Good HF No Radial Vertical?

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio Equipment Reviews' started by AA9ZZ, Jun 14, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: K5AB-Elect-1
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
  1. G0GQK

    G0GQK Ham Member QRZ Page

    As suggested the Cushcraft range of vertical antenna's are good with one exception, don't buy an R-6000. There are those who firmly believe that a vertical, to be any use, has to have 30 to 120 buried radials to make it work. Not true, but they most probably get about a couple of S points.

    G0GQK
     
  2. LU2EOP

    LU2EOP Ham Member QRZ Page

    Vertical Antenna

    Hi, I have a COMET CHA 250 BX,no radials, working without turner between 3Mhz and 56Mhz, my rig is a FT-950 and work all bands, not use the antenna turner, and no swr┬┤s. Work very well for my; and I very happy with the Comet.-
    Miguel
    LU2EOP
     
  3. KL7AJ

    KL7AJ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Define "good."

    I've used a GAP titan for a while. It was never anything to write home about, but it was a good "extra" antenna.
     
  4. AJ5X

    AJ5X Ham Member QRZ Page

    a great vertical with no radials,

    YES!
    I have used the MFJ 1798 for several years. It is advertised as requiring no radials and it works beaitifully. It works all bands from 80 through 2 meters,and is top fed with a counterpoise at the top. I check in with the Com-Kat net almost every morning at 0400 AM central on 3860 and receive excellent signal reports. It is the best limited space antenna I have ever used.
    AND,NO,: I DONT WORK FOR MFJ!
    73's
     
  5. W3RXO

    W3RXO Ham Member QRZ Page

    I run an HF6V, and it works pretty well without radials.

    I run an HF6V, and it works pretty well without radials. My yard (if you could call it that, is too small to put down any ground radials, and I was going to get a counterpoise kit for the HF6V, but found a way to get a flat top wire up, that performs better, so I have stopped using the HF6V, for anything but local 10M operation. I plan to take it down and give it to a friend who has an even smaller area, in which to put up an antenna.
    My formula for it was to buy 2-5' sections of 2" galvanized pipe and a nipple, to join them together. I dug a hole about 16-18" deep, about a foot wide, then threaded the nipple on one of the pipes, pretty tightly, and with the help of a 4"X4"X4" block of wood and a 10# sledge hammer, I hammered it down into the ground, until only an inch or so of the nipple was above the bottom of the hole I dug. Then, I threaded the second 5' pipe, into the nipple, and repeated the hammering, until there was about 1' above the bottom of the hole. I also drove 3-10' copper ground rods around the pipe, into the ground, leaving only a small part above the bottom of the hole, to work on. With a 2" copper strap, I soldered to the ground rods, and then I bolted the other ends to the pipe, and to top it off, I clamped it with a stainless hose clamp, to the pipe.
    I then clamped the bottom part of the HF6V, to the pipe, and buried it all, to the height above ground, that Bencher/Butternut recommends (I think it is 7" from the ground, up to the fiberglass insert, which connects the ground side of the antenna, to center lead). I then mounted the assembled and tuned antenna, as the instructions call for. It is not as optimal, as a proper ground radial kit would be, but, as long as I keep my soil moist, I get very good performance, all things considered. No high SWR, no grounding problems. I simply don't use it much anymore, as my horizontal wire is less noisy. (I have a 4KV transformer on the utility pole in my back yard, and the above ground power service, really creates unacceptable levels of noise)
    This is not the best method to install, and I certainly recommend using ground radials, when possible, BUT, you asked about doing so with out ground radials, so, I presume it is because of some limitations, and this method, COULD be a viable alternative.
     
  6. M3KXZ

    M3KXZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    I don't know why people compare verticals against horizontal dipoles and suggest the vertical is crap as the signal it receives is lower or whatever. It's really important to think about the direction and elevation the RF is coming from and going to.
     
  7. AE6LX

    AE6LX Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I've seen comments like this and I don't understand it. The R6000 and R8 are the exact same design antennas, except the R8 has cap hats to make it load up on 40m. The rest of the construction, traps, matching device, etc. are the same. What am I missing?
     
  8. KH6AQ

    KH6AQ Ham Member QRZ Page

    no radial vertical

    A number of companies make these. Most use shortened (loaded) radials, such as the Hy-gain antenna. The only one I would avoid is the Diamond BB7V. I believe this is a terminated wideband vertical version of the B&W wideband dipole.

    The MFJ short verticals are called 'half wave." What they are is a shortened radiator with top loading coils and top hats. The counterpoise - what they count as the other half of the halfwave - is a loading coil and top hat sticking off to the side. Nothing wrong with this. It is a short quarter wave vertical with a loaded counterpoise. Looking at the manuals they look to be a chore to tune.
     
  9. K2TL

    K2TL Ham Member QRZ Page

    Exactly. Furthermore, verticals do not respond well to high angle signals, which are the vast majority of signals you will encounter on a daily basis. Verticals really show their worth with signals arriving at a low angle due to propagation and distance. It is almost impossible to predict when the vertical will be better than a horizontal. You just have to "A/B" the antennas and see.
    I use a twinlead fed vertical dipole based on the Cebik design of 44 feet. This allows multiband operation and maintains a dipole pattern at frequencies up to 30 mhz, meaning it does not produce all kinds of nulls and lobes like a resonant half wave would when used multiband. When compared to an 88 foot Cebik inverted vee at 45 feet, the vertical dipole can often be the winner. But, it has a lot to do with time of day, propagation, and God know what. I'm glad I have one. It is a great alternative antenna and is the antenna of choice about 30% of the time. And, of course, it does not require radials. It is a bit of a PITA to errect. The twinlead MUST be suspended at a 90 degree angle from the antenna for at least 30 feet or so. Also, it aint easy to put up a big vertical dipole, unless you have a tall tree with a convenient limb out in the clear. I use a telescoping fibergalss pole from Wonderpole.
     
  10. W0DV

    W0DV Ham Member QRZ Page

    Low Angle

    Hi,
    I have yet to make a contact to Japan with my dipole but I have made several with my ground mounted 6btv with 20 radials, 25' each. Not that it wont happen, I'm sure it can and will. I have an A/B switch and the stateside signals are always stronger on the dipole..even in western europe the signals are stronger on the dipole...but into eastern Europe and Asia I get better results with the Vertical. It's like billards, a low angle shot gets you a low angle return.
    Dave
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page