Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Dual Band antenna recommendation?

Expand Messages
  • Brian
    My UV3R came with 2 antennas and, while I ve bought a stubby Diamond dual band antenna as well, the performance of the latter is dreadful. I m after something
    Message 1 of 21 , May 28, 2011
      My UV3R came with 2 antennas and, while I've bought a stubby Diamond dual band antenna as well, the performance of the latter is dreadful.

      I'm after something compact (some today showed me something about 19" long, great RF wise but rather defeating the object of the small radio)perhaps, 5" or 125mm max.

      What have others tried and found effective, please?

      73
      Brian
      G8OSN
    • Eric Champine
      Hey Brian. I have not tested this antenna with meters but I am using it with very nice results. It is a Nagoya NA-701. I would say it was on par with the Yaesu
      Message 2 of 21 , May 28, 2011
        Hey Brian.
        I have not tested this antenna with meters but I am using it with very nice results. It is a Nagoya NA-701. I would say it was on par with the Yaesu VX-7R antenna. I tried keying and talking on repeaters that were almost out of my range on 2M and 70cm with both antennas and I think the Nagoya just edged out the Yaesu but not by much. People who I talked to on the repeaters could not tell the difference in sound quality or on the s-meter when I switched between the two. I know it is not a real scientific way of testing but it worked for me.
        The Nagoya is a bit shorter and more thin than the Yaesu and I think looks better on the UV-3R. The Yaesu antenna is 10.25" long and the Nagoya is 8.5" long.
        Just my opinion. Hope this helps.

        73 de W2EEC

        Eric
      • The Simpsons
        I bought the NA701 as well. I chose it because it was the shortest available other than the very short stubby ones. Seems to perform well and checked out quite
        Message 3 of 21 , May 28, 2011
          I bought the NA701 as well. I chose it because it was the shortest available
          other than the very short stubby ones. Seems to perform well and checked out
          quite well on my antenna analyser.
          It doesn't receive quite as well as the original VHF antenna on the 88 to
          108MHz band which is the only minor issue I found. Hardly a problem!

          Grant, ZL2BK


          -----Original Message-----
          From: Eric Champine
          Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2011 12:01 PM
          To: UV-3R@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [UV-3R] Re: Dual Band antenna recommendation?



          Hey Brian.
          I have not tested this antenna with meters but I am using it with very nice
          results. It is a Nagoya NA-701. I would say it was on par with the Yaesu
          VX-7R antenna. I tried keying and talking on repeaters that were almost out
          of my range on 2M and 70cm with both antennas and I think the Nagoya just
          edged out the Yaesu but not by much. People who I talked to on the repeaters
          could not tell the difference in sound quality or on the s-meter when I
          switched between the two. I know it is not a real scientific way of testing
          but it worked for me.
          The Nagoya is a bit shorter and more thin than the Yaesu and I think looks
          better on the UV-3R. The Yaesu antenna is 10.25" long and the Nagoya is 8.5"
          long.
          Just my opinion. Hope this helps.

          73 de W2EEC

          Eric
        • andyfoad@rocketmail.com
          ... Yep, my preferred choice too. Looks good, robust,right size, right performance,cheap,looks right on all my radio s ;-)
          Message 4 of 21 , May 29, 2011
            > NA701

            Yep, my preferred choice too.

            Looks good, robust,right size, right performance,cheap,looks right
            on all my radio's ;-)
          • Dominic
            I m currently borrowing the original aerial from my old Yaesu VX-2r. It is the perfect size and works very well. It is actually nearly identical to the
            Message 5 of 21 , May 29, 2011
              I'm currently borrowing the original aerial from my old Yaesu VX-2r. It is the perfect size and works very well. It is actually nearly identical to the supplied VHF aerial that came with my UV-3r but is dual band.

              I believe the Yaesu model number is YHA-66 and it is available as a spare part at about £10 which seems fair until you think the radio has only cost you £35 delivered.

              There are alot of FAKE diamond stubby aerials on eBay. I have one original one brought at a radio rally several years ago that works fairly well for its size.. I have since brought several more from Hong Kong via eBay that clearley do not work. Some work on one band and not the other and further research will tell you they are fake.

