I just became a subscriber, Mower Junkie! Love your videos Brother! My Dad always had base stations and mobiles back in the 60's and 70's and I recently got back into it myself, now at 62 yrs old! Using his old 102" whip and spring from the 1960's. Kudos!
Once again love the distance tests. You really put in the hard work editing all the footage. And we all enjoy it. Thank you for doing what you do best. You sound great on the air. That Lincoln 2 + always sounds so good on the band. At 35 watts AM. That’s just enough for the test and conditions. Just wanted to say hello. Thanks again 73
Remember for ground wave height is might! From my perspective it looked like the 5/8 wave was a lot higher than the tram. A 5/8 wave normally benefits by having a lower angle of radiation which clearly helps in local communications via ground wave but the additional height gives it an even lower angle of radiation plus a further line of sight. That buzz is the result of an inferior Noise Blanker. If the heights were even I would still expect the 5/8 to have a better signal anyways due to its lower angle of radiation. Excellent test, I really enjoy your videos. 👍
The 5/8 is longer and in this case it also has longer radials than the 1/2 wave, therefore it will have better reception, in radio communications size does matter.
Great test I almost purchased the Maco but went with a Sirio 2016 mostly because it had to be on a 60 foot tower and it was just easier to tilt up love the test thank you for your work 9231 S CT 73 s’
Back in the day (70's-80's) if you couldn't run an Avanti Astroplane or Starduster, you ran a Hy-gain Penetrator 5/8 wave. Mine is still working 40 years later although retuned to 10m now. Get the antenna 15' above any structure around it and it will shine.
Thanks for a great video and test. Always interesting John. Two of my favorite radios. I shared this vid over at the hangout. Cheers and blessings to you and your family friend. 73 NY202 Drew.
In the late 70s I had a 5/8 antenna ) trying to get back into CBs save up for good antenna going back with 5/8 now Thanks ( had a PVC homemade like your but I lost a tree it took antenna too
Excellent comparison video John, I always look forward to see how much difference there is between antennas, the Marco certainly performed well. Great stuff.
Although I have tested the V5/8 decades ago against a variety of other antennas and had the same results, I used the same radio/receiver, coax and location/installation for each test... a Kenwood TS-940. It would be interesting to see the actual s-meter calibration in microvolts of both of your test radios. Microvolt levels at each s-unit point up to s-9. Why? Because there are/can be different gain levels and different linearity of all the receiver stages including the s-meter amp making s3 etc on one higher or lower on another receiver. AGC non linearity also plays into this. Just because they may have been "calibrated" to 50 microvolts for an s-9 signal doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of the scale is correct i.e. 6dB drop or gain for every s-unit. The "atmospheric conditions" you mention are mostly irrelevant except for noise and interference and those noise sources are transient. It would have been interesting to see the results of the 1/2 wave antenna as sold/without any add-ons/modifications. As many have found out over the years, vertical 1/2 wave antennas have a lot of radiation in the local near field and cause(d) a lot of t.v interference/RFI. which would explain why the 1/2 wave was stronger close by. As far as ionospheric propagation goes, either antenna might outperform the other because of hop distance/distance to the far end station. So it's completely subjective. Seeing your mobile antenna made me smile. I made and sold copper mobile antennas almost identical to what you have starting back in 1988 until about 1994. I am pretty sure I was the first to manufacture them commercially. I sold many hundreds of them nationwide. Tested all of the different variations of them extensively. They outperformed all other mobile antennas hands down. It became unprofitable when dozens of other poorly made copy cats came out so I quit making them. What really amazes me is that I know people that still have and use my antennas. I would like to see you do tests like these with 2 identical SDR receivers that give receive levels in microvolts and s-units. 2 of the cheap usb RTL dongle SDRs would work fine. Also testing with a continuous wave/CW/unmodulated carrier would eliminate meter needle inertia from distorting the peak readings especially with the 11M radios. I do really enjoy watching you "antenner" videos. Keep up the good work.
finally someone that knows their stuff!! Good job ole boy. To eliminate 2 more variables that can impact the test. 1) is the height of the antennas the same, 2) Is the coax the same and same length?. I did testing of a Maco V5/8 with ground plane vs IMax 2000 without gp kit 20 yrs ago. Same height, 30' apart, in a 100 acre open field, same length and kind of coax. It amazed the hell out of me that 10 miles away on the same receive radio the V5/8 gave me 2 s-units more!! Then I read and understood what the ground plane did for the take off angle. In order to do real world accurate tests, all the variables need to be ELIMINATED in order to produce REPEATABILITY. 73 to all 54 Kings Mtn. N.C. Mower Junkie you going to Chester tailgate this weekend?
I only have a CB with a 1/4 wave whip now in the car. But I remember back when I had a CB in the house, the 5/8 wave was the antenna too have. But the 5/8 wave (in Australia) was not as common in the stores as the 1/2 wave, which I ended up getting the 1/2 wave.
Good review. Nice to not have to deal with skywave skip signals while doing this test. That said... You basically did what we did 50 years ago. You started with a 1/4 wave ground plane, $9.95 on page 174 of the 1968 Lafayette catalog. This gave you your baseline for everyone you talked to. But, you (not so) secretly lusted after the 1/2 wave Ringo (page 176) for $18.95 or...the Super Magnum on page 177 for $31.90. Big bucks!. But wait...the Super Magnum is rated at 3.75 dB gain...but the CLR2 on page 178 is rated at 4dB, for one dollar more. Decisions, decisions! I have the money to get the Ringo now, but if I wash a few cars and cut some lawns I can get the CLR2. The night before the Big Day, you have your buddies write down what your signal is. That night you watch the hands on the clock...tick, tick, tick. Dad wakes you up, saying "Don't you want to go to the Lafayette store today?" You jump out of bed like it was on fire, and are way too excited to eat breakfast. The drive to the store takes forever; every red light an eternity. You run into the store, and all out of breath you open the catalog to the CLR2 page and ask the counterman if they have it in stock. He's seen it before, and rubs his chin while looking at your dad and says "I don't know, we might have sold the last one yesterday" before winking at your dad and going back to the stockroom. Your heart is pounding now...weeks of work for nothing? The counterman emerges carrying the box that has the Hy-Gain logo on it! He winks again and says "Looks like we had another one after all." The ride home is a blur. Dad helps you assemble the antenna and you both go up on the roof to install the new CLR2. My God, does it look so shiny up there! You head for the shack to check out the SWR. The needle barely moves on either channel 1 or 23. Now you head to the home channel and throw out a confident "Breaker!" Some of them say that you're about an S-unit stronger. A few say that you're the same or a little lower. One jokester says he can barely hear you above the noise level. Over time, you notice that the new antenna does work better than the ground plane (that you sold to another kid wanting to upgrade from a channel 14 walkie talkie) and everything is grand, until you see the new 1972 1/2 Henshaw's catalog and the new Penetrator.
