| Author |
Message |
    
Linx
Member
Username: Linx
Post Number: 61
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, December 28, 2006 - 7:45 am: | 
|
I have been doing research since I first put my tower up a couple of month's ago. I am using an Imax with GPK and ultimatly would like to get about a 20 ft piece of pipe in the top of my tower and stack a beam and the Imax with a switch to choose which one I want to use.
Now onto my quesiton. I have always wanted a Maco M106C. My tower will tilt to lay over (40 ft tower). I got to thinking it would be hard to install the beam, so I was looking at the Maco M104C. It's a lot less power and gain, but the simplicity grabbed me.
While searching on here day upon day, I was introduced to the Jo-Gunn antenna's. I really like these b/c of the supposed numbers people and the manufacturer see out of them. However, I am not going to pay what they want for one. If everyone was in their price range I wouldn't think twice about it, but when they're $1000 more than Maco, it doesn't make much sence.
I also found on here about Signal Engineering. I was looking at the website, and E-mailed with some questions on prices. These for a 4 element are around $400-$500, which is high, but not as unrealistic of a price like the Jo-Gunn. These look like the Jo-Gunn but they do not claim nearly the power gain and multiplaction facts of the Jo-Gunn.
I want the best bang for my buck. It's somewhat flat in the area I live in, but will be moving in about 2 years to a larger piece of property I own, and putting my tower up atop a big hill. The Jo-Gunn is out of the question due to price and so is the Moonrakers since they go so outrageous on eBay and other classified sites. The Signal Enginnering is twice the price of the Maco and only has about 1.5 more gain than the Maco. I think the Signal Engineering (doing this from memory...don't have time to look it back up) White Lightning +4 is 15.5 Db and the Maco M104C is 14 Db. Does that justify spending $500 vs $200? $300 bucks is a bunch of money for 1.5 db gain.
Does a quad really help out much more than a flat beam? I would think the gain on that size of a quad would be double that of a flat beam. Well, that's the way people act anyway, but the numbers don't come out.
Any help would be appreciated. I've been mulling this over in my head for weeks and can't decide which would be best. I talk a lot of local, so the Imax will be used for that, but I would just like to see how I could get out and I hear the ears are far superior on the beams.
Please state reasons why one is better than the other, and if you haven't used one, then it doesn't really help me out much. |
Bruce
Senior Member
Username: Bruce
Post Number: 4271
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 28, 2006 - 9:17 am: |
|
HOLD ON ......
REAL gain and I don't care who makes it is about as follows .....
IT TAKES 6 DB for ONE "S" unit ......
DBD is gain over a dipole or groundplane.
3 elm beam about 6 DBD a quad about 8 DBD
4 elm beam about 8 DBD a quad about 10 DBD
TO GAIN 3 MORE DB YOU MUST DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF ELEMENTS AND BOOM LENGHT.
EXAMPLE of a 4 elm beam....
www.hy-gain.com/products.php?prodid=VB-64DX
There is NO SUCH THING AS AUDIO GAIN .....
BEAMS ( YAGIS ) Mr. YAGI and MR. UDA in the 1920's designed these antennas and the numbers they came up with are STILL VALID TODAY !
Quads were first used by HCJB radio and have been widely used by hams and cbers ever since |
Thehobo
Intermediate Member
Username: Thehobo
Post Number: 112
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 28, 2006 - 12:32 pm: |
|
linx, i have a 6eleament jogunn star beam up about 55 feet!! now tossing out all of the data they supply you with, this is what i see between my imax, witch is up at 60 feet and the jo gunn.. at about 60 miles distance to another station that has his imax at 72 feet, on our imaxes we both see about 1 to 3 sunits on out recive, as this is with a 2995dx at both locations, ok i switch over to the jo gunn, and his recieve comes up to 3 to 5 s units?? i come up on him about the same, the audio stays the same?? the thing with the jo gunn was, i got it cheap enough to satisfy my coursity about it!! lol.. how ever, if i can sale it, the jo gunn, im going to the s/e 4 eleament quad, i think they call the 4+ because if it works out, ill no doubt make it a 6 eleamen as they have a kit that makes the 4+ so.. the one advanage i see in the jo gunn is during dxing, it seems to me it works skip better then the flat 4 maco i have up under the i max!! of course i reilieze conditions do have to be considered into the hole mess!! lol.. but this is what i observe at my place, hope maybe this mite give you some thoughts to ponder while your deciding on your project!! ok off my soap box,.. lol
thehobo
269150 am
monitor ch |
Linx
Member
Username: Linx
Post Number: 62
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, December 28, 2006 - 3:34 pm: |
|
Bruce,
Thanks for that breakdown. That clears up a whole bunch. I think I'll just go with a flat beam...I don't really see enough to justify getting a quad for the price difference. Plus, I want to put up some off shoots on my tower simular to what you and others have done for 2 meter beams and whatnot.