              I think the NA-701 is the preferred choice for budget and performance. There are also some telescopic aerials available that work well and are still fairly compact when retracted I use one of these on my scanner

              Dom G7NPW

              www.gb3dc.co.uk

              On 29/05/2011 12:30 AM, Brian wrote:
               

              My UV3R came with 2 antennas and, while I've bought a stubby Diamond dual band antenna as well, the performance of the latter is dreadful.

              I'm after something compact (some today showed me something about 19" long, great RF wise but rather defeating the object of the small radio)perhaps, 5" or 125mm max.

              What have others tried and found effective, please?

              73
              Brian
              G8OSN


              No virus found in this message.
              Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
              Version: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1509/3665 - Release Date: 05/28/11

            • John Ray
              ... My UV-3R was supplied with a free Diamond SRH805S tri-band stubby antenna. It *looks* genuine but poor performance on 2m tells another story. A local Ham
              Message 6 of 21 , May 30, 2011
                On 29 May 2011 12:32, Dominic <dominic@...> wrote:
                 

                I'm currently borrowing the original aerial from my old Yaesu VX-2r. It is the perfect size and works very well. It is actually nearly identical to the supplied VHF aerial that came with my UV-3r but is dual band.

                I believe the Yaesu model number is YHA-66 and it is available as a spare part at about £10 which seems fair until you think the radio has only cost you £35 delivered.

                There are alot of FAKE diamond stubby aerials on eBay. 

                My UV-3R was supplied with a free Diamond SRH805S tri-band stubby antenna. It *looks* genuine but  poor performance on 2m tells another story. A local Ham radio outlet are selling the SRH805S for £29.95 - more than the cost of the original radio!

                73

                John G8DZH




                --
                John Ray     e-mail: johndray@...
              • andyn1ksn
                A few months ago I did a study of several HT antennas, some of them dualbanders. I used a MiniCircuits return loss bridge and an HP E8285A test set with a
                Message 7 of 21 , May 30, 2011
                  A few months ago I did a study of several HT antennas, some of them dualbanders. I used a MiniCircuits return loss bridge and an HP E8285A test set with a spectrum analyzer to look at their match to 50 ohms.

                  As a result of this work I've become convinced that most dualband antannas for HTs are reasonably impedance matched on 2m or 70cm but not both. For example, the highly regarded Diamond RH77CA and SRH77CA are great 70cm antennas, but are nothing special on 2 meters. I was surprised by this, and somewhat disappointed since I own three of these!

                  Of the dualbanders I tested, I liked most the Smiley Model 270A, which is a telescopic tribander. It has an OK match under 3:1 on both 70cm and 2m. Just remember to change its length depending on the band (I've often forgotten to do this).


                  I did find that the stock dualband antenna that comes with the old Icom IC-Q7A and the new IC-T70A has a good match on 2m while on 70cm the SWR was about level at 3.4. Purchased separately, its model number is FA-S270C. The aftermarket Diamond SRH519 was very similar to the Icom.

                  I also tested three Nagoya antennas of mine, including the dualband model NA-773, and they all showed very poor matches. This was confirmed by poor performance on the air. Personally, I don't think this brand is worth buying, even at their low prices on eBay.

                  When it comes to generalizing by brand, I found that Smiley antennas were the best tuned, but most of them are monobanders. The Larsen UHF halfwave model was also very good, but also a monobander.

                  Of course, all the antennas I tested worked reasonably well (except the Nagoyas), so impedance match is only part of the story. But a better match means more signal gets radiated. And, of course, longer is generally better--all other things being equal.

                  Bottom line: I use the stock Icom that came with my IC-T70A since I use the radio more on 2m than 70cm. I use the Smiley Model 270 when out on my bicycle since it collapses to a short length that fits in a pocket and it is longer when extended. At our club's last hamfest I sold off as many of my other non-Smiley HT antennas as I could.

                  I've posted the my data in the Files section of this Group.

