• You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.

antron 99 vs shakespear big stick

The biggest difference between the two antennas is that the 'A99' has an impedance matching circuit built into it. That 'Big Stick' doesn't, so you have to match impedances some other way (typically with feed line length).
I'm sure there's differences in their 'durability' too. But you have those kinds of differences with all antennas.
Suit your self.
- 'Doc
 
  • Like
Reactions: Junebug
They made a Super Big Stick 2 that had a matching pigtail. I had that particular one and the end were the pigtail attched to the antenna kept falling apart. It had a copper strap that was flimsy. I ended up junking it and getting an A99. That was years back.

Hey Zman, I had a Super Big Stick, and it didn't have a pigtail. It was a two piece radiator I think. I also had a SP Marine something, and it had a pigtail. The radiator was maybe 10' feet tall or less, with the pigtail hanging out the bottom that served as the ground side of the 1/4 wave radiator.

The antenna was stuck by lightning while installed in the top of a 60' Pine, and some of the parts are probably still flying. The coax was not in use, and wrapped around the base of the tree, and thus the tree was destroyed as well. It was like hell on Earth here that day.

The biggest difference between the two antennas is that the 'A99' has an impedance matching circuit built into it. That 'Big Stick' doesn't, so you have to match impedances some other way (typically with feed line length).
I'm sure there's differences in their 'durability' too. But you have those kinds of differences with all antennas.
Suit your self.
- 'Doc

Hey 'Doc, I think the inside of the Big Stick was a two piece center fed coaxial sleeved dipole, and there was no matching device other than the sleeve affect. I never saw inside, but that is the way I imagined the SPBS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Junebug
my old 16 foot shakespear super bigstick had a low power matching circuit inside made of a capaciter and a small coil. when i blew it up with 300w from a skipper300 i disected it and saw the burned components.
they do ok at lower power unless there was a different version that used a higher power matching circuit. maybe the one with the pigtail. mine didnt have the pigtail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Junebug
my old 16 foot shakespear super bigstick had a low power matching circuit inside made of a capaciter and a small coil. when i blew it up with 300w from a skipper300 i disected it and saw the burned components.
they do ok at lower power unless there was a different version that used a higher power matching circuit. maybe the one with the pigtail. mine didnt have the pigtail.

I'm not sure NB, but I think you have it wrong, but I'm open to a better understanding on the S/P Big Stick. S/P made several base antennas for CB over time.

They made the Super Big Stick-NBS 2010, 3pc and probably had a tuner inside like you describe. 1/2 or 5/8 I not sure:unsure:
They made the ABS 1600, Army Big Stick, 3 pc, 21' long and probably had a tuner like you describe, for sure a 5/8 wave as advertised.
They made the UPS Super Big Stick, 2pc, 16' long that I think was a sleeved dipole inside. I think this is what I first had.
They made the BS, 2pc, 18.5' foot I think, and I think it too was a sleeved dipole inside. I had this years later, and may be what 351 has.
They also made a Big StickII that was 2pc, and had a pigtail attached, which someone else has talked about here or in another thread. I was wrong about this one though, I called it a Marine Big Stick, which I think that one was one pc, 1/4 wave with a pigtail.

the model of this anttena is 176-s its 2 sections the bottom section looks about 12 foot and the top section is about 8 feet
if this isnt a decent anttena i will sell it

351 describes his antenna as two piece and figures it's 20' feet long. I'm not sure about the length, but that could be about right. However there is a difference between the S/P Super Big Stick, and the S/P BS that I think 351 talks about in his original post.

Freecell said the following, and this is the way I visualize the S/P BS in my mind, being a center fed sleeved dipole...whereas FC calls it a coaxial 1/2 wave dipole.


