Is there much difference between the discontinued Avanti Moonraker 4 and the similarly designed Maco Shooting Star? I imaging they perform about the same, but what about build quality?
Thanks,
Night Ranger
Thanks,
Night Ranger
-
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.
Avanti Moonraker 4 versus Maco Shooting Star 4
- Thread starter night.ranger
- Start date
NR, there may be some difference in the fact that the MR elements are in the center of the boom, and the SS has off-set mounted elements. The size of the tubing is a little larger on the SS so the elements are probably a little shorter. I think the boom is 1" shorter on the SS, but the spacing is identical except for this 1" at the end at D2. There is also a difference in the boom designs.
I think you're probably right, there is probably a small difference that would be hard to tell just using your radio.
I don't like the hubs on the MR, they can be faulty and they are sometimes hard to tighten, just right, without breaking. Sometimes the wind can also twist the elements out of alignment if they are not tight enough, but I know guys that have MR's that are over 20 years old and are still working. Just be careful.
They both use a quad reflector element, and I'm not sure how modeling compares this to a standard yagi element. Reports on both brands vary.
Plus is, you can still buy a new Shooting Star.
mr 4
I had the privilege of talking skip on someone's Tram D201A rig hooked up to a Moonraker 4 with the reflector. That antenna was like shooting a laser beam in whatever direction you pointed it. But I couldn't tell you the numbers on it. I made a contact with a Columbia,South American station though. It was fun talking on the flatside as well.
op:
I had the privilege of talking skip on someone's Tram D201A rig hooked up to a Moonraker 4 with the reflector. That antenna was like shooting a laser beam in whatever direction you pointed it. But I couldn't tell you the numbers on it. I made a contact with a Columbia,South American station though. It was fun talking on the flatside as well.
op:The mechanical construction of the Shooting Star is substantially stronger than the Moonraker. The aluminum hubs on the MR cracked like glass when you tightened them down from the day they were new. The little wire fingers they put on the ends of the MR elements still makes me think they cut like 50,000 elements 4 inches too short and had to figure out a way to use them. Not a single logical reason to use those wire tips other than to make the antenna fragile, reduce bandwidth, and greatly increase the chances of a corona arc under some big power. I always liked Avanti but this is one case where the other team built a better product.
I had the privilege of talking skip on someone's Tram D201A rig hooked up to a Moonraker 4 with the reflector. That antenna was like shooting a laser beam in whatever direction you pointed it. But I couldn't tell you the numbers on it. I made a contact with a Columbia,South American station though. It was fun talking on the flatside as well.
I used the same setup as a kid with a big varmint or maco amp in between for kick. It was my moms cousins and the owner bill would get everything set up and let me cut loose. This was in the 70s and I was about 12 or so. I loved that old station.
To compare each quad antenna("MR" VS "SS") is simple. They each perform well and pretty close to the same. That's where the simiarity stops. The Wilson/Maco Shooting Star is far the better antenna to build (easier and quicker) and to use. Like the others have said before me, the "MR" element brackets are susceptible to cracking when installing and tightening the elements. Not to mention as they age. The total weight is so much more with the "MR" which makes a huge difference when it's in the air and a strong wind (60- 100 mph) comes your way!! Better construction & overall dependability with the "SS". Parts are so much easier to find and replace where the "MR" is no longer in production. I had them both in the air(1st the "MR" then the "SS") and had a strong wind double over my staub coming out of the tower with the "MR" mounted on it. Switched over to the "SS" and never had a lick of trouble out of it. No one could tell a difference in my signal either. I'm sure by this late date that you have found out this info for yourself but I thought I'd put my 2 cents in for the later readers like myself! I hope you had good luck........."Porky"
I agree with what Shockwave said on this. I have ran both antennas and installed both for folks.