                  Cheers,
                  Andy N1KSN


                  --- In UV-3R@yahoogroups.com, "Brian" <g8osn@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > My UV3R came with 2 antennas and, while I've bought a stubby Diamond dual band antenna as well, the performance of the latter is dreadful.
                  >
                  > I'm after something compact (some today showed me something about 19" long, great RF wise but rather defeating the object of the small radio)perhaps, 5" or 125mm max.
                  >
                  > What have others tried and found effective, please?
                  >
                  > 73
                  > Brian
                  > G8OSN
                  >
                • Shawn Upton
                  Interesting.  Two questions come to mind: first, were you holding somewhere around the base of the antenna when you did this?  So as to simulate the effect
                  Message 8 of 21 , May 30, 2011
                    Interesting.  Two questions come to mind: first, were you holding somewhere around the base of the antenna when you did this?  So as to simulate the effect of you?  [Obviously, all bets are off for when the HT is clipped to ones belt.  I recall being told once that HT design did, at least at one time, take that into effect.]  Secondly, I wonder what one of those "tiger tails" (as I've heard them referred to) would do for the match.  You know, a 19" length of wire attached to the radio (or 19" minus the length of the radio, if somehow clipped to the bottom of the radio).  I don't know if the match would get better or worse, but I do recall reading that the wire can make a real difference.

                    Shawn Upton, KB1CKT
                    NAQCC 4723

                    --- On Mon, 5/30/11, andyn1ksn <acp-smp@...> wrote:

                    From: andyn1ksn <acp-smp@...>
                    Subject: [UV-3R] Re: Dual Band antenna recommendation?
                    To: UV-3R@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Monday, May 30, 2011, 5:53 PM

                     

                    A few months ago I did a study of several HT antennas, some of them dualbanders. I used a MiniCircuits return loss bridge and an HP E8285A test set with a spectrum analyzer to look at their match to 50 ohms.

                  • andyn1ksn
                    Thanks for your interest, Shawn. The return loss bridge is a small square metal case connected to signal ground, and when making the measurements I held it as
                    Message 9 of 21 , May 30, 2011
                      Thanks for your interest, Shawn.

                      The return loss bridge is a small square metal case connected to signal ground, and when making the measurements I held it as if it were an HT, close to my head at eye level. The coax cable connections were down somewhat and away from the return loss bridge. That's as close as I think I could come to a real HT situation (using the internal microphone).

                      Nearby objects will have an effect on the match. I'm sure that the manufacturers make sure that the power amplifier can tolerate pretty large mismatches at the antenna.

                      I've built some two meter quarterwave counterpoises (tiger tails) and tested them with a field strength meter, but not in a very controlled situation. I concluded that they generally will help your signal if the rubber duck is equivalent to a quarter wavelength. A speaker mic may accomplish the same thing, since a ground connection is in the wire (but the length is variable since it is coiled).

                      When I built the tiger tails I put a ceramic bead (from a craft store) on the end to keep them somewhat straight. When listening to a weaker signal, the signal strength would change if the tiger tail were swinging back and forth. I tried a 70cm tiger tail, but it didn't help much, probably because it is about as long as the HT body itself.

                      I never tried to use an HT clipped to my belt. I don't even carry them that way, since you are likely to put a permanent bend in the rubber duck. And they would tend to pull my pants down.

                      By the way, I look forward to testing the stock antennas that come with the UV-3R. When I get the results I'll post them in the Files section.

                      73,
                      Andy N1KSN

                      --- In UV-3R@yahoogroups.com, Shawn Upton <kb1ckt@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Interesting.  Two questions come to mind: first, were you holding somewhere around the base of the antenna when you did this?  So as to simulate the effect of you?  [Obviously, all bets are off for when the HT is clipped to ones belt.  I recall being told once that HT design did, at least at one time, take that into effect.]  Secondly, I wonder what one of those "tiger tails" (as I've heard them referred to) would do for the match.  You know, a 19" length of wire attached to the radio (or 19" minus the length of the radio, if somehow clipped to the bottom of the radio).  I don't know if the match would get better or worse, but I do recall reading that the wire can make a real difference.
                      >
                      > Shawn Upton, KB1CKT
                      >
                      > NAQCC 4723
                      >
                      > --- On Mon, 5/30/11, andyn1ksn <acp-smp@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > From: andyn1ksn <acp-smp@...>
                      > Subject: [UV-3R] Re: Dual Band antenna recommendation?
                      > To: UV-3R@yahoogroups.com
                      > Date: Monday, May 30, 2011, 5:53 PM
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >  
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > A few months ago I did a study of several HT antennas, some of them dualbanders. I used a MiniCircuits return loss bridge and an HP E8285A test set with a spectrum analyzer to look at their match to 50 ohms.
                      >
                    • Shawn Upton
                      Good stuff.  Sounds like some great testing you re got going on. Shawn Upton, KB1CKT NAQCC 4723 ... From: andyn1ksn Subject: [UV-3R] Re:
                      Message 10 of 21 , May 30, 2011
                        Good stuff.  Sounds like some great testing you're got going on.