I know nothing about FC's final remarks however.

the shakespeare big stick # 176 (if that's the model you have) is a coaxial halfwave dipole with less bandwidth, less gain, (if we pretend that the A99 is just an end fed half wave vertical) handles a fraction of the power of the A99 with no where near the wind survival rating. it's so pathetic as a matter of fact that now it's called the 176-1 and is marketed as a marine cb antenna. both manufacturers also lied in equal amounts when it came to the advertised gain ratings.

i hear they make great fishing rods.

I also recall doing a continuity test on the BS and it was an open circuit, and the matcher you describe sounds like what is inside the S/P Super Big Stick and the maybe the NBS. All 351 has to do is check the continuity on his and tell us if it is and open or closed circuit, both the SBS and the NBS should show a closed circuit. This should give us a clue what the matching inside might be, a center fed sleeved dipole or a coil with a capacitor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Junebug
Marconi, this was back in the late '70s or early '80s when i had it. I remember it was only 16 feet and a 2 piece with a black rubber cover for the middle where the whip screwed into the base. I still have the whip. The matching circuit that I fried was inside the top of the bottom section. I'm fairly sure it said Super Big Stick on it and I know it said Shakespeare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Junebug
Marconi, this was back in the late '70s or early '80s when i had it. I remember it was only 16 feet and a 2 piece with a black rubber cover for the middle where the whip screwed into the base. I still have the whip. The matching circuit that I fried was inside the top of the bottom section. I'm fairly sure it said Super Big Stick on it and I know it said Shakespeare.

Here is a Shakespeare Patent link that uses the idea of a sleeved dipole. If you read it, you'll see the reasons SP uses this idea in some of their CB antennas. I don't have the plug-in to print the Patent or I would post it.

Scroll up to see the images.

Patent US4097870 - Active sleeve surrounding feed line for dipole antenna - Google Patents
 
Marconi, this was back in the late '70s or early '80s when i had it. I remember it was only 16 feet and a 2 piece with a black rubber cover for the middle where the whip screwed into the base. I still have the whip. The matching circuit that I fried was inside the top of the bottom section. I'm fairly sure it said Super Big Stick on it and I know it said Shakespeare.

Yep, they probably used that boot at the top of the bottom section to keep as much water out as possible, because this top area was an open end (a long pigtail) of coax from the coax connector to the top...where the shield connected to the wire sleeve.

I don't know what you had, but the length suggest that is was likely a 1/2 wave, so I figure it had to be setup similar to the one in this Patent.

Did you keep any part of the old matcher you found, that you could post? I would like to see it. I have the inside of an old A99 that I've kept for years.

A99 Matcher 01 (640x480).jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Junebug
Nope, didn't keep any. I just figured it was to tune the 72 ohms of a straight dipole down to 50.

Plenty of guys operate a dipole direct feed and probably see the 72 ohms you describe. If the length is close to resonance, the addition of a feed line will likely add enough transformation to the feed point to show and almost perfect SWR on an in-line meter, so why bother with a matcher. According to the Patent, that is why S/P did the sleeve.

I think Homer uses a similar sleeve technique in a couple of 1/2 wave dipoles he made. I don't think he uses a tuner, and he probably sees a pretty good match...just using a feed line.

My Eznec model of a resonant 1/2 wave center fed dipole, shows R=<>70, X=<1, SWR=1.4<>. With a modest length of feed line it probably looks like 1.1:1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Junebug
Plenty of guys operate a dipole direct feed and probably see the 72 ohms you describe. If the length is close to resonance, the addition of a feed line will likely add enough transformation to the feed point to show and almost perfect SWR on an in-line meter, so why bother with a matcher. According to the Patent, that is why S/P did the sleeve.

I think Homer uses a similar sleeve technique in a couple of 1/2 wave dipoles he made. I don't think he uses a tuner, and he probably sees a pretty good match...just using a feed line.

My Eznec model of a resonant 1/2 wave center fed dipole, shows R=<>70, X=<1, SWR=1.4<>. With a modest length of feed line it probably looks like 1.1:1.