@@MowerJunkie , thanks for the flowers, but it's not my story. It's more of an amalgamation of stories that were told to me by the friends I had until the huge FCC raid on the Pittsburgh area the first weekend of August 1972. My father wasn't angry with me but he was curious about the FCC's rationale and methods. He took umbrage at them accusing me of running a linear, because I never had one. When they ordered me, a 17 year old kid to destroy the homebrew halfwave antenna he and I had built, he said that just because they didn't understand how it worked was no good reason to destroy it. They cited me for pretty much everything except profanity and running a linear. He wrote back, saying that he supported my electronic hobby and that the government should mind its own business. This was the summer of Watergate, after all. Both parents took the secret of what the fine, if there was one, was. Most of my friends weren't as fortunate. They vanished from the air, and the antennas were removed from their homes, and they were discouraged from having anything to do with the field of electronics. The FCC killed a lot of budding careers. The next year I graduated high school. For some inexplicable reason the FCC returned in July 1973 but this time my father told them to get lost. I had been working a lot and hadn't been on the air in weeks. The homebrew antenna had been replaced by a Super Magnum and was up on a dead locust tree about 100 feet from the house. I was running an Olson Sidebander, a rig that puts out a blistering 1.5 watts. September came, and I started classes at DeVry University in Columbus and walked away from CB radio.
@@spaceflight1019 fcc raid? FCC like the atf, has no authority to enforce anything. Nor can they create any LAW, only congress can do that. We learn this in grade school. It's time we learn real law and stop getting ran over by 3 letter terrorist groups.
These Range tests are my favorite of your videos hands down. Both those President radios the Adams and the Washington are fantastic radios. It's hard to beat a good ole aluminum antenna especially a 5/8 wave. Great video!!
Hi John! Nice test, I know probably not possible at your house, a more precise test would be both antennas at same height into same radio on antenna switch ( with a 2nd person switching) And on AM also with a steady carrier with car stopped. But test did what it should!! Love your videos...Thanks 151!! Ps Gotta love those super slow drivers!! Lol
While I didn't record it, I had two friends drive in, more or less, opposite directions. The mako was far better on transmit and drastically better (quieter) on receive. The IMAX 2000 picks up A LOT more noise and static than the maaco. As a matter of fact, the Maaco was so much better that I sold my IMAX. The only thing I can add is to use Jet-Lube SS-30 on all of the contact points as aluminum does eventually produce aluminum oxide (corrosion) and the jet-lube protects that from happening.
Another great comparison video! I prefer aluminum any day. I use a diy 1/4 wave at 20' currently. Working on a .64 Archer Crossbow and a 3 element. Haven't touched either in weeks due to heat. Catch ya on the band my friend!
The .64 wave Archer was made by Hygain for Radio Shack. It is based on the Hygain Penetrator and was the first Radio Shack antenna specifically tuned for 40 channels. The instructions say the bottom of the antenna should be at least 20 feet above the ground, which almost the length of the antenna, which is the usual recommendation for height, one antenna length or higher. Half wave antennas suffer greater ground loss and should be higher off of the ground. A ground plane usually doesn't increase the gain on a half wave antenna, but can increase frequency range. My new Cushcraft half wave had flat SWR, but was a terrible antenna compared to my .64 wave, at least at the height I had them at. Hustler was the originator of the .64 wave antenna name in 65 and 66, but their version was an, "electrical .64 wave" and was 20 feet tall. the construction and performance wasn't great and the price was high. Hustler ditched it after 2 years. Hustler came back out with a 22 foot .64 wave antenna, called the Super Swamper in 1976. The construction is great, the price is high, performance is good, but power limit is 300 watts. The .64 wave Archer came out in late 1977 for the 1978 Radio Shack catalog. It sort of pushes the construction limits of the design, that is based on the 5/8 wave Archer antenna. The Hustler is still available as the 25-30 ground plane, but includes no instructions for the CB band. It matching coil is sealed from the weather, unlike the Maco V58 and its aluminum tubing is very high quality, compared to most other CB antennas. The Sirio 827 and 2016 have all of the more recent features for broader frequency range. The V58 came out in 1976 by Wilson.
@@jimjungle1397 that’s some cool information!! Trying to find information on that crossbow is next to impossible. I’ve heard the length of the radio should be 22 feet, 21.6, and 22.6 feet. I’ve tried different links and still cannot get the SWR down. The plastic base at the bottom appears to have no coil in it so this May have been replaced at one time. I’ve searched for a long time for any technical specs on the .64 crossbow and it’s just not out there. Apparently, there needs to be a matching system of some type.
For a valid test, you really need a receiver with a calibrated S-meter. The antennas should be connected to the same length of feed line, and switched in & out. By a coax switch. Feed line loss, receiver sensitivity, receiver signal + noise specs can make a large difference in antenna performance.
The garage has intermittent QRM not heard in the house. The Washington also sounds like it has a narrower SB filter. Is that possible? Is there an audio filter/ tone control difference?
I would love to be able to have that ...... but I live in a HOA community. That's why I'm putting my inverted V dipole on the end of my house facing the town . able to have 18 ft on either side of my peak of the house,, so it'll try for a full wave ..... thanks for sharing.
Great comparison it's a none fact 5/8th wave has a lower take off angle which in return gives g es you a better signal in the distance/dx. Take care john. NY157 Bronx NY
if that were true in this case then the 5/8 would have performed better close up as well. 5/8 antenna does have a low take off angle but that varies with height and ground loss. A 1/2 wave antenna can also have a low take off angle... still dependent on height and ground loss. All 1/2 wave antennas suffer from radiation pattern distortion due to missing 1/2 wave mirror image reflector. Radial kits just don't suffice to cure this and the radiation from the coax shield distorts the true antenna pattern. Even metal objects/roofing/fences etc in the near field can distort the radiation pattern of an antenna. Close by antennas especially for the same band can/will also distort radiation patterns. 1/2 wave antennas tend to have a lower angle of radiation at lower heights. My Mighty Magnum works best for DX at 12 to 16'... My 5'8 and 3/4 wave antennas work best between 36 and 70'+. My Moonraker, Long John and Shooting Star are all at 1 wavelength high and I've never tried different heights because the wind loading is less down low and I don't want or need to go higher. No matter what antenna is used, to get more distant local coverage antenna height is the solution. Getting an antenna up/above local obstructions and having a good ground at the support base really helps local coverage.