                        Shawn Upton, KB1CKT
                        NAQCC 4723

                        --- On Mon, 5/30/11, andyn1ksn <acp-smp@...> wrote:

                        From: andyn1ksn <acp-smp@...>
                        Subject: [UV-3R] Re: Dual Band antenna recommendation?
                        To: UV-3R@yahoogroups.com
                        Date: Monday, May 30, 2011, 9:56 PM

                         

                        Thanks for your interest, Shawn.

                        The return loss bridge is a small square metal case connected to signal ground, and when making the measurements I held it as if it were an HT, close to my head at eye level. The coax cable connections were down somewhat and away from the return loss bridge. That's as close as I think I could come to a real HT situation (using the internal microphone).

                        Nearby objects will have an effect on the match. I'm sure that the manufacturers make sure that the power amplifier can tolerate pretty large mismatches at the antenna.

                        I've built some two meter quarterwave counterpoises (tiger tails) and tested them with a field strength meter, but not in a very controlled situation. I concluded that they generally will help your signal if the rubber duck is equivalent to a quarter wavelength. A speaker mic may accomplish the same thing, since a ground connection is in the wire (but the length is variable since it is coiled).

                        When I built the tiger tails I put a ceramic bead (from a craft store) on the end to keep them somewhat straight. When listening to a weaker signal, the signal strength would change if the tiger tail were swinging back and forth. I tried a 70cm tiger tail, but it didn't help much, probably because it is about as long as the HT body itself.

                        I never tried to use an HT clipped to my belt. I don't even carry them that way, since you are likely to put a permanent bend in the rubber duck. And they would tend to pull my pants down.

                        By the way, I look forward to testing the stock antennas that come with the UV-3R. When I get the results I'll post them in the Files section.

                        73,
                        Andy N1KSN

                      • g4ilo
                        ... I think that is an unfair generalization. I have the NA-701 which others have mentioned. It performs well in comparison with other dual band antennas of
                        Message 11 of 21 , Jun 1, 2011
                          --- In UV-3R@yahoogroups.com, "andyn1ksn" <acp-smp@...> wrote:
                          >

                          > I also tested three Nagoya antennas of mine, including the dualband model NA-773, and they all showed very poor matches. This was confirmed by poor performance on the air. Personally, I don't think this brand is worth buying, even at their low prices on eBay.
                          >

                          I think that is an unfair generalization. I have the NA-701 which others have mentioned. It performs well in comparison with other dual band antennas of its size and is a good match on both 2m and 70cm. I think the NA-701 is probably the best choice of antenna for this radio.

                          I also have an NA-767 which is a telescopic high gain dual band antenna more than a metre long. Again it is a good match and gave good results in comparative tests though it is obviously unsuitable for a small HT such as the UV-3R due to its weight and length apart from being a BNC antenna.

                          I did buy the rarely advertised NA-401 which I thought would be a better choice for the small lightweight UV-3R as it is slimmer with a thinner more flexible whip and 1cm shorter than the NA-701 but performance was noticeably poorer possibly due to the VHF resonant frequency being around 160MHz and the SWR 4:1 at 145.0MHz.

                          I too have encountered the fake stubby antennas. The fake Diamond had a resonant point far from any amateur band and another unbranded one had no apparent resonant frequency at all and for all I know could be solid plastic! I do have two unbranded BNC dual band stubby antennas that are a good match on both 145 and 433MHz and perform surprisingly well for their size, about 6dB down on the short rubber duck antennas.

                          Julian, G4ILO
                        • g4ilo
                          Wouldn t the connections to the return loss bridge act as a ground? I ve done testing using a battery powered AA-200 antenna analyzer but even that is big
                          Message 12 of 21 , Jun 1, 2011
                            Wouldn't the connections to the return loss bridge act as a ground? I've done testing using a battery powered AA-200 antenna analyzer but even that is big compared to an HT like the UV-3R and I haven't found adding a 19in counterpoise makes much difference.