In all honesty? I can not tell much difference in performance between the two. Both are good antennas. What I will say is the shooting star will hold up better than the moon raker. The moon raker has shorter tubing with extension wire on the ends. This is to make the antenna lighter. But over time they fall off and the tubing breaks wire the wire extension attaches. Then the issue with the hubs. The crack and the elements just spin around till the fall off.
Still a good antenna if set up so you can service it every 4 to 5 years.
In all honesty? I can not tell much difference in performance between the two. Both are good antennas. What I will say is the shooting star will hold up better than the moon raker. The moon raker has shorter tubing with extension wire on the ends. This is to make the antenna lighter. But over time they fall off and the tubing breaks wire the wire extension attaches. Then the issue with the hubs. The crack and the elements just spin around till the fall off.
Still a good antenna if set up so you can service it every 4 to 5 years.
BJ radionut
Supporting Member and 6m addict
Hey Porky welcome to the forum.
I've heard folks refer to these type of beam antennas as "Quagi." Here is a historical link to the idea of a Quagi I think. The Quagi antenna
I agree the performance from both should be very similar even though I have not compared these two in a real world setting or with modeling. From a functional and construction standpoint I like the design of the SS best, because of the reasons you and other raise here. However, if I could design and build this beam from scratch...I would prefer the design with the elements passing thru the center of the elements, similar to the MR.
According to the technical spec reports on these two the MR weight is 24 lbs and has a 5sf wind load. The SS is 31 lbs with a 8.91sf wind load. This is the opposite of what you indicate.
I agree fully, but I like the MR boom over the SS.
No comment
I would agree here, but I think I'll do Eznec models for both and see what that suggest.
Thanks for the post.
Last edited:
Porky or anybody else that has a Moonraker.
I started to model the MR'r and was reading up on the Manual to make my dimensions take-off as accurate as I could, and I read on the bottom of page #4, that the longest dimension was 19' feet long. I knew right away that something was wrong, because neither of my MR booms would even make 19' feet in length...even if I laid the three boom elements end to end without any overlap.
My boom elements consist of the middle support at 55" inches, and the two end elements at a total length of 76" inches each...for a total of 207" inches = 17.25' feet overall.
Both of my MR'r booms as constructed per Manual are only 190" inches long, a bit less than 16' feet in overall length. I've never built my MR's, and I've never read the Manual for a full understanding.
This looks like a Manual error right off the top.
I also realized that the MR'r has a lot of tapper with the stainless steel tips, and Eznec does not deal well with tapper. So I might not finish what I promissed.
I started to model the MR'r and was reading up on the Manual to make my dimensions take-off as accurate as I could, and I read on the bottom of page #4, that the longest dimension was 19' feet long. I knew right away that something was wrong, because neither of my MR booms would even make 19' feet in length...even if I laid the three boom elements end to end without any overlap.
My boom elements consist of the middle support at 55" inches, and the two end elements at a total length of 76" inches each...for a total of 207" inches = 17.25' feet overall.
Both of my MR'r booms as constructed per Manual are only 190" inches long, a bit less than 16' feet in overall length. I've never built my MR's, and I've never read the Manual for a full understanding.
This looks like a Manual error right off the top.
I also realized that the MR'r has a lot of tapper with the stainless steel tips, and Eznec does not deal well with tapper. So I might not finish what I promissed.
Marconi, The 19 feet is the turning radius and not the longest element length since more space is needed to turn it from the center without the reflector hitting anything. As far as the 31 pounds, that is the shipping weight but having both antennas the SS didn't appear to be this heavy. Not sure what's going on there.
Thanks Donald. I could just agree with you, but the turning radius for the Maco SS is noted, in their Manual, to be only 13' feet...so I'm still not sure. Maybe Maco is making a big error too.
Check the link below.
Maco Antenna Specifications
Whatever the real weight, I would think it should bear on the wind load values these two antenna makers report. The SS reports a 8.91sf load, and the MR'r reports 5sf. IMO that is a notable difference that does not seem to agree with the claims made here. I'm not making these claims up, I'm just reporting what is on the record.