I don't expect 75' of 213 will drop the swr that much. 1.4 isn't a big deal but not a good selling point. I imagine that's why there was a small matching circuit in mine, to get it down to 1:1.
I know as soon as it fried it went to 3:1 but part of it may have still been good. I seem to remember one half was burnt and melted but the rest still looked ok.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Junebug
I don't expect 75' of 213 will drop the swr that much. 1.4 isn't a big deal but not a good selling point. I imagine that's why there was a small matching circuit in mine, to get it down to 1:1.
I know as soon as it fried it went to 3:1 but part of it may have still been good. I seem to remember one half was burnt and melted but the rest still looked ok.

NB, I was referring to my Eznec results, so I was thinking theoretically and not about using an in-line SWR meter. I assume that Eznec5 does about as good as science can calculate using the NEC engine, so I figure the 1.4 SWR was probably very close to a true resistive match indication...in the case I sited.

However, my experience shows me it is likely, using a long feed line with some mismatch, that an SWR meter could show us a 1.1:1 SWR or about any other value we could imagine, depending on the meter's location in the line and some other factors, but that is real world stuff and there are hundreds of ideas regarding feed line affects.

Maybe you consider such affects as minor, but I don't in most cases. One thing is for sure, you'll likely never see the distinction to a point of understanding using an in line meter. I think if you correctly use an analyzer...you might agree.

I've never effectively seen a real world perfectly matched setup, so you could be right, assuming the match was truly resistive. One thing is for sure, as soon as you move the antenna the perfect match is sure to change, and this is not the same claim regarding feed line length...which does not affect the feed point match of an antenna.

With some mismatch I would expect to see feed line transformation, and then it really matters where the meter is located in the feed line, and what the meter might indicate. We hear this discussed (foolin' your meter) all the time on these forums, and there's lots of misinformation and ideas on the subject.

Like I always say in situations like this, "...we're just lucky that Mother Nature doesn't require our radio system to be perfect in order for us to use our radio."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Junebug
I can offer an anecdotal experience. I was getting a 1.3:1 reading on my Penetrator and wondered why. I dropped it down the 3 sections of mast and hooked the mfj-259 direct and read 1.3:1.
I had bumped the ground side of the match when carrying it up on the roof so I bent it back to where it was straight along the side and that did it. back to the flashing 0-1 reactance 1:1swr I saw when I dialed it in on the lower mast from the ground in the back yard.
Once the mast was back to fully erected I now also read 1:1 at the radio with 72' of 213, which I had cut down from 75' because of it's 66% vf and 72' is six 1/2 waves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Junebug
It all depends what you wanna do with the antenna. If your a CB radio only user then yes you can find them old big sticks for cheap and they make great CB radio base antennas and theres no sense of paying for broadbanded antennas when you dont need them and an older cheaper 11 meter antenna is available.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Junebug
shakespeare big sticks

Yep, they probably used that boot at the top of the bottom section to keep as much water out as possible, because this top area was an open end (a long pigtail) of coax from the coax connector to the top...where the shield connected to the wire sleeve.

I don't know what you had, but the length suggest that is was likely a 1/2 wave, so I figure it had to be setup similar to the one in this Patent.

Did you keep any part of the old matcher you found, that you could post? I would like to see it. I have the inside of an old A99 that I've kept for years.

View attachment 6383

The Boot Was required to meet the CPSC rules that were placed on vertical CB antennas Those rules were not just for metal vertical cb antennas the big stick had a chrome piece at the top of the bottom section where the top whip screwed into this metal had to be insulated from coming into contact with a power line.

72+1 RCB
 
  • Like
Reactions: Junebug and Marconi

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • @ Wildcat27:
    Hello I have a old school 2950 receives great on all modes and transmits great on AM but no transmit on SSB. Does anyone have any idea?
  • @ ButtFuzz:
    Good evening from Sunny Salem! What’s shaking?
  • dxBot:
    63Sprint has left the room.
  • dxBot:
    kennyjames 0151 has left the room.