                            I found the NA-701 performs on a par with the stock rubber duck antennas from Yaesu (and better than Kenwood antennas which seem to resonate aroound 160MHz). I did find the single band 2m antenna that came with the UV-3R performed about 3dB better than the NA-701. I have not found any other antenna that size which performs that well, but it does not seem possible to find a dual band antenna that does not sacrifice performance without gooing for something much bigger.

                            Julian, G4ILO

                            --- In UV-3R@yahoogroups.com, "andyn1ksn" <acp-smp@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Thanks for your interest, Shawn.
                            >
                            > The return loss bridge is a small square metal case connected to signal ground, and when making the measurements I held it as if it were an HT, close to my head at eye level. The coax cable connections were down somewhat and away from the return loss bridge. That's as close as I think I could come to a real HT situation (using the internal microphone).
                            >
                            > Nearby objects will have an effect on the match. I'm sure that the manufacturers make sure that the power amplifier can tolerate pretty large mismatches at the antenna.
                            >
                            > I've built some two meter quarterwave counterpoises (tiger tails) and tested them with a field strength meter, but not in a very controlled situation. I concluded that they generally will help your signal if the rubber duck is equivalent to a quarter wavelength. A speaker mic may accomplish the same thing, since a ground connection is in the wire (but the length is variable since it is coiled).
                            >
                            > When I built the tiger tails I put a ceramic bead (from a craft store) on the end to keep them somewhat straight. When listening to a weaker signal, the signal strength would change if the tiger tail were swinging back and forth. I tried a 70cm tiger tail, but it didn't help much, probably because it is about as long as the HT body itself.
                            >
                            > I never tried to use an HT clipped to my belt. I don't even carry them that way, since you are likely to put a permanent bend in the rubber duck. And they would tend to pull my pants down.
                            >
                            > By the way, I look forward to testing the stock antennas that come with the UV-3R. When I get the results I'll post them in the Files section.
                            >
                            > 73,
                            > Andy N1KSN
                            >
                            > --- In UV-3R@yahoogroups.com, Shawn Upton <kb1ckt@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Interesting.  Two questions come to mind: first, were you holding somewhere around the base of the antenna when you did this?  So as to simulate the effect of you?  [Obviously, all bets are off for when the HT is clipped to ones belt.  I recall being told once that HT design did, at least at one time, take that into effect.]  Secondly, I wonder what one of those "tiger tails" (as I've heard them referred to) would do for the match.  You know, a 19" length of wire attached to the radio (or 19" minus the length of the radio, if somehow clipped to the bottom of the radio).  I don't know if the match would get better or worse, but I do recall reading that the wire can make a real difference.
                            > >
                            > > Shawn Upton, KB1CKT
                            > >
                            > > NAQCC 4723
                            > >
                            > > --- On Mon, 5/30/11, andyn1ksn <acp-smp@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > From: andyn1ksn <acp-smp@>
                            > > Subject: [UV-3R] Re: Dual Band antenna recommendation?
                            > > To: UV-3R@yahoogroups.com
                            > > Date: Monday, May 30, 2011, 5:53 PM
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >  
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > A few months ago I did a study of several HT antennas, some of them dualbanders. I used a MiniCircuits return loss bridge and an HP E8285A test set with a spectrum analyzer to look at their match to 50 ohms.
                            > >
                            >
                          • g4ilo
                            ... Ignore that. I misread my writing and the comparison was with the NA-401 not the 701. The NA-701 does perform similar to dual band rubber ducks from Yaesu.
                            Message 13 of 21 , Jun 1, 2011
                              --- In UV-3R@yahoogroups.com, "g4ilo" <julian.g4ilo@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > I found the NA-701 performs on a par with the stock rubber duck antennas from Yaesu (and better than Kenwood antennas which seem to resonate aroound 160MHz). I did find the single band 2m antenna that came with the UV-3R performed about 3dB better than the NA-701. I have not found any other antenna that size which performs that well, but it does not seem possible to find a dual band antenna that does not sacrifice performance without gooing for something much bigger.

                              Ignore that. I misread my writing and the comparison was with the NA-401 not the 701.

                              The NA-701 does perform similar to dual band rubber ducks from Yaesu. The single band VHF antenna with the UV-3R is about 3dB *poorer* than the NA-701. But it is half the size.

                              Julian, G4ILO
                            • andyn1ksn
                              Hi Julian. Thanks for your interest and comments. The ground side of the antenna was probably grounded through the coax shield to the instrument, but I don t
                              Message 14 of 21 , Jun 1, 2011
                                Hi Julian. Thanks for your interest and comments.