Hobo:
Thanks for the info too. I was wondering why they claimed their antennas were more than other quad makers and that explains it. Just bologna?
Decisions decisions... |
Thehobo
Intermediate Member
Username: Thehobo
Post Number: 113
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 28, 2006 - 4:15 pm: |
|
linx, something to think about, this is what i saw from my location?? others mite see something different??? as you no, all stations are not created equal?? lol.. but like i said, just some input to see what others are doing with what you mite think on trying?? like i said, i do think the quads mite be the way to go??? at least thats the next thing im going to try!! who no's, mite just be the one im looking for??? lol..
thehobo
269150 am
monitor ch |
Bruce
Senior Member
Username: Bruce
Post Number: 4272
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 28, 2006 - 5:08 pm: |
|
The wire kits for quads that add another refector DO NOT WORK. To work the 2nd reflector would have to be LARGER that the first and even then multible reflectors have not shown to be effective. This is why even on very large yagis / quads you almost never see them.
As for "S" meter readings REMEMBER CB S METERS ARE NOT A GOOD WAY TO READ ANYTHING .... Yes they will show gain or loss but unless you have calabrated them you have no way of knowing how much.
QUADS for the same number of elements have about 2 db more gain ..... but a LOT more wind load.
Past the first 4 elm beams get very large on CB with little increase in gain this is why 6 elm is about as big as most can put up.
Some go to exstreams one of the largest beam arrays in the world is W5UN he has 48 beams stacked for 2 meter moonbounce go check it out when you get a chance ....
(http://www.df6na.de/df6na/img/W5UN_2.JPG )
I already asked the wife .... she said no. |
Sonny
Intermediate Member
Username: Sonny
Post Number: 132
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 28, 2006 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Linx, Buy the Lazer 500 and be done with it  |
Bruce
Senior Member
Username: Bruce
Post Number: 4273
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 28, 2006 - 6:48 pm: |
|
Sonny .....
You must have one heck of a tower to hold that antenna ......
99.999% of people could not tell the diffrence on a band opening between that and a 4 elm beam with 1/10 the wind load. |
Thehobo
Intermediate Member
Username: Thehobo
Post Number: 114
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 29, 2006 - 8:01 am: |
|
bruce, do you think because of the wind loading on a quad wires is one of the reasons you think the wind load wood be higher?? agin, looking at what the maker of the antenna tells us, the wind load on the quad 4 is smaller then on a moonraker or shooting star?? yes i no some makers of these products, sort of pad there specs some, but was courious as to why you say the wind load wood be higher in your way of looking at what they present to the public??? like i said above, im really looking at the s/e 4+ quad, ill be using all stainless steel hardware and from what ive been told from those who use or have used this beam, the bigg drawback is how the spreader holders are mounted on the boom?? said to wollow oput the hole after a couple years in the wind??? thought id either put a wood dowll were the holders go thru the beam and drill holes so all fit tight, or with a plug about 1 inch down the inside of the boom from the mounting hole, after putting in the mounts, fill the gap up to an 1 inch on either side of the mounts with that liquid aluminmin paste??? after it hardens mite drill a small hole on top for a sheet metal screw to hold all in place?? ya, i no, im rambling, hope you can see were im thinking?? any input on your side could be helpfull!! thanks.
thehobo
269150 am
monitor ch |
Bruce
Senior Member
Username: Bruce
Post Number: 4278
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 29, 2006 - 9:22 am: |
|
Hobo....