Hey 151, thank you for the final test and by far the 5/8 wins out by a mile. That is a keeper you may want to just leave up there and set-up a 2 or 3-element horizontal where your 1/2 is and your antenna set up for local/dx is done !!. (or is it ?!?!) Thanks again for the time and work you and the xyl put in. 73 770-RI
Thanks 770. I'm going to put the Maco V58 on My house. I can't run a flat side on My house, because I get a high noise level with horizontal in that location. But at My garage, horizontal and vertical are very quiet. So the next antenna project will be going on My garage. Take care 770, 73's from 151 SC.
There is a definite difference in the recieve on those 2 radios. One has a much quieter recieve. While the other was actually quite noisy. In my opinion from what I heard in this test it was a very close match maybe even to close to call either one a clear winner. Even with all tha hash noise the audio was still good . That tram is a good antenna i like how it breaks down into 3 pieces no ground plane . It a great camping antenna little push up mast and your on. We used them at hinting camp always served us well.
Good video for sure. I have a macro 5/8, and like it. Too bad we don't live a little closer. I would n joy talking to you. CB is all but dead here where I'm at!!
I have that antenna I just put it up in March . Its mounted on a fiberglass telescoping mast ,the antenna is maybe mounted at 26 ft . I plan to purchase some electrical pipe at the hardware store for back up. This fiberglass does sway in the wind concerned about winter storms . My question is what is a ideal height to have this antenna . I am not in an ideal location(in a valley surrounded by mountains) when everyone is talking about skip I often don't hear any . When I first put it up I did talk some skip in Louisiana, I'm in WA . I'm starting to think all the tree leaves are blocking my signal so maybe this winter I will get out better. Has anyone used a mast like this and has it broke ?
I use a Hy-Gain Vertical Antenna, 10/12M Super Penetrator 1.5kW - SPT-500. I've been using this antenna since the late seventies. Could you do a comparison with the maco? I have no problem talking from Colorado to the Bahamas and Hawaii. Just wondering if there might be a better antenna available. Thanks. Nice work by the way. Keep it up. 73's
I noticed a weaker signal (slightly) on the 5/8 at 2 miles….but as distance increased the signal stayed stronger….this is the theory of 5/8 design….more gain at the horizon instead of a vertical sphere pattern….I would think the 1/2 wave would be the better dx antenna due to allowing more radiation into the atmosphere versus at the horizon….but then again the 5/8 could also “cut the legs” from the 1/2 or 1/4 and make contacts as well…..that’s the beauty of radio…..conditions are never constant one antenna will boom today and tomorrow it won’t talk across the street…..height also plays a factor but I try not to fall into that rabbit hole
Actually for DX on the CB band, you want a low angle of radiation. Radio waves tend to go straight up and at too high of an angle, the ionosphere can't reflex the signals back down to earth anywhere. A 5/8 wave / .64 wave is about as low an angle of radiation as you can get from a practical height omni-directional antenna. An Astroplane half wave works fairly well and a Starduster half wave works nearly as well as a 5/8 wave antenna. Both better than an end fed half wave. The coaxial antennas, like the Big Stick and fiberglass Sirio, have the lowest angle of radiation you can get from a half wave antenna. Sirio has a 5/8 wave coaxial antenna, but construction strength seems weak and it also can't handle much power. With low power and low winds, it might be the best for gain. omni-directional antennas get their gain from lowering the angle of radiation. Longer antennas have more, "antenna energy" on them, but that doesn't mean the signal to noise ratio is any better.
@@jimjungle1397 Actually the ionosphere reflects at most angles when it is charged sufficiently to bounce 11M signals... whether or not they land at a place that is useful is another matter. A single hop path is always better than a multiple hop path.
@@juststeve7665 A low angle is how omni-directional antennas get their gain. There is a lot of difference between well designed vertical antennas, but a cheap 5/8 wave is usually decent, where poor half wave and 1/4 wave antennas aren't close to well designed ones. An end fed half wave is most susceptible to ground loss, until it is raised much higher off of the ground than 1/4 wave or 5/8 wave. A 5/8 wave includes some properties of a 1/4 wave and some properties of a 1/2 wave. The V58 came out in 1976 in 2 versions, one with a ground plane and one without a ground plane. Different gain was advertised for them, but over a certain height, a ground plane adds very gain little to a 5/8 wave. On an end fed 1/2 wave a ground plane might extend frequency range, but not gain and they help on low height 5/8 wave antennas sometimes. Lower angles are always going to be easier to reflect or, 'bend" back to earth. The lowest angle off an end fed wire antenna is a wire .65 wave long. Longer and the angle starts increasing again. Hustler first advertised a .64 wave ground plane in 1965, but it was such a poorly constructed antenna, that for many years, companies avoided the .64 wave naming and went with 5/8 for their 20 foot CB antennas. Hustler brought back the .64 name in 1976 with a 22 foot antenna, but Avanti already had a 22 foot 5/8 wave antenna since 1972. Hygain followed with a 22 foot 9.5 inch 5/8 wave Penetrator, but 12 inches was the mounting bracket under the ground plane. Radio Shack used the .64 name on their 1978 antenna that was made for Radio Shack by Hygain.
@@Fox250R I mostly get on during skip but it’s working well. I paired it with some RG8U. Locally I have went about 35 miles so far. Haven’t really done a lot of my normal testing yet.
@@Fox250R Noise level seems good to me. I don’t get a ton of noise but I also have the rf gain turned back just enough. I still run it around 3/4 or a little less. I’m on a slightly modded cobra 29 classic but usually not running barefoot so your range will vary slightly
I had stacked moon rakers 4s beams 24 ft apart and had the laser 500 beam .I could talk further than I could hear had to get the maco pre amp to hear further
Great video! Back in the day of Johnson white and black faces I used a CLR2 antenna and what we called in the day a droopy ground plane. How do you think they would compare to the antennas in your video?
