved around through some shrubs by builders resulting in bent & broken spokes.
I found Tom to be quick to respond to e-mail queries and to be very helpful.
The adjustable spokes can be replaced with an aluminium welding rod of the same total length.
I used a brazing rod to replace a missing adjustable spoke on the reflector. I don't think that it will make a noticeable difference.
I did find that after 5 yrs, some of the screws holding the spokes needed to be retightened.
Thanks to the Silicone grease, the area of the spokes held by the screws were still shiny, despite corrosion on the outside.
I think that the screws loosen slightly due to temperature, expansion & contraction. The same happens to PL259's - I fill my plugs with Silicone grease and nip them tight with waterpump pliers, wipe them clean and tape them with vulcanizing tape, never had a loose plug or water egress in 10 yrs.
I would also use grease or anti-seize on the adjustable spokes during assembly, I find that after 5 yrs, some of the spokes have seized in the adjuster but still have electrical continuity.
I did consider replacing the spoke screws with stainless Allen cap screws, but here in South Africa, the American thread Allen Caps cost a fortune, so scrub that idea.
I found the boom to be a bit flexible & replaced it with a thicker-walled tube - I also mounted a short section of the same tube on the side (rear) of the boom to mount the reflector, thereby lining up the reflector with rest of the elements.
The reflector is usually slightly offset because it is mounted onto the rear of the boom & the elements are mounted under or above the boom.
Repositioning might lower the SWR slightly, and then might not - still works fine.Have just finished the service, will get it onto the tower soon, the bands are calling.
|
|
M1DPE
|
Rating: 3/5
|
Sep 19, 2009 05:29
|
Send this review to a friend
|
|
nothing heard
|
Time owned: 3 to 6 months
|
|
have had the mq-1 for 6 months but have not heard a lot with it so far it is at 30ft. but then the bands have not been that good so far.
|
|
VE2YMM
|
Rating: 5/5
|
Jul 15, 2009 19:34
|
Send this review to a friend
|
|
2nd Review. More information about this antenna
|
Time owned: more than 12 months
|
I own this antenna (MQ-24SR) since 1 year now, and I have some points to precise. I've done a lot of tests and compare with different other YAGI's antennas, and frankly speaking, for the size, this antenna is equivalent to others bigger quad 2 (or 3) elements antennas. Reception is better on the tuned bands than my very sensible dynamic loop (Wellbrook ALA1530S+), whatever the direction of this antenna is! In 20, 15 and 10 meters it is a great antenna, with a little bit shortest bandwidth, (normal for a compact antenna).
* The best results for me are for the 15 meters, low SWR (1.17:1) and good gain (22.10 dB @ 21.280MHz).
* On 20m., I Tuned my antenna for 14.150MHz (SWR 1.95:1) with 9.86dB
* And the 10m. (SWR @ 1.33:1) for 17.01dB.
* On 6 m., I've got some problems because the central frequency is tuned around 46MHz instead of 52MHz (50 to 54MHz). I use a small modification (Thanks to Tom) and add a trap (lambda/4) to improve the SWR, and results has been a little bit improved. Tests gives 3 curves with central frequencies at 45.850MHz (1.26:1 with large bandwidth), 50.350 (2.63:1 very short bandwidth) and 50.950 (1.43:1 very short bandwidth). Because I listen Often 50.125MHz, this modification is perfect for me ... but this antenna is not done to be tuned for the 6m.
Note all this tests has been done with 150 ft. of coax. LMR400 @ around 30 ft. from ground. Later, this antenna will be installed between 50 and 60 ft. from ground using a rotor.
Using a good tuner resolve of course all of this little imperfections... In General, this is a good antenna for a very compact size.
73 de Yves
ve2ymm.com
|
|
VA3VY
|
Rating: 2/5
|
Jul 6, 2009 17:52
|
Send this review to a friend
|
|
NOT IMPRESSED AT ALL
|
Time owned: more than 12 months
|
I too, am quite perplexed as WB4PAP was on all the high ratings this antenna has garnered.
It would seem that most reviewers have never experienced a full size directional antenna.
I have had the misfortune of moving from a large country acreage with multiple high towers, beams, delta loops ect., ect. to a small city type lot.
I decided to go with the TGM and a G5RV. 90% of the time the there is no noticeable difference between the G5RV and TGM on 10, 15 & 20M.
90% of the time it doesn't matter what direction the beam is pointing either, the signal is still the same.
In all farness to TGM, this antenna looks most like a TV antenna and that's why I bought it (but that is becoming a mute point now) so the neighbors would be none the wiser.
It also gives some performance on the WARC bands.