QUADS do have higher wind load element for element but my comment was ment toward a horizontal beam not V/H one like a moon raker.
The problems with spreaders is a classic drawback but it sounds to me like you have a good idea on how th help that S/E antenna .... shure sounds good to me.
Quads are GREAT antennas even on bands like 6 and 2 meters with high gain good capture area. |
Sonny
Intermediate Member
Username: Sonny
Post Number: 133
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 29, 2006 - 4:09 pm: |
|
bruce, I do run a four Element, the Lazer 500 is too much, with the wind Load. I use to know a guy that ran one locally and it could put a good signal out. |
Radioreddz
Junior Member
Username: Radioreddz
Post Number: 19
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Friday, December 29, 2006 - 5:38 pm: |
|
i have had the 4 element maco great antenna at 80' like most yagis height makes the work the best. also have had the moonraker 4 and pdl IIs at 48' feet believe it or not the pdl talked right along with the mooraker being that the pdl is a true quad & moonraker is a hybird yagi with quad reflector. also used a laser 400 a lot of antenna but still did not make much more of a difference @ 48 feet then the pdl II not worth all the extra stuff you go thru. but now i have a signal engineering lightning 4+ and wow does this antenna blow all the others i have had away. i talk all over guys here with shooting stars and joe gunns local and in dx land. at 48 feet. seems like the true quad works better at lower heights don't need the real high towers don't have all the wind load and are less aggervating than the larger hybird quad yagi. been checking out a lot of other guys here and also find that a guy i talk to every night 70 air miles away has a maco V quad and a fellow near him but 9 miles closer has a Y quad or Y antenna i should say being that its not a true quad same height gets covered up by the V quad. in the experiances that i have had and what i see from other set ups that Quad antenna is the way to go. also just listen to a lot of guys out in Dx land and you hear them say well i am talking off a home made 2 element quad or 3 element. quads have me sold. but if i was going back up to 80' feet or more i would go back to the 4 or 6 element yagi. under 60' feet seems the quad out performes the yagi at the same height. |
Bruce
Senior Member
Username: Bruce
Post Number: 4279
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 29, 2006 - 7:58 pm: |
|
Quads do work better at low hight however to get a real reading both antennas MUST be at the same hights and using some sort of calabrated meters.
Yagis are effected more that quads by how close to the ground they are even my 6 meter one when it was rased 4 foot showed a drop in front lobe angle.
I have run a HB 3 elm quad on 6 and a 5 elm on 2 meters and the results were as expected about 2 db better than a yagi at 30 foot since it is illeagal here to go more than 35 with out a building permit. On 6 the 3 elm on a 9 foot boom was equal to a 5 elm on a 16 foot boom MEASURED using a IFR/1200 generator as a signal sorce at several wavelengths and the sorce antenna in the main lobe.
I plan on modifing my 4 elm hygain to a 5 this spring and extending the boom out to 16 foot not for gain but F/B since a local 1.5 miles south of me runs 1500 watts to a 9 elm beam on a 45 foot boom .... the guy KILLS ME when he is on and i'm looking to get another 3-5 db F/B and a db or so more gain every DB helps when your running the kind of receiver i running on 50 mhz.
The M2 9 elm on 2 meters is sharp enougth that even he does not cause me a problem. |
Sonny
Intermediate Member
Username: Sonny
Post Number: 135
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 4:45 pm: |
|
I run a 4X4 JG up about 40 ft. on a us crankup tower turned by a Yeasu 800 sa rotor, I like the crankup with the raising fixture I can lower my beam and lay the tower down to work on things |
Bruce
Senior Member
Username: Bruce
Post Number: 4280
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 7:01 pm: |
|
Crank up is very nice ....
If i can i'm going to try to talk the building inspector into letting me put up a 30 foot tower .......
then ill have room for more antennas .... |
Linx
Member
Username: Linx
Post Number: 63
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, December 31, 2006 - 9:18 am: |
|
Thanks for all the info!
I think I may have found what I need. I found a set of Moonraker 4, brand new in the box with all paperwork for $150 locally.