If you read the CB magazines from when the CLR2 came out, 1964, and go farther back in time you encounter the original Colinear, the original Magnum, the Mosley Devant, and a variety of 1/4 wave ground planes along with some off-brand models. Classical engineering says that 3dB of gain equals 1/2 S-unit. The CLR2 was sold as a 4 dB gain antenna. Hy-Gain advertised it as having "8 dB *circuit gain*" which was a fancy way of stating the obvious. But, the basic facts of antennas are simple: a longer antenna works better than a shorter one, up to a point. It's also helpful to have a DC ground for lightning protection and a lower noise level. Hy-Gain learned this in 1963 and redesigned the CLR2 with a DC ground. Avanti had to re-learn the lesson with its Sigma 5/8. Antenna manufacturers liked to play games to inflate their numbers. They would compare their flagships against a "1/4 wave ground plane", then a "1/2 wave dipole", then an "isotropic source", an imaginary, theoretical antenna because it gave the highest gain figures. You could compare it against a #47 light bulb too, if you really wanted high numbers. The Maco will perform at least as well as the original CLR2.
Yrah it also wins on transmit. My buddy is 60 miles away and could bearly hear me using my A99 and I'm booming in using my Imax 2000! Thats using same amp for both!
Just for Your information......This was not a distance test, It was an antenna comparison! Both setups will talk a lot further than the 12 miles I used for this test.
i noticed your " line" noise on the house radio was far more notable than the garage I notice these things cause 99% of my locals are in my noise level not above it and if line noise excedes their level I won't be able to communicate cause cb is so much as abandoned around my area other than the line noise those radios are very equal in reception too bad you couldn't have transmit test made back to you hope you all stay healthy,wealthy,and wise 398 wi badger state
I've done a lot of testing with both radios, I've talked to locals with both radios using the same antenna, and their signal strength is the same on both. Thanks for watching, 73's
The Washington has a better receiver then the Adams. That Adams picked up alot more noise. I want you to switch radios. Now run the adams on the 5/8s wave and run the Washington on the half wave. That adams is a noisy radio so it makes this test incomplete. JS
@@MowerJunkie Just wondering as you said that it was made from 4' 1/4-wave Firestiks and Firestiks are 5/8-wave antennas. Most likely these are the similar to the Shakespeare 4' 1/4-wave whips ( also sold under the radio shack banner back in the day. Very similar to the ones used in the GPK-1 kit.
That v5/8 doesn’t have the band spread I needed on that tram. Test wasn’t right either, you needed to have them in the same spot. Something can be in the way down the road on the tram that isn’t on the v5/8. Plus a 5/8 wave is a little better than the 1/2 anyway. I talk all over the world on 10 meter on my tram. If conditions are open it talks it’s ass off. For $106 I’m happy.
Not a valid test because of the height and radio differences, but thanks. I just got the Tram and plan to put it up this weekend. Love to have the Maco but not enough room. Would be cool if you could swap radios/antennas and do again.
You may want to try the 1/2 wave without the radial kit, half waves are voltage fed type antennas and don’t usually require an artificial ground. The 5/8 wave with 1/4 wave radials is a better option over the 1/2 wave, well I think so, it’s good for local and dx.
The 5/8 for best of dx and 1/4 the best for local radio,between the new antennas Grazioli is 7 /8 is collinear 5/8 and 1/4 contemporany,73 da cb red fox of North Italy
No offence Taken, I see a lot of guys using the odometer for distance, for all we know, they could be driving in a circle 🤣 Take care, Thanks for watching.
I just became a subscriber, Mower Junkie!
Love your videos Brother!
My Dad always had base stations and mobiles back in the 60's and 70's and I recently got back into
it myself, now at 62 yrs old! Using his old 102" whip and spring from the 1960's.
Kudos!
That's awesome! Welcome to the channel, and Welcome back to the hobby!
Me to Man good stuff been having all kinds of fun! Talking Skip
Great test John. I always look forward to your videos. Thanks for "real world" testing!
Once again love the distance tests. You really put in the hard work editing all the footage. And we all enjoy it. Thank you for doing what you do best.
You sound great on the air. That Lincoln 2 + always sounds so good on the band. At 35 watts AM. That’s just enough for the test and conditions. Just wanted to say hello. Thanks again 73
Thanks Mike. Take care, 73's from 151 SC.
Remember for ground wave height is might! From my perspective it looked like the 5/8 wave was a lot higher than the tram. A 5/8 wave normally benefits by having a lower angle of radiation which clearly helps in local communications via ground wave but the additional height gives it an even lower angle of radiation plus a further line of sight. That buzz is the result of an inferior Noise Blanker. If the heights were even I would still expect the 5/8 to have a better signal anyways due to its lower angle of radiation. Excellent test, I really enjoy your videos. 👍
The 5/8 is longer and in this case it also has longer radials than the 1/2 wave, therefore it will have better reception, in radio communications size does matter.
Great test I almost purchased the Maco but went with a Sirio 2016 mostly because it had to be on a 60 foot tower and it was just easier to tilt up love the test thank you for your work 9231 S CT 73 s’
I have owned the V58 for over 20 years now and i have had no problems with it.
That's awesome! Thanks for sharing. 73's
Back in the day (70's-80's) if you couldn't run an Avanti Astroplane or Starduster, you ran a Hy-gain Penetrator 5/8 wave. Mine is still working 40 years later although retuned to 10m now. Get the antenna 15' above any structure around it and it will shine.
Ehy so much time I ve not heard about the Avanti! Good old times I was a CB nerd in my teens..
I really enjoy distance test videos! AND really appreciate mobile tests as I spend most of my on air time being mo-bile !
Thanks for a great video and test. Always interesting John. Two of my favorite radios. I shared this vid over at the hangout. Cheers and blessings to you and your family friend. 73 NY202 Drew.
Thanks Drew! Take care My Friend, 73's from 151 SC.
In the late 70s I had a 5/8 antenna ) trying to get back into CBs save up for good antenna going back with 5/8 now
Thanks ( had a PVC homemade like your but I lost a tree it took antenna too
Excellent comparison video John, I always look forward to see how much difference there is between antennas, the Marco certainly performed well. Great stuff.
Thanks 👍, 73's from 151 SC.
Although I have tested the V5/8 decades ago against a variety of other antennas and had the same results, I used the same radio/receiver, coax and location/installation for each test... a Kenwood TS-940. It would be interesting to see the actual s-meter calibration in microvolts of both of your test radios. Microvolt levels at each s-unit point up to s-9. Why? Because there are/can be different gain levels and different linearity of all the receiver stages including the s-meter amp making s3 etc on one higher or lower on another receiver. AGC non linearity also plays into this. Just because they may have been "calibrated" to 50 microvolts for an s-9 signal doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of the scale is correct i.e. 6dB drop or gain for every s-unit.
The "atmospheric conditions" you mention are mostly irrelevant except for noise and interference and those noise sources are transient.
