ad: vanity

ZeroFive 43ft vertical vs Butternut HF2V

Discussion in 'Antennas, Feedlines, Towers & Rotors' started by AE7F, Jun 18, 2015.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: HRDLLC-2
ad: Left-2
ad: abrind-2
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: L-Geochron
ad: L-MFJ
  1. AE7F

    AE7F Ham Member QRZ Page

    ZF on 40 meters at the end of 150ft of LMR-400 over something like 1000sq ft of steel mesh and a number of copper ground radials:


    Same antenna on 80 meters under the same conditions:


    Butternut HF2V on 40 meters over the same ground mesh and coax:

    HF2v 40.jpg

    HF2V on 80 meters under the same conditions:

    HF2v 80.jpg

    I will also post data on 160 meters when I can get my 160 meter matching on the HF2V to work. I will also very easily be able to do A/B tests and plan to if I can make some time. I need to adjust the range and repost. I had a wide range set for 160 meters because the dip was way too high. I also didn't have enough time to really tune but might tomorrow.
  2. WB2WIK

    WB2WIK Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    The Butternut is likely to work better on 80 and 40.

    The 43' ZF vertical is no comparison.
  3. AE7F

    AE7F Ham Member QRZ Page

    That's what I'm hoping for and I also hope for DX that it beats my 130ft (low dipole). The 43' vertical needs to be converted to a 66' vertical, in my opinion, or reduced to 33' anyway. I think their advertising should be changed as well.

    I didn't get a dip on 160 so I've got to sort that out. Thanks for the input.

    By the way, I wonder if it would be better to replace the fiberglass tube insulators on the HF2v with solid fiberglass rod or something else...
  4. IK3UMT

    IK3UMT Ham Member QRZ Page

    What's the purpose of your test ? (hat off to ones who still playing around tests...)

    Butternut is a resonant antenna , all models in all bands, ZeroFive are not ( at least not the 43ft )

    They have different behaviours,
    With ZF, feedline is a relevant part of the antenna, and tuner is needed
    With Butternut ATU is not needed (for the portion of band it is resonant..) no lossess in cable (not so much in antenna devices)
    Probably ZF performs slightly better in 80 and 160 due to its length
    ZF has not tricky tuning points
    Butternut is more "switch the band and go"
    Ground plane arrangement is the most important part of both these antennas (there is few percent in difference between antennas overall, ground plane arrangement can bring you down from 95% efficiency to near zero instead ! )

    From what I can remember , my HF2V had solid fiberglass rod insulator, different model/year maybe ?
    You don't need to replace it unless you leave antenna unguyed (higly NOT recommended for both antennas)

  5. W8JX

    W8JX Ham Member QRZ Page

    A non resonant vertical like a zero five is designed for simplicity not performance. It needs to be either 33 feet or 66 feet for good performance on 40 or 80m.
  6. IK3UMT

    IK3UMT Ham Member QRZ Page

    And 45 feet (toh...just in the middle) was chosen as a decent R/X value to be transformed by feedline to more decent swr value to be managed by an antenna tuner at shack.
    In my opinion however, once matched , 45ft performs better than butternut 33ft on 80m (where HF2V with a good GP is a very good performer anyway)
    I suspect ZF is a mess with takeoff angle in higher bands
    Also ZF would be excellent with a switchable LC network directly connected at its base (for the only 40-80mt bands) in place of stock matching transformer.

  7. KD6RF

    KD6RF Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    ??? Well, not really... Thre is no efficiency or performance advantage for resonant antennas (making the likely true assumption that the tuner is low loss, like any of the popular modern tuners).

    What matters most is "radiation resistance", and is higher and therefore more efficient for a longer antenna, than for a shorter antenna. A 66 footer performs better than a 43 footer. The 43 footer performs better than the 33 footer. And so on...

    The claim to fame of the 43 footer is that it performs ok on 80 M, and has nice low angle radiation up to 17 or 15 M where it starts to lobe high angle radiation. A 66 footer is a bit better on 80 M, but only goes up to 30 M, perhaps 20 M, or so where it starts to lobe high angle radiation.
  8. AE7F

    AE7F Ham Member QRZ Page

    Have a look at the ZeroFive page here:

    The two 43ft vertical antennas they sell are the same except one has the UN-UN base-mounted transformer. The one with the transformer is advertised as a 10-160m antenna and the other as a 10-160m antenna (remote tuner version).

    At my location, at the radio, over a long run of coax cable, with the UN-UN installed, the 160m plot shows an SWR of between 13:1 and 14:1. I would be surprised if it radiated 1 watt of power and if I could make any contacts at all with it. Another test right at the antenna feedpoint (I believe with the UN-UN disconnected - will have to double check my notes) shows an SWR of 79:1.

    I think both versions of their antenna should be advertised as remote tuner versions and then the antenna should work fine on the three lower bands. They do separately sell an "80 meter coil," which I'm sure helps a lot on that band.

    I hope to be able to get the 160m capability of the HF2V working today to provide some comparisons.
  9. AE7F

    AE7F Ham Member QRZ Page

    I don't think ZeroFive should advertise the 43ft antenna as a 10-160 meter antenna.

    Also, just wanted to take a look at the details of each antenna over the same feedline and ground system. When it comes time to check on-air performance, hopefully I can provide some A/B tests.

    Both antennas have some good features and both have some compromises. In my opinion, the best feature of the ZeroFive vertical is that it truly is a very strong antenna with a good base. It is an install and forget antenna, even in rough winds.
  10. KD6RF

    KD6RF Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Maybe I'm missing something Ben, but the description for both 43 footers they sell (and a few others I checked) tell the prospective customer that a base tuner is required. Not exactly in big bold letters, but it's there.

    But it's quite true that it's a reach advertising the 43 footer for 160 M - operation there will likely be inefficient, even assuming that the tuner can achieve a match there. IOW, if you can echieve a match it probably means that a lossy insufficient radial system is contributing to the match. If you have a very good low loss radial system, then there's a good chance that you can't get a match!

Share This Page