Think this is a pretty good deal? I've seen these antennas sell in excess of $400. |
Road_warrior
Senior Member
Username: Road_warrior
Post Number: 2062
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 31, 2006 - 7:34 pm: |
|
Heck, that's a great deal!
Moonraker 4 and Maco shooting star are
basically the same, besides design differences. |
Linx
Member
Username: Linx
Post Number: 64
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 02, 2007 - 4:57 pm: |
|
Well,
The guy that owns the Moonraker invited me to look at the beams. I go over his house, and I am real polite. He looks at me and tells me he doesn't like me and isn't selling them to me. I talked to some buddies and they all said he was a bit screwed in the head. Looks like it may be a Maco beam now. |
Bruce
Senior Member
Username: Bruce
Post Number: 4293
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 02, 2007 - 8:41 pm: |
|
WOW ....
Nothing wrong with a maco ..... |
Linx
Member
Username: Linx
Post Number: 65
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 - 5:31 am: |
|
The Maco Shooting Star and Maco m106c are about the same price (little different). The 106c boasts supposid better gain. Any clue which beam would be better? I know the 106c will be a lot more rough to install with such a long boom, but I'm up to the challenge if it's the most bang for the buck. |
Bruce
Senior Member
Username: Bruce
Post Number: 4297
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 - 6:56 am: |
|
The gain diffrence will be only 1/2 "S" unit......
" REAL" gain on a 4 elm beam is going to run about 8DBD and that 6 elm will run only maby 11 if your lucky.
Looks to me that that shooting star would be best since it is dual polarty. |
Linx
Member
Username: Linx
Post Number: 66
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 - 7:24 am: |
|
Bruce,
Have I told you thank you for the help? Man this section of the forum wouldn't be the same without the knowledgeable input.
Another question. I saw an antenna switch that had selections for "Horz", "Vert", "Aux", and "Horz+Vert". Would this antenna rock runing on the horz+vert setting? Any better performance like that?
Is the "experimental" rejection kit any count?
I read bad stuff about.
Thanks again
Rob
CEF# 830
Portland, TN
|
Linx
Member
Username: Linx
Post Number: 67
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 - 7:28 am: |
|
One last thing. Are the hubs on the Shooting Star as nice as the ones in the Moonraker 4? I have seen the Moonraker in person and have seen numberous real pictures of it, but haven't seen the shooting star in person or in picture. I just want to make sure it's good quality.
Rob
CEF# 830
Portland, TN
|
Tech808
Moderator
Username: Tech808
Post Number: 12656
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 - 7:48 am: |
|
Linx,
There are NO hubs on the MACO SHOOTING STAR.
CLICK HERE® MACO SHOOTING STAR 8 ELEMENT
Lon
Tech808
N9CEF
CEF#808/HAM#33
CVC#002
|
Bruce
Senior Member
Username: Bruce
Post Number: 4298
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 - 9:20 am: |
|
Linx ...
Always glad to help this forum has always been the best at helping each other.
Where else can you find HAMS with 40+ years and on the same thread a new CB'er ...... over 500 here and lots of good information to shair.
Bruce |
Wally38
Intermediate Member
Username: Wally38
Post Number: 148
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 - 11:43 am: |
|
Your going to love that beam. That's the one I've been using for about a year and a half. The locals say I have the "biggest" base. I also like being able to switch from vertical to horizontal to shoot skip. |
Linx
Member
Username: Linx
Post Number: 69
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 - 4:33 pm: |
|
Wally,
Can I get a picture of your antenna? I have yet to see a picture of the Shooting Star other than the drawing. I looked in your picture area on this site and the picture isn't working.
leenx@comcast.net
Rob
CEF# 830
Portland, TN
|
Wally38
Intermediate Member
Username: Wally38
Post Number: 149
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 - 11:01 pm: |
|
I thought I had a couple pictures of it. I quess not. I will take a couple tomorrow morning and e-mail them to you. |
Linx
Member
Username: Linx
Post Number: 70
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, January 04, 2007 - 5:33 am: |
|
Thanks. Just curious is all.
Rob
CEF# 830
Portland, TN
|
