• 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.
  • Click here to find out how to win free radios from Retevis!

A99/Max2000 Poll and Discussion

Solarcon A99/MAX 200 Antennas, what have/do you run?

  • A-99

    Votes: 26 28.6%
  • Max 2000

    Votes: 31 34.1%
  • A-99 with a antenna tuner

    Votes: 9 9.9%
  • Max 2000 with a antenna tuner

    Votes: 11 12.1%
  • I have never used a Max2000 or a A_99

    Votes: 14 15.4%

  • Total voters
    91
Well Oldtimer,

Rather than rely on my memory (which is suspect already!) I thought I’d take a few minutes and actually measure what my A-99 looks like. First thing, it’s actually fed with 100’ of LMR-400, not 75’—it’s my yagi that’s fed with 75’, sorry for the error. Here’s what I measured with my MFJ-259, measured at my operating position through a 10’ jumper into a switch:

A-9927MHzVSWR.jpg


(24.5 appears twice because I had to round the numbers off to one decimal place so the chart wouldn't be so cluttered. The 2:1 point was 24.518 MHz.)

Not bad, really. I remember now during my testing that I tried to shift the whole thing upward a few hundred KHz to get more of 10m while still getting 12m, but that just did not happen. As I recall, the tuning in its final position, 30 feet in the air (the bottom of the antenna) was not much different