But knowing what I know now, and reading ALL the antenna reviews, I'm keeping my eye out for a small cubical quad or a hex beam and putting the TGM on eBay.
73's Rick
|
|
VE3TWM
|
Rating: 5/5
|
Jan 28, 2009 17:52
|
Send this review to a friend
|
|
A Solid Compact Antenna Choice
|
Time owned: more than 12 months
|
About 4 years ago I moved into the house I now live in. At my previous residence I had used first a Cushcraft R5 at 30 feet, then an Antennas and More G5RV installed as an inverted V with apex at 30 feet and the ends at 8 feet and 12 feet respectively. I made contacts with both antennas, but I wanted something more effective for the new place. The idea of having a directional HF antenna also appealed to me.
After reading many reviews on the various models available, I purchased the TGM MQ-24SR in the fall of 2004. While expensive, it had a small footprint which made it ideal for my mounting location (my tower is only 5 feet away from my property line). I stretched my budget to get the MQ-24SR; in retrospect I regret I was not able to spend the extra and get the model which also covers 17m and 12m.
The antenna took me about twelve hours to assemble, working a couple of hours a night after work for 6 nights. I know others have built theirs more quickly, but I intentionally took my time. The manual does need a serious overhaul. I found some of illustrations difficult to read.
To tune the antenna, I mounted the assembled antenna on a 5 foot mast inserted into a cast iron umbrella stand. Knowing that I would be using an automatic antenna tuner, I didn’t tune it too carefully. I was able to bring the resonant points inside the three bands without much effort.
Once tuned, I put it on top on a 30’ Delhi TV tower with a heavy duty Channel Master TV rotator. I used a DX Engineering DXE-BAL050-H05-P Balun. Once installed, the SWR did not change from my measurements on the ground
4 years later, the antenna is still up and intact. It has seen some fierce wind and ice, but as near as I can tell, has suffered no damage at all. The SWR remains very close to where it was the day the Mini-Quad was erected. I’m not surprised as there was no question when I built it that the materials were solid.
I will note here and now I am neither a contester nor a DXer. I am perhaps amongst the most casual of Hams. 99% of my time with the radio is spent listening to other operators when the bands are open. I will occasionally sit down for a few hours during a contest to log contacts via search and pounce. I use lower end radio gear; most of the contacts made with the TGM were made with an Icom IC-706 Mk IIG through an LDG Autotuner (at first an AT-11MP and more recently an AT-100Pro). The antenna is connected through approximately 50 feet of RG-8U cable. I do not use a station ground (based upon the opinions of 3 different tower installers that I have used over the years – all were of the opinion that a grounded system would be more likely to attract lightning than deter it).
Given the fact we have been at the low end of the solar cycle since the antenna went up, my only real observations are with regard to performance on the 20m band. I just have not been on the air often enough to spend significant time on the 15m and 10m bands while they have been open.
It is my impression that the TGM is a quieter antenna than either the R5 or the G5RV; while at the same time delivering higher signal strengths on receive. I have found the difference to be noticeable rather than dramatic. When I respond to CQs, I routinely have the other operator come back to me and it usually does not take very long to get through a pileup. Of course, there are times when I can’t get through the pile up or be heard by the other station. This antenna does allow me to make more contacts but it is not a magic bullet that works everything.
Initially my biggest disappointment with the Mini-Quad was its lack of directivity on 20m. I have also done testing on signals on both 15m and 10m and observed the same results. I can spin the antenna 360 degrees and the received signal strength may go up or down 2 or 3 S-Units as the direction changes but that's it. Last year I had another 10 foot section added to the tower to see if the directivity would be improved but to no avail. Yes, the antenna is up in the clear with no nearby obstructions. At this point I have actually disconnected the rotator control box and am using the antenna as an omni. I will add that I have come to terms with this and I am in no way unhappy with the antenna’s performance otherwise. I actually prefer not having to worry about whether I am missing something should the antenna be pointed in the wrong direction.
The last piece of information I will impart is an A-B receiving test I did with the TGM and a Par End-Fedz EF-20 last summer. The Par antenna was installed with the fed end at about 35 feet on the tower, sloping down to a 20 foot Jackite pole in the backyard. On two consecutive evenings I monitored more than 20 stations in both the US and Europe and found the signals were (in the vast majority of cases) within 1 or 2 S-Units of each other. In some instances signals received with the Par had the better signal strength and sometimes the TGM had the edge. It should be noted that the Par is designed for 20m and in the case of the TGM, 20m is expected to be its weakest band due to the antenna’s physical size. If your primary interest is in the 20m band, the Par may be a better (and much more cost effective) choice. Until the sunspots come back, I just won’t know about 15m and 10m.
