Maco 103C vs a V-Quad

[Mr Clean]

Or maybe they are?

I have't done any real world testing. Have you? Im not stating anything but these guys have tested and they have some respected names as far as the subject goes. Cebek,Overbook. W8jI also says a yagi is little better from all I've seen him say on the net

http://www.antennex.com/shack/Nov00/dan_edit.htm

http://w8ji.com

http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php?topic=40859.5;wap2

 

[Road Squawker]

... W8jI also says a yagi is little better from all I've seen him say on the net...

Thats not exactly what Tom said, he was referring to MULTI band antennas, that's why he said this : "... the stacking narrows the elevation beamwidth, but ONLY as certain specific heights! "

In other words, the Quad is superior at modest heights

 

[Mr Clean]

Thats not exactly what Tom said, he was referring to MULTI band antennas, that's why he said this : "... the stacking narrows the elevation beamwidth, but ONLY as certain specific heights! "

In other words, the Quad is superior at modest heights

I am on the iPhone now and don't want to mess with pasting on it but google tom raunch quad yagi and you will see many bands have been tested. Says nothing about multi band. What he said was a quad is just 2 stacked quarter wave dipoles. It also says antenna modeling software doesn't take into account for wire on quads that is smaller than yagi elements.

 

[Mr Clean]

Thats not exactly what Tom said, he was referring to MULTI band antennas, that's why he said this : "... the stacking narrows the elevation beamwidth, but ONLY as certain specific heights! "

In other words, the Quad is superior at modest heights

That's not what the first paste up states. As far as takeoff angle. And in my simple mind 2 quarter wave dipoles has the same amount of element as one half wave. Am I missing something.

 

[Road Squawker]

That's not what the first paste up states. As far as takeoff angle. .... Am I missing something.

that is what it says, I copied and pasted a quote from the link you provided.

 

[Mr Clean]

that is what it says, I copied and pasted a quote from the link you provided.

It says it has no advantage on toa and has less signal going upward but no more in the lower lobe. What am I missing? Like I said at the start both very good antennas but the quad does not have more gain as far as these experts see it A little less in fact Cebek is well respected and I my friend am tied of beating a dead horse. Stick a fork in me I'm done

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

FWIW there is no such thing as a quarter wave dipole. A dipole consists of two quarter wave sections making it a half wave overall. Anything less is simply a shortened dipole. A quad has two half wave dipoles per element.

 

[The DB]

He quoted word for word from Tom Rauch's post on your eham link. Tom Rauch is w8ji. A quote from his post in your link.

The quad vs. yagi debate was covered years ago by actual measurements in several published articles. Actual working HF quads and yagis of all sizes were measured and compared to the same portable reference antenna. In that comparison the quads were generally down in performance compared to similar size yagi antennas. They were virtually never better.

I'm guessing you were referring to someone else's test, however, Dick Whetstone, AD4U did make said claim, perhaps that is the specific part you were looking at in the link, and in the process completely ignoring what w8ji said?

When it comes to the w8ji link, you didn't link straight to the page with the relevant info, so I will do so...

http://w8ji.com/quad_cubical_quad.htm

On that page he shows a case where the quad outperform the dipole, and a case where the dipole outperforms the quad, unfortunately, the quad outperformed the dipole in the free space environment which actually doesn't exist on this planet. When he put those antennas over an earth the gain of the quad was actually 0.01 dB less than the yagi antenna's gain. However, in the same section he does mention that in some cases the quad can have up to (but almost always less than 1 dB in gain. How much of a difference does that make? You will never notice it, and neither will the people you talk to, it takes much more than that to be anywhere close to noticeable.

He goes on, so please read his page. On more than one occasion he states that a quad can have gain over a dipole, but in other situations it can also have loss as compared to a dipole. There is no definite backing on your claim for quads in general here.

Also from your antennex link...

Second, there are claims of superior performance when compared to Yagis. It is alleged that a quad-based parasitic array can significantly outperform a much larger Yagi having more elements. Or, that a quad of "X" elements will have the gain of a Yagi of X+1 elements. Other authors have claimed that the quad has an advantage due to its lower takeoff angle (TOA) when compared to a Yagi at the same height.

Claims of superior performance does not specifically mean that the quad will have more gain, in fact later in the article it specifically states...

It wasn't until Wayne Overbeck, N6NB, in the early 1970's, took a portable crankup tower to test antenna gain at various stations with large arrays that the "Quad vs. Yagi" controversy was resolved - in favor of the Yagis. Not only were the quads' gains inferior to Yagis with the same number of elements but they were not as rugged.

That doesn't sound to me like a him saying the quad had better performance...

I can go on here, but the short version is, while the quad has some benefits over the yagi, no one of repute is stating that it is superior to a yagi in all cases, and in some cases quads are inferior.


The DB

 

[Mr Clean]

FWIW there is no such thing as a quarter wave dipole. A dipole consists of two quarter wave sections making it a half wave overall. Anything less is simply a shortened dipole. A quad has two half wave dipoles per element.

You are right. I don't know anything more than I learn on here and read from a few others. I am just going by what these guys are saying and they have done real world testing. Either will get your signal 15000 miles down the road with some help from mother nature and thats all that really matters. Quads have a longer driven element but a dipole covers a wider chuck of space. Both great antennas. I am wondering how a 2 element quad would work on the rv. I know harry hspd says a quad on vert polarity gets less interaction with the mast and I can see that as a good thing. Im just a parrot as I have to believe in test others have done. Im nobody I guess I'm saying. Im to old to fight road squawker so this is as bloody as I want to get! Peace.

 

[Needle Bender]

I installed a MACO V-Quad a few months ago for a local guy - what a spectacular antenna. Much better performance than any 3 element Yagi I've ever used.

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

Nobody has mentioned it yet so I will. I find it funny that a well known antenna manufacturer cannot even call his antennas what they are. These "V-quads" are most definitely NOT a quad. They are in fact a Delta loop antenna. A quad by the simple use of the word "quad" has four sides to the elements whereas a delta loop has three sides and is named after the Greek letter delta which looks like a triangle. Anybody remember seeing a "DELTA TUNE" control on their radios that had a little triangle beside it? Both however are a full wavelength in circumference however the true quad will in theory have better characteristics due to occupying a larger area. Ideally the best is a full circle followed by a multi-segmented shape such as an octagon then a quad and finally a delta loop. The differences however are seen on instruments and not on a signal meter.