Also like I said earlier, when I read the MR'r manual I noted the dimension of 19' feet at the bottom of page #4, and I was surprised...so I asked my question.
Last edited:
Marconi, Now I have to agree with you because these numbers just don't add up. Good eye to pick up on that. I strongly suspect there is some mistake in these specs because these two antennas cannot have such different lengths and wind loading. I can understand a weight difference but the wind loading is a function of surface area. I'm thinking nearly half of the MR elements would need to be made of wire before the wind load could drop almost in half too.
One other thing I wanted to point out is that many of the antennas Tom at Maco designed have unusually long reflector elements at 222 inches or 18.5 feet. The reflectors are noticeably longer than the original Wilson designs at 216 inches. At first I was sure I'd be able to extract more performance adjusting the reflector length shorter.
After two days with the field strength receiver and attenuators, I'm convinced Tom did a great job! Nothing I could do with the reflector element length could improve forward gain. It would appear he has already put the effort into getting this perfect.
One other thing I wanted to point out is that many of the antennas Tom at Maco designed have unusually long reflector elements at 222 inches or 18.5 feet. The reflectors are noticeably longer than the original Wilson designs at 216 inches. At first I was sure I'd be able to extract more performance adjusting the reflector length shorter.
After two days with the field strength receiver and attenuators, I'm convinced Tom did a great job! Nothing I could do with the reflector element length could improve forward gain. It would appear he has already put the effort into getting this perfect.
Last edited:
I luv my moonraker...got it off my buddy Shotgun....it was basically brand new.....it was all put together by a local legend "Turkey"who was a oddball antenna genius....if he put a antenna together and everything was not perfect...he would take it apart and do it over again...he was a perfection nut.
Mine has been up for 4yrs and has been through terrible storms and it remains unscathed so far.
My penetrator 500 is a pretty good antenna..has great rx and tx......but the moonraker makes it seem like a coat hanger.......my antenna set up is the best i have ever had or ever will have.
The moonraker got all new coax last summer....heavy duty mil-spec cable.....Shotgun found this guy with a bucket truck who would do the job for $100.....it was a package deal...we both got work done...so the guy gave us a great deal.
Mine has been up for 4yrs and has been through terrible storms and it remains unscathed so far.
My penetrator 500 is a pretty good antenna..has great rx and tx......but the moonraker makes it seem like a coat hanger.......my antenna set up is the best i have ever had or ever will have.
The moonraker got all new coax last summer....heavy duty mil-spec cable.....Shotgun found this guy with a bucket truck who would do the job for $100.....it was a package deal...we both got work done...so the guy gave us a great deal.
Hey Eastside it has been a while since we crossed paths.
I have several old buddies that have run MR's for years and with few reported issues. One buddy about 30 miles from me has worked his MR on a 50' tower since the 1990's, and he claims to have never taken it down. His rotor stopped about 5 years ago, but he does just fine anyway. In fact this is the only antenna he talks on.
Another buddy has a Moonraker on a 60' foot tower, and it has been up for may years too. He lost a stainless steel tip on a director, but it still seems to work just fine. He also runs a Starduster on a 50' foot pushup pole that was a used antenna when he got it. I helped him put it up right after he installed his MR.
Both stood up during hurricane Ike: Effects of Hurricane Ike in Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I use to have a friend in Franklin, Texas about 140 miles from me. He lived on a hill about 50' high in the middle of flat land all around his 200 acres. He had run a Shooting Star on a 100' foot tower for years with no issues.
I also help a buddy install a MR on a 50' foot crank-up mast he built. Over my objections...he installed wire guy lines that were very taught, and his MR feel apart within the first year.
I put up a NOB SD'r about 3 years ago and I just took it down. The radial mast ring bracket broke and my radials became very unsteady. I had another original SD'r up for over 20 years continous...with no issues.
Stuff just happens.