In a message dated 11/25/02 11:05:22 AM Pacific Standard Time, nielsen@oz.net
writes:
> > NONE of the 'small' antennas I know of (i.e. MA5, MiniQuad,
Butterfly,
> > etc.) are all compromises in design and offer sub-par performance - the
> F12
> > is not a compromise and performs like a full-sized antenna.
>
> Steve,
>
> I'm sure that what you mean to say is that ALL of the 'small' antennas
> are compromises in design and offer sub-par performance.
>
Nope - I meant what I said. The published gain figures for F12 antennas
corroborate what we found in our tribander comparison tests so they're
credible. The published difference in gain between a full-sized C-3 and C-3SS
is 0.5 dB on 20M, 0.1 dB on 15M, and the same on 10M so I'm going to call the
C-3SS performance 'the same as the full-sized version' and no compromise due
to its smaller size. I didn't say that there weren't compromises in the
full-sized design (there are but that's a topic for another discussion).
The other 'small' antennas suffer from narrow bandwidth and little
discernible directivity, F/S, or F/B differences. Those ARE performance
compromises due to their small size.
Cheers,
Steve K7LXC
TOWER TECH
|