I have written this in the hope that I can add to the knowledge base gathered on the TGM MQ-24SR. I am satisfied with its performance, its durability and its small size. I like having an antenna that can accommodate three bands with a single feedline that is resonant across most of the bands that it covers. In my case, it fits my needs.
|
|
VE2YMM
|
Rating: 5/5
|
Nov 29, 2008 17:07
|
Send this review to a friend
|
|
Easy to mount and great performances
|
Time owned: 0 to 3 months
|
Fantastic dipole ! I'm using the MQ-24SR model and didn't have big experience with this kind of antenna. I can say the performances are really impressive. I'm using it most of the time in 20m., and do DX nearly every day with Europe! I live in town (Montreal, Canada), so space is a little bit limited. Antenna is around 15m. (50 foot) from the ground, using a rotor.
Cons. Price is a little bit high and SWR a bit high in 6m.
|
|
N2QQF
|
Rating: 3/5
|
Apr 28, 2008 13:13
|
Send this review to a friend
|
|
Just OK (at best)
|
Time owned: more than 12 months
|
I reviewed this antenna previously and decided to write an honest review again after giving it some considerable thought and lessons learned. I had this antenna (MQ-36) up about 30-40 feet in the air and I had my G5RV and other wire dipoles located about 60+ feet in the air smoked which I may add smoked this antenna hands down. My G5RV and other dipoles was about a good (3-5) S-units better on every signal on everyband except for 10 & 6 meters where the MQ-36 performed at its best.
This is very much a compromise antenna and will not give you the performace normally found with a full sized beam. This antenna has alot of quirks with it such as required height as well as a few other issues but overall you are not going to get the perforomace of a full sized beam or half wave wire. Put two wires in the sky and have one in North / South direction and the other in a East / West fasion and it would be certainly alot cheaper than this price and i can assure you the wire at 50' will perform better. I would hate to have soemone else buy this beam and expect a miracle that isn't going to happen and spend alot of their hard earned money doing it. The antenna quality was very good and durable that is for sure.
A full sized beam isnt that much bigger but it is also alot less noticable than this antenna which sticks out quite a bit. The rear element is quite big and cumbersum. All I can say is take your time and spend your money wisely and remember a full size tribander will work great and isn't that much bigger. So before you throw alot of money into the beam take the time and think unless you have no choice in space. If this is the case you might want to try the MA5B by cushcraft. Again, I have no issues with the company as they seem responsive to questions but the prices they charge are a bit astronomical for what you are getting.
I am not the stereo typical cheap ham that doesnt spend money. I have spent lots of money on gear, most great and a few not so good items. I would hope you take my advise with some consideration in order to do your research. No one likes to admit they have garbage or bought something that isn't good so notice I am writing my review after it is gone.
|
|
WB8ISG
|
Rating: 5/5
|
Jun 21, 2007 23:42
|
Send this review to a friend
|
|
Excellent antenna!
|
Time owned: 0 to 3 months
|
Since my "restricted covenant" is the XYL, I needed a small profile antenna. Since this one (MQ-26) looks like a TV antenna on steroids, it was acceptable--a full size beam, tower etc. was NOT.
The antenna arrived in a narrow long box--partially assembled and just a matter of repositioning items to get the majority together. The instructions are very sraightforward. The antenna is mounted on a fiberglas mast @40' via a chimney mount; an inverted "V" dipole is mounted lower on the same mast. The rotator is a heavy duty TV type and is very adequate for this antenna (and inexpensive on EBay). Performance is better than I expected--I'm quite critical, and having taught Physics and Astronomy at the local university, I tend to be very objective about wild performance claims. Since I run a lot of digital modes (PSK31, SSTV,etc.), you can actually see the difference in quality (less noise in SSTV images, very strong "waterfalls")with and without the beam, as well as very good directionality. There is no question I can pick up stations and work them better than with my dipole--New Zealand on 17M, most of Europe on 20m, etc. Where the signal may be unintelligble using the dipole, this beam will lift the signal enough to make an "impossible" station almost routine. Just yesterday while sending an SSTV pic to a US ham, an eastern Russian station broke in to tell me my signal was "5 and 8"! Unsolicited and the first time that has ever happened to me!
Remember, this is not a full size beam, but a great compromise. I'm very happy with this purchase, and Tom McKay (owner/manufacturer)is a pleasure to deal with (always cheerful and AVAILABLE). Don't hesitate to email me for more info--and I'd be glad to send you a few pics of my installation.
|
|
If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions about Reviews,
please email your Reviews Manager.
|
|
|
|
|