It would have been interesting to see the results of the 1/2 wave antenna as sold/without any add-ons/modifications. As many have found out over the years, vertical 1/2 wave antennas have a lot of radiation in the local near field and cause(d) a lot of t.v interference/RFI. which would explain why the 1/2 wave was stronger close by. As far as ionospheric propagation goes, either antenna might outperform the other because of hop distance/distance to the far end station. So it's completely subjective.
Seeing your mobile antenna made me smile. I made and sold copper mobile antennas almost identical to what you have starting back in 1988 until about 1994. I am pretty sure I was the first to manufacture them commercially. I sold many hundreds of them nationwide. Tested all of the different variations of them extensively. They outperformed all other mobile antennas hands down. It became unprofitable when dozens of other poorly made copy cats came out so I quit making them. What really amazes me is that I know people that still have and use my antennas.
I would like to see you do tests like these with 2 identical SDR receivers that give receive levels in microvolts and s-units. 2 of the cheap usb RTL dongle SDRs would work fine. Also testing with a continuous wave/CW/unmodulated carrier would eliminate meter needle inertia from distorting the peak readings especially with the 11M radios.
I do really enjoy watching you "antenner" videos. Keep up the good work.
finally someone that knows their stuff!! Good job ole boy. To eliminate 2 more variables that can impact the test. 1) is the height of the antennas the same, 2) Is the coax the same and same length?. I did testing of a Maco V5/8 with ground plane vs IMax 2000 without gp kit 20 yrs ago. Same height, 30' apart, in a 100 acre open field, same length and kind of coax. It amazed the hell out of me that 10 miles away on the same receive radio the V5/8 gave me 2 s-units more!! Then I read and understood what the ground plane did for the take off angle. In order to do real world accurate tests, all the variables need to be ELIMINATED in order to produce REPEATABILITY. 73 to all 54 Kings Mtn. N.C. Mower Junkie you going to Chester tailgate this weekend?
Wow 😮 thanks for letting everyone know how good they are. 73s
Awesome test good job on the receiver 👍 👍
I only have a CB with a 1/4 wave whip now in the car. But I remember back when I had a CB in the house, the 5/8 wave was the antenna too have. But the 5/8 wave (in Australia) was not as common in the stores as the 1/2 wave, which I ended up getting the 1/2 wave.
Thanks for the video John. It will be interesting to se a video with testing both antennas at the same Hight and instead of receiving, transmitting.
awsome video as always...thanx man..cant wait for state to come in and i can get the quad 6..and hopefully catch you on the air..
I hope so too! Thanks for watching.
Good review. Nice to not have to deal with skywave skip signals while doing this test. That said...
You basically did what we did 50 years ago. You started with a 1/4 wave ground plane, $9.95 on page 174 of the 1968 Lafayette catalog. This gave you your baseline for everyone you talked to.
But, you (not so) secretly lusted after the 1/2 wave Ringo (page 176) for $18.95 or...the Super Magnum on page 177 for $31.90. Big bucks!. But wait...the Super Magnum is rated at 3.75 dB gain...but the CLR2 on page 178 is rated at 4dB, for one dollar more. Decisions, decisions! I have the money to get the Ringo now, but if I wash a few cars and cut some lawns I can get the CLR2.
The night before the Big Day, you have your buddies write down what your signal is. That night you watch the hands on the clock...tick, tick, tick.
Dad wakes you up, saying "Don't you want to go to the Lafayette store today?" You jump out of bed like it was on fire, and are way too excited to eat breakfast. The drive to the store takes forever; every red light an eternity. You run into the store, and all out of breath you open the catalog to the CLR2 page and ask the counterman if they have it in stock. He's seen it before, and rubs his chin while looking at your dad and says "I don't know, we might have sold the last one yesterday" before winking at your dad and going back to the stockroom. Your heart is pounding now...weeks of work for nothing?
The counterman emerges carrying the box that has the Hy-Gain logo on it! He winks again and says "Looks like we had another one after all."
The ride home is a blur. Dad helps you assemble the antenna and you both go up on the roof to install the new CLR2. My God, does it look so shiny up there!
You head for the shack to check out the SWR. The needle barely moves on either channel 1 or 23. Now you head to the home channel and throw out a confident "Breaker!"
Some of them say that you're about an S-unit stronger. A few say that you're the same or a little lower. One jokester says he can barely hear you above the noise level. Over time, you notice that the new antenna does work better than the ground plane (that you sold to another kid wanting to upgrade from a channel 14 walkie talkie) and everything is grand, until you see the new 1972 1/2 Henshaw's catalog and the new Penetrator.
Sounds like You had an awesome childhood! Thanks for the story, 73's from 151 SC.
@@MowerJunkie , thanks for the flowers, but it's not my story. It's more of an amalgamation of stories that were told to me by the friends I had until the huge FCC raid on the Pittsburgh area the first weekend of August 1972. My father wasn't angry with me but he was curious about the FCC's rationale and methods. He took umbrage at them accusing me of running a linear, because I never had one. When they ordered me, a 17 year old kid to destroy the homebrew halfwave antenna he and I had built, he said that just because they didn't understand how it worked was no good reason to destroy it.
They cited me for pretty much everything except profanity and running a linear. He wrote back, saying that he supported my electronic hobby and that the government should mind its own business. This was the summer of Watergate, after all. Both parents took the secret of what the fine, if there was one, was.
Most of my friends weren't as fortunate. They vanished from the air, and the antennas were removed from their homes, and they were discouraged from having anything to do with the field of electronics. The FCC killed a lot of budding careers.
The next year I graduated high school. For some inexplicable reason the FCC returned in July 1973 but this time my father told them to get lost. I had been working a lot and hadn't been on the air in weeks. The homebrew antenna had been replaced by a Super Magnum and was up on a dead locust tree about 100 feet from the house. I was running an Olson Sidebander, a rig that puts out a blistering 1.5 watts.
September came, and I started classes at DeVry University in Columbus and walked away from CB radio.
@@spaceflight1019 fcc raid? FCC like the atf, has no authority to enforce anything.
Nor can they create any LAW, only congress can do that. We learn this in grade school.
It's time we learn real law and stop getting ran over by 3 letter terrorist groups.
Great test 👌 thanks dude
i would also say that the maco was picking you up alot better, awesome video. 73's from radioman in south texas
Yes it was! Take care RadioMan, Thanks for watching.
Great info. Thanks for what you do.
Enjoyed the test!
That’s awesome test I like that will get on might get one of those 58 waves
great test
These Range tests are my favorite of your videos hands down. Both those President radios the Adams and the Washington are fantastic radios. It's hard to beat a good ole aluminum antenna especially a 5/8 wave. Great video!!