                                The ground side of the antenna was probably grounded through the coax shield to the instrument, but I don't see how this would affect the results, at least in comparing impedance matches to the antennas. And small perturbations in the holding position had minimal effects. Since the test results were consistent with my use of the antennas in the field, I am comfortable with them.

                                Yes, generalizing on the quality of an entire brand of antennas after testing only three different models can be considered unfair, but I think it reasonable to conclude that such a brand is at the very least unpredictable in quality and performance from model to model. (The NA-702 was particularly horrible on UHF.)

                                If your field experience shows that the model NA-701 performs on a par with Yaesu stock antennas, then it performs well enough to be USEABLE, as were several antennas in my study. After all, prior to the study I had used them all (except the NA-702 which was obviously horrible in use right out of the package).

                                My main point was that not one single dualband antenna I tested had what I would consider good matches on both VHF and UHF. This surprised me. The main consequence is that when we use our HTs, we are often using much lot less RADIATED power than we think we are.

                                Cheers,
                                Andy N1KSN


                                --- In UV-3R@yahoogroups.com, "g4ilo" <julian.g4ilo@...> wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > --- In UV-3R@yahoogroups.com, "g4ilo" <julian.g4ilo@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > I found the NA-701 performs on a par with the stock rubber duck antennas from Yaesu (and better than Kenwood antennas which seem to resonate aroound 160MHz). I did find the single band 2m antenna that came with the UV-3R performed about 3dB better than the NA-701. I have not found any other antenna that size which performs that well, but it does not seem possible to find a dual band antenna that does not sacrifice performance without gooing for something much bigger.
                                >
                                > Ignore that. I misread my writing and the comparison was with the NA-401 not the 701.
                                >
                                > The NA-701 does perform similar to dual band rubber ducks from Yaesu. The single band VHF antenna with the UV-3R is about 3dB *poorer* than the NA-701. But it is half the size.
                                >
                                > Julian, G4ILO
                                >
                              • g4ilo
                                I certainly agree with your main point. My concern was that you were suggesting that Nagoya antennas were not worth buying. I see no evidence to suggest that
                                Message 15 of 21 , Jun 1, 2011
                                  I certainly agree with your main point. My concern was that you were suggesting that Nagoya antennas were not worth buying. I see no evidence to suggest that there is inconsistency in performnce between different Nagoya antennas of the same model which people have found to be satisfactory.

                                  As for the ground cable, years ago I did some tests of the Miracle Whip HF antenna and claimed that it worked quite well even without a counterpoise. I had many arguments with the HF Pack group who conducted tests that claimed performance was something like 20db worse without a counterpoise. Eventually it became clear the reason for my better results was that my FT-817 was grounded through the power supply negative line which was improving the efficiency of the antenna in the same way that a counterpoise would. Therefore I would suspect that the coax connection to your test instrument could provide an efficiency improvement similar to attaching a "tiger tail". I certainly would not want to discount that possibility entirely.

