Manager


Manager - NA4M
Manager Notes

Reviews For: Q-TEK PENETRATOR

Category: Antennas: HF: Verticals; Wire; Loop

eMail Subscription

Registered users are allowed to subscribe to specific review topics and receive eMail notifications when new reviews are posted.
Review Summary For : Q-TEK PENETRATOR
Reviews: 13MSRP: 305
Description:
1.8 to 30MHz HF Vertical, 15 feet high, no ATU or ground radials required, 200W PEP
Product is in production
More Info: http://
# last 180 days Avg. Rating last 180 days Total reviews Avg. overall rating
00131.3
MW3MCD Rating: 2002-03-31
An Expensive Time Owned: 0 to 3 months.
Having read the Advertising "Blurb" I decided that this Antenna was ok for my restricted HF location. What an expensive mistake."S" readings are many points down on the 1/2 Size G5RV. Stations at S5 on the G5RV cannot be heard on the Q-TEK.A 6 foot Earthing Rod has been used on the Q-TEK.Matching is ok , so is a Dummy Load.
EI0ARS Rating: 2002-03-14
Not as good as i hoped Time Owned: 6 to 12 months.
The first thing i noticed about the penetrator is that it is of very poor construction. It is cheaply built and i would not have bought it if i had seen it before laying down my money. I thought it would be fibre glass but it wasn't it is aluminimum wrapped in a plastic coating.

It needs a good earth and will not work well without being properly grounded. There is a warning on the instructions that water pipes etc will not suffice.

On the air performance was ok not as good as expected it was a bit better than my long wire on the higher bands and not as good as the long wire on the lower bands. However the Penetrator cost a lot more than my long wire!! I would'nt buy one again and i will be replacing mine shortly.

In a nut shell it works ok, you will get out but you could do a lot better for your money.

/Vicktor
M5MKW Rating: 2001-12-30
One or Two Problems Time Owned: 3 to 6 months.
Impressions are the receive is excellent and the need for no ATU is correct as long as the earthing rod is in good condition. But the build quality is much to be desired. The central joint is the problem area and needed much work to strengthen. Any TX problems are not seen due to the non reactive loading at the bottom of the aerial even if an SWR meter is inline. A bit cheaply made with minimum components supplied and poor waterproofing. The performance is better the higher frequency range. The top section can be extended with wire to aid using it on top band. OK for use in a small, restrictive areas. It does what it said on the box but can be improved.