Thanks Jason.
Hi John! Nice test, I know probably not possible at your house, a more precise test would be both antennas at same height into same radio on antenna switch ( with a 2nd person switching)
And on AM also with a steady carrier with car stopped. But test did what it should!! Love your videos...Thanks 151!! Ps Gotta love those super slow drivers!! Lol
Yes, AM would have been a better mode to test with and would have made for a more stable/reliable signal vs SSB.
Great Test! 73 from germany
Helpful information so thanks for posting. 👍
good test! I'm not surprised the Maco did better than the Tram but I am surprised at how much better it was at 12 miles.
Nice real world testing 👍
AM mode would have gave you a steady deflection on the S Meter. Side band bounces depending on your voice.
actually an unmodulated carrier works best.
Unmodulated a.m. carrier
Would love a comparison between a Maco 5/8 and a Max 2000 optimizer. Keep up the great videos!!
While I didn't record it, I had two friends drive in, more or less, opposite directions. The mako was far better on transmit and drastically better (quieter) on receive. The IMAX 2000 picks up A LOT more noise and static than the maaco. As a matter of fact, the Maaco was so much better that I sold my IMAX. The only thing I can add is to use Jet-Lube SS-30 on all of the contact points as aluminum does eventually produce aluminum oxide (corrosion) and the jet-lube protects that from happening.
Another great comparison video! I prefer aluminum any day. I use a diy 1/4 wave at 20' currently. Working on a .64 Archer Crossbow and a 3 element. Haven't touched either in weeks due to heat. Catch ya on the band my friend!
The .64 wave Archer was made by Hygain for Radio Shack. It is based on the Hygain Penetrator and was the first Radio Shack antenna specifically tuned for 40 channels. The instructions say the bottom of the antenna should be at least 20 feet above the ground, which almost the length of the antenna, which is the usual recommendation for height, one antenna length or higher. Half wave antennas suffer greater ground loss and should be higher off of the ground. A ground plane usually doesn't increase the gain on a half wave antenna, but can increase frequency range. My new Cushcraft half wave had flat SWR, but was a terrible antenna compared to my .64 wave, at least at the height I had them at. Hustler was the originator of the .64 wave antenna name in 65 and 66, but their version was an, "electrical .64 wave" and was 20 feet tall. the construction and performance wasn't great and the price was high. Hustler ditched it after 2 years. Hustler came back out with a 22 foot .64 wave antenna, called the Super Swamper in 1976. The construction is great, the price is high, performance is good, but power limit is 300 watts. The .64 wave Archer came out in late 1977 for the 1978 Radio Shack catalog. It sort of pushes the construction limits of the design, that is based on the 5/8 wave Archer antenna. The Hustler is still available as the 25-30 ground plane, but includes no instructions for the CB band. It matching coil is sealed from the weather, unlike the Maco V58 and its aluminum tubing is very high quality, compared to most other CB antennas. The Sirio 827 and 2016 have all of the more recent features for broader frequency range. The V58 came out in 1976 by Wilson.
@@jimjungle1397 that’s some cool information!! Trying to find information on that crossbow is next to impossible. I’ve heard the length of the radio should be 22 feet, 21.6, and 22.6 feet. I’ve tried different links and still cannot get the SWR down. The plastic base at the bottom appears to have no coil in it so this May have been replaced at one time. I’ve searched for a long time for any technical specs on the .64 crossbow and it’s just not out there. Apparently, there needs to be a matching system of some type.
I love the way that president lincoln II sound
For a valid test, you really need a receiver with a calibrated S-meter. The antennas should be connected to the same length of feed line, and switched in & out. By a coax switch. Feed line loss, receiver sensitivity, receiver signal + noise specs can make a large difference in antenna performance.
Good video
Got to talk to you Monday thanks for the comeback 379 Missouri waving
Copy that 379, Thanks for the contact. 73's from 151 SC.
Nice looking Washington
Super mag full wave ground plane always did a great job 👍
The garage has intermittent QRM not heard in the house. The Washington also sounds like it has a narrower SB filter. Is that possible? Is there an audio filter/ tone control difference?
5 8th has lower radiation angle so probably why the signal was stronger as the distance away increased. Good test.
I would love to be able to have that ...... but I live in a HOA community. That's why I'm putting my inverted V dipole on the end of my house facing the town . able to have 18 ft on either side of my peak of the house,, so it'll try for a full wave ..... thanks for sharing.
The audio on the Tram was clearer even though there was more static. The audio on the Maco had more of that warbly sound to it.
I didn't notice that, But I did think the Tram was louder at the 2 and 4 mile points. after that, the Maco did a lot better. Take care Joe, 73's
Great comparison it's a none fact 5/8th wave has a lower take off angle which in return gives g es you a better signal in the distance/dx. Take care john. NY157 Bronx NY
if that were true in this case then the 5/8 would have performed better close up as well. 5/8 antenna does have a low take off angle but that varies with height and ground loss. A 1/2 wave antenna can also have a low take off angle... still dependent on height and ground loss. All 1/2 wave antennas suffer from radiation pattern distortion due to missing 1/2 wave mirror image reflector. Radial kits just don't suffice to cure this and the radiation from the coax shield distorts the true antenna pattern. Even metal objects/roofing/fences etc in the near field can distort the radiation pattern of an antenna. Close by antennas especially for the same band can/will also distort radiation patterns. 1/2 wave antennas tend to have a lower angle of radiation at lower heights. My Mighty Magnum works best for DX at 12 to 16'... My 5'8 and 3/4 wave antennas work best between 36 and 70'+. My Moonraker, Long John and Shooting Star are all at 1 wavelength high and I've never tried different heights because the wind loading is less down low and I don't want or need to go higher. No matter what antenna is used, to get more distant local coverage antenna height is the solution. Getting an antenna up/above local obstructions and having a good ground at the support base really helps local coverage.
The Maco is awesome.
I wonder how a 2 or 3 element beam would perform compared to this?
Hey 151, thank you for the final test and by far the 5/8 wins out by a mile. That is a keeper you may want to just leave up there and set-up a 2 or 3-element horizontal where your 1/2 is and your antenna set up for local/dx is done !!. (or is it ?!?!) Thanks again for the time and work you and the xyl put in. 73 770-RI
Thanks 770. I'm going to put the Maco V58 on My house. I can't run a flat side on My house, because I get a high noise level with horizontal in that location. But at My garage, horizontal and vertical are very quiet. So the next antenna project will be going on My garage. Take care 770, 73's from 151 SC.
There is a definite difference in the recieve on those 2 radios.