                                  Julian, G4ILO

                                  --- In UV-3R@yahoogroups.com, "andyn1ksn" <acp-smp@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Hi Julian. Thanks for your interest and comments.
                                  >
                                  > The ground side of the antenna was probably grounded through the coax shield to the instrument, but I don't see how this would affect the results, at least in comparing impedance matches to the antennas. And small perturbations in the holding position had minimal effects. Since the test results were consistent with my use of the antennas in the field, I am comfortable with them.
                                  >
                                  > Yes, generalizing on the quality of an entire brand of antennas after testing only three different models can be considered unfair, but I think it reasonable to conclude that such a brand is at the very least unpredictable in quality and performance from model to model. (The NA-702 was particularly horrible on UHF.)
                                  >
                                  > If your field experience shows that the model NA-701 performs on a par with Yaesu stock antennas, then it performs well enough to be USEABLE, as were several antennas in my study. After all, prior to the study I had used them all (except the NA-702 which was obviously horrible in use right out of the package).
                                  >
                                  > My main point was that not one single dualband antenna I tested had what I would consider good matches on both VHF and UHF. This surprised me. The main consequence is that when we use our HTs, we are often using much lot less RADIATED power than we think we are.
                                  >
                                  > Cheers,
                                  > Andy N1KSN
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --- In UV-3R@yahoogroups.com, "g4ilo" <julian.g4ilo@> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > --- In UV-3R@yahoogroups.com, "g4ilo" <julian.g4ilo@> wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > I found the NA-701 performs on a par with the stock rubber duck antennas from Yaesu (and better than Kenwood antennas which seem to resonate aroound 160MHz). I did find the single band 2m antenna that came with the UV-3R performed about 3dB better than the NA-701. I have not found any other antenna that size which performs that well, but it does not seem possible to find a dual band antenna that does not sacrifice performance without gooing for something much bigger.
                                  > >
                                  > > Ignore that. I misread my writing and the comparison was with the NA-401 not the 701.
                                  > >
                                  > > The NA-701 does perform similar to dual band rubber ducks from Yaesu. The single band VHF antenna with the UV-3R is about 3dB *poorer* than the NA-701. But it is half the size.
                                  > >
                                  > > Julian, G4ILO
                                  > >
                                  >
                                • andyn1ksn
                                  The tests I ran did not involve antenna efficiency or radiation, only the impedance match of the antenna to 50 ohms. I do not believe that grounding would
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Jun 1, 2011
                                    The tests I ran did not involve antenna efficiency or radiation, only the impedance match of the antenna to 50 ohms. I do not believe that grounding would play a role here, particularly since there is a calibraton procedure to null out effects due to cables and imperfections in the return loss bridge used. Since the antennas were positioned in a way that simulates their use on an HT, poximity to other bodies was taken into account, at least approximately.

                                    If the Nagoya NA-701 works just fine (as per your experience), great. I have no quibble with you on this. I may buy one myself. But the NA-702 is definately a total dog (as my data and on-air experience show), and two other models show poor matches, as well, so anyone listening should understand that your recommendation is for a specific model, not the brand in general.

                                    --- In UV-3R@yahoogroups.com, "g4ilo" <julian.g4ilo@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > I certainly agree with your main point. My concern was that you were suggesting that Nagoya antennas were not worth buying. I see no evidence to suggest that there is inconsistency in performnce between different Nagoya antennas of the same model which people have found to be satisfactory.
                                    >
                                    > As for the ground cable, years ago I did some tests of the Miracle Whip HF antenna and claimed that it worked quite well even without a counterpoise. I had many arguments with the HF Pack group who conducted tests that claimed performance was something like 20db worse without a counterpoise. Eventually it became clear the reason for my better results was that my FT-817 was grounded through the power supply negative line which was improving the efficiency of the antenna in the same way that a counterpoise would. Therefore I would suspect that the coax connection to your test instrument could provide an efficiency improvement similar to attaching a "tiger tail". I certainly would not want to discount that possibility entirely.
                                    >
                                    > Julian, G4ILO
                                    >
                                    > --- In UV-3R@yahoogroups.com, "andyn1ksn" <acp-smp@> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > Hi Julian. Thanks for your interest and comments.
                                    > >
                                    > > The ground side of the antenna was probably grounded through the coax shield to the instrument, but I don't see how this would affect the results, at least in comparing impedance matches to the antennas. And small perturbations in the holding position had minimal effects. Since the test results were consistent with my use of the antennas in the field, I am comfortable with them.
                                    > >
                                    > > Yes, generalizing on the quality of an entire brand of antennas after testing only three different models can be considered unfair, but I think it reasonable to conclude that such a brand is at the very least unpredictable in quality and performance from model to model. (The NA-702 was particularly horrible on UHF.)
                                    > >
                                    > > If your field experience shows that the model NA-701 performs on a par with Yaesu stock antennas, then it performs well enough to be USEABLE, as were several antennas in my study. After all, prior to the study I had used them all (except the NA-702 which was obviously horrible in use right out of the package).
                                    > >
                                    > > My main point was that not one single dualband antenna I tested had what I would consider good matches on both VHF and UHF. This surprised me. The main consequence is that when we use our HTs, we are often using much lot less RADIATED power than we think we are.
                                    > >
                                    > > Cheers,
                                    > > Andy N1KSN
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In UV-3R@yahoogroups.com, "g4ilo" <julian.g4ilo@> wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > --- In UV-3R@yahoogroups.com, "g4ilo" <julian.g4ilo@> wrote:
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > I found the NA-701 performs on a par with the stock rubber duck antennas from Yaesu (and better than Kenwood antennas which seem to resonate aroound 160MHz). I did find the single band 2m antenna that came with the UV-3R performed about 3dB better than the NA-701. I have not found any other antenna that size which performs that well, but it does not seem possible to find a dual band antenna that does not sacrifice performance without gooing for something much bigger.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Ignore that. I misread my writing and the comparison was with the NA-401 not the 701.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > The NA-701 does perform similar to dual band rubber ducks from Yaesu. The single band VHF antenna with the UV-3R is about 3dB *poorer* than the NA-701. But it is half the size.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Julian, G4ILO
                                    > > >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                  • Mark Meece
                                    Does anyone have a recommendation of specific eBay sellers for the Nagoya NA-701? There are bunch of them listed and I want to be sure I don t get a cheap
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Jun 3, 2011
                                      Does anyone have a recommendation of specific eBay sellers for the
                                      Nagoya NA-701?
                                      There are bunch of them listed and I want to be sure I don't get a cheap
                                      imitation.