One has a much quieter recieve. While the other was actually quite noisy.
In my opinion from what I heard in this test it was a very close match maybe even to close to call either one a clear winner.
Even with all tha hash noise the audio was still good .
That tram is a good antenna i like how it breaks down into 3 pieces no ground plane . It a great camping antenna little push up mast and your on.
We used them at hinting camp always served us well.
Good video for sure. I have a macro 5/8, and like it. Too bad we don't live a little closer. I would n joy talking to you. CB is all but dead here where I'm at!!
Maybe we'll get to talk when the conditions are right. Take care, Thanks for watching.
I have that antenna I just put it up in March . Its mounted on a fiberglass telescoping mast ,the antenna is maybe mounted at 26 ft . I plan to purchase some electrical pipe at the hardware store for back up. This fiberglass does sway in the wind concerned about winter storms . My question is what is a ideal height to have this antenna . I am not in an ideal location(in a valley surrounded by mountains) when everyone is talking about skip I often don't hear any . When I first put it up I did talk some skip in Louisiana, I'm in WA . I'm starting to think all the tree leaves are blocking my signal so maybe this winter I will get out better. Has anyone used a mast like this and has it broke ?
Mower Junkie should do a shoot out video Maco v58 Vs hy-gain SPT-500.
How long are the 2 coax feed lines? are they both 8X, LMR-400? Are the 2 antennas at the same height? It's nice that someone is doing live tests.
Good video. The aluminum antennaes have less white noise, better receive gain and build quality. Maco V5000 for me.
I use a Hy-Gain Vertical Antenna, 10/12M Super Penetrator 1.5kW - SPT-500. I've been using this antenna since the late seventies. Could you do a comparison with the maco? I have no problem talking from Colorado to the Bahamas and Hawaii. Just wondering if there might be a better antenna available. Thanks. Nice work by the way. Keep it up. 73's
I noticed a weaker signal (slightly) on the 5/8 at 2 miles….but as distance increased the signal stayed stronger….this is the theory of 5/8 design….more gain at the horizon instead of a vertical sphere pattern….I would think the 1/2 wave would be the better dx antenna due to allowing more radiation into the atmosphere versus at the horizon….but then again the 5/8 could also “cut the legs” from the 1/2 or 1/4 and make contacts as well…..that’s the beauty of radio…..conditions are never constant one antenna will boom today and tomorrow it won’t talk across the street…..height also plays a factor but I try not to fall into that rabbit hole
Actually for DX on the CB band, you want a low angle of radiation. Radio waves tend to go straight up and at too high of an angle, the ionosphere can't reflex the signals back down to earth anywhere. A 5/8 wave / .64 wave is about as low an angle of radiation as you can get from a practical height omni-directional antenna. An Astroplane half wave works fairly well and a Starduster half wave works nearly as well as a 5/8 wave antenna. Both better than an end fed half wave. The coaxial antennas, like the Big Stick and fiberglass Sirio, have the lowest angle of radiation you can get from a half wave antenna. Sirio has a 5/8 wave coaxial antenna, but construction strength seems weak and it also can't handle much power. With low power and low winds, it might be the best for gain. omni-directional antennas get their gain from lowering the angle of radiation. Longer antennas have more, "antenna energy" on them, but that doesn't mean the signal to noise ratio is any better.
@@jimjungle1397 Actually the ionosphere reflects at most angles when it is charged sufficiently to bounce 11M signals... whether or not they land at a place that is useful is another matter. A single hop path is always better than a multiple hop path.
@@juststeve7665 A low angle is how omni-directional antennas get their gain. There is a lot of difference between well designed vertical antennas, but a cheap 5/8 wave is usually decent, where poor half wave and 1/4 wave antennas aren't close to well designed ones. An end fed half wave is most susceptible to ground loss, until it is raised much higher off of the ground than 1/4 wave or 5/8 wave. A 5/8 wave includes some properties of a 1/4 wave and some properties of a 1/2 wave. The V58 came out in 1976 in 2 versions, one with a ground plane and one without a ground plane. Different gain was advertised for them, but over a certain height, a ground plane adds very gain little to a 5/8 wave. On an end fed 1/2 wave a ground plane might extend frequency range, but not gain and they help on low height 5/8 wave antennas sometimes. Lower angles are always going to be easier to reflect or, 'bend" back to earth. The lowest angle off an end fed wire antenna is a wire .65 wave long. Longer and the angle starts increasing again. Hustler first advertised a .64 wave ground plane in 1965, but it was such a poorly constructed antenna, that for many years, companies avoided the .64 wave naming and went with 5/8 for their 20 foot CB antennas. Hustler brought back the .64 name in 1976 with a 22 foot antenna, but Avanti already had a 22 foot 5/8 wave antenna since 1972. Hygain followed with a 22 foot 9.5 inch 5/8 wave Penetrator, but 12 inches was the mounting bracket under the ground plane. Radio Shack used the .64 name on their 1978 antenna that was made for Radio Shack by Hygain.
What would be your opinion on the best mobile cb antenna as compared to a traditional fiberglass or whip?
I am still using the original mark one station master over here in aus cheers
Ordered a v58 and waiting on it to arrive this weekend to replace my current vertical. Anxious to do some range testing
How did your v58 work out for you?
@@Fox250R I mostly get on during skip but it’s working well. I paired it with some RG8U.
Locally I have went about 35 miles so far. Haven’t really done a lot of my normal testing yet.
@@LifewithJames how’s your noise level? And what radio are you using ? Thank you 🙏
@@Fox250R Noise level seems good to me. I don’t get a ton of noise but I also have the rf gain turned back just enough. I still run it around 3/4 or a little less.
I’m on a slightly modded cobra 29 classic but usually not running barefoot so your range will vary slightly
Good review mr mower junkie they both sound good keep on keying that mic hillbilly in the bam waving
Thanks HillBilly. Take care, 73's
I had stacked moon rakers 4s beams 24 ft apart and had the laser 500 beam .I could talk further than I could hear had to get the maco pre amp to hear further
Great video! Back in the day of Johnson white and black faces I used a CLR2 antenna and what we called in the day a droopy ground plane. How do you think they would compare to the antennas in your video?
LOL I bet few remember the "Droopy Drawers" antenna.
If you read the CB magazines from when the CLR2 came out, 1964, and go farther back in time you encounter the original Colinear, the original Magnum, the Mosley Devant, and a variety of 1/4 wave ground planes along with some off-brand models. Classical engineering says that 3dB of gain equals 1/2 S-unit. The CLR2 was sold as a 4 dB gain antenna. Hy-Gain advertised it as having "8 dB *circuit gain*" which was a fancy way of stating the obvious.
But, the basic facts of antennas are simple: a longer antenna works better than a shorter one, up to a point. It's also helpful to have a DC ground for lightning protection and a lower noise level. Hy-Gain learned this in 1963 and redesigned the CLR2 with a DC ground. Avanti had to re-learn the lesson with its Sigma 5/8.
Antenna manufacturers liked to play games to inflate their numbers. They would compare their flagships against a "1/4 wave ground plane", then a "1/2 wave dipole", then an "isotropic source", an imaginary, theoretical antenna because it gave the highest gain figures. You could compare it against a #47 light bulb too, if you really wanted high numbers. The Maco will perform at least as well as the original CLR2.
Are you aweat of the difference between the antennas and what they are for
Am Glad to hear that the MaCo won, I just finished putting up my MaCo v-5000 an hour ago. 💪
I have the V58 in a box.
Currently erecting my shack.
Jamestown Rd? Near Sonora, CA?
Yrah it also wins on transmit. My buddy is 60 miles away and could bearly hear me using my A99 and I'm booming in using my Imax 2000! Thats using same amp for both!
Hi from the UK.
12 miles... I get that in my car using 4w on FM with a 1/4 wave half breed antenna and at home using a home made 1/4 wave antenna
Just for Your information......This was not a distance test, It was an antenna comparison! Both setups will talk a lot further than the 12 miles I used for this test.
Very good test mr mower 73/51
Thanks, 73's
The antenna on the garage looks much higher , is it ? , nevertheless thanks for your time and effort , shane uk 🇬🇧
to be honest, I don't remember what the heights were. Both of these antennas have been down for a while.
Thanks for watching, Take care.
I like the maco how is in the wind ? As you know it's been crazy here .
I'm not sure yet, We haven't had much more than 20 mph winds since I put it up. I'll let You know after the next big storm.
i noticed your " line" noise on the house radio was far more notable than the garage I notice these things cause 99% of my locals are in my noise level not above it and if line noise excedes their level I won't be able to communicate cause cb is so much as abandoned around my area
other than the line noise those radios are very equal in reception too bad you couldn't have transmit test made back to you
hope you all stay healthy,wealthy,and wise
398 wi badger state
Maco 5/8 😎👍
Heck yeah..great video.maco better then them beams...thanks. mowerjunkie..I'm going to test mine like that.i have no help..lol
Great real-world tests
😀I can recommend the antenna par excellence, the G-MAX model from Grazioli antenne ! To date beats them all ! Ciao
Thank u for the effort son
639 wavin
A better question here I think is if the Washington just has a better reciever.
I've done a lot of testing with both radios, I've talked to locals with both radios using the same antenna, and their signal strength is the same on both. Thanks for watching, 73's
Hey what's those custom knobs on that 6666 or was it a 6666?
I didn't like the original black knobs, So I replaced them with some chrome knobs.
The Washington has a better receiver then the Adams. That Adams picked up alot more noise. I want you to switch radios. Now run the adams on the 5/8s wave and run the Washington on the half wave. That adams is a noisy radio so it makes this test incomplete. JS
I've had the washington on the Tram 1/2 wave antenna, and it is even noisier. Tha Adams is not noisy.....The Tram antenna is noisy.
Why compare a 1/2 wave with a 5/8 wave?
What's wrong with a 3/4 wave antenna?
nothing... that just wasn't the subject of this test.
Probably simpler to get a comparison from a distant base in the next town. Very annoying when people don't keep it simple.
So annoying when people complain, if you don't like the way I did it.....do it yourself and show me how it's done!
Is that the Antron GPK-1 kit on the TRAM?
No, But it is similar.
@@MowerJunkie Just wondering as you said that it was made from 4' 1/4-wave Firestiks and Firestiks are 5/8-wave antennas. Most likely these are the similar to the Shakespeare 4' 1/4-wave whips ( also sold under the radio shack banner back in the day. Very similar to the ones used in the GPK-1 kit.
@@jfrphoto01 They are Firesticks, Back in the 80's and 90's they made non adjustable 1/4 wave whips.
That v5/8 doesn’t have the band spread I needed on that tram. Test wasn’t right either, you needed to have them in the same spot. Something can be in the way down the road on the tram that isn’t on the v5/8. Plus a 5/8 wave is a little better than the 1/2 anyway. I talk all over the world on 10 meter on my tram. If conditions are open it talks it’s ass off. For $106 I’m happy.
All we have to do now is get a time machine and go back to the late 70s to pick up an Avanti Sigma 4, lol.
Hi MJ! Another quality road test! Like I suggested last week or so, don't ever take down the Maco! 73's! 325 NJ
It would be good if you did a AM FM test like that as well ( That would be a great test. ).
testing shows up small differences by using am or fm.. ssb too jumpy.. antennas should be compared by having the tops/tips at the same height..
Really good and hard antenna, good quality, Italian Sirio - poor materials. Health for you :)
I've talked all over the world on a Wilson 5000
I have a sirio 827 5/8 and a sirio 1/2 wave on the house. The 5/8 is far superior....
I just acquired a tweaked and tuned President Lincoln II that's doing 75Watts on USB/LSB and 50 watts on AM... its a really sweet radio!
Why not just use am
Καλημέρα και από μένα Ελλάδα Χανιά Κρήτης 27.115.00 ΑΜ
Not a valid test because of the height and radio differences, but thanks. I just got the Tram and plan to put it up this weekend. Love to have the Maco but not enough room. Would be cool if you could swap radios/antennas and do again.
Without watching the video I would say maco all day let’s see if I know or not …..WOODCHUCK NY WAVIN
You may want to try the 1/2 wave without the radial kit, half waves are voltage fed type antennas and don’t usually require an artificial ground. The 5/8 wave with 1/4 wave radials is a better option over the 1/2 wave, well I think so, it’s good for local and dx.
Oh BTW we need to get that CB junkie channel going. I want to see some lawn mower videos :-)
The 5/8 for best of dx and 1/4 the best for local radio,between the new antennas Grazioli is 7 /8 is collinear 5/8 and 1/4 contemporany,73 da cb red fox of North Italy
73's Thanks for watching
5/8 way better
Rare test : you should test both antenna's on the same tower...
the one on the house is lower.
I feel like a fool... you do edit and use Google earth. Alot of these guys do not.... I will never doubt your videos or question anything. Apologies
No offence Taken, I see a lot of guys using the odometer for distance, for all we know, they could be driving in a circle 🤣 Take care, Thanks for watching.