                                      Thanks,
                                      Mark, N8ICW
                                    • andyfoad@rocketmail.com
                                      409shop. I have three of them. All show up a good match on both bands. Performance is just distinguishable between the 701 and my UK sourced Diamond SRH940.
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Jun 4, 2011
                                        409shop.

                                        I have three of them.

                                        All show up a good match on both bands.

                                        Performance is just distinguishable between the 701 and my UK
                                        sourced Diamond SRH940.

                                        --- In UV-3R@yahoogroups.com, Mark Meece <antennapig@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Does anyone have a recommendation of specific eBay sellers for the
                                        > Nagoya NA-701?
                                        > There are bunch of them listed and I want to be sure I don't get a cheap
                                        > imitation.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Thanks,
                                        > Mark, N8ICW
                                        >
                                      • Dominik Derigs
                                        I bought mine at hk360radio, no problems at all. And (for chineese) rather fast delivery. 73 Nick 2011/6/4 andyfoad@rocketmail.com
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Jun 4, 2011
                                          I bought mine at hk360radio, no problems at all. And (for chineese) rather fast delivery.

                                          73 Nick

                                          2011/6/4 andyfoad@... <andyfoad@...>
                                           

                                          409shop.

                                          I have three of them.

                                          All show up a good match on both bands.

                                          Performance is just distinguishable between the 701 and my UK
                                          sourced Diamond SRH940.



                                          --- In UV-3R@yahoogroups.com, Mark Meece <antennapig@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Does anyone have a recommendation of specific eBay sellers for the
                                          > Nagoya NA-701?
                                          > There are bunch of them listed and I want to be sure I don't get a cheap
                                          > imitation.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Thanks,
                                          > Mark, N8ICW
                                          >

                                          .

                                          __,_._,__
                                        • Eric Champine
                                          Hey Mark. I got my Nagoya NA-701 s from radioshop888 and so did two of my friends along with there UV-3R s. All had good results with fast shipping. It took 12
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Jun 4, 2011
                                            Hey Mark.
                                            I got my Nagoya NA-701's from radioshop888 and so did two of my friends along with there UV-3R's. All had good results with fast shipping. It took 12 days to get to me in the US, upstate NY from HK and only 8 days to my friend John. Hope this helps.

                                            73 de W2EEC

                                            Eric
                                          • Jesse
                                            I ve had good luck with the Nagoya NA-666 antenna, it s slimmer profile fit the VX-3r perfect, and the performance was excellent for it s size.   73   K4AX
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Jun 4, 2011
                                              I've had good luck with the Nagoya NA-666 antenna, it's slimmer profile fit the VX-3r perfect, and the performance was excellent for it's size.
                                               
                                              73' 
                                              K4AX


                                              From: Eric Champine <champine@...>
                                              To: UV-3R@yahoogroups.com
                                              Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2011 2:42 PM
                                              Subject: Re: [UV-3R] Re: Dual Band antenna recommendation?

                                               
                                              Hey Mark.
                                              I got my Nagoya NA-701's from radioshop888 and so did two of my friends along with there UV-3R's. All had good results with fast shipping. It took 12 days to get to me in the US, upstate NY from HK and only 8 days to my friend John. Hope this helps.

                                              73 de W2EEC

                                              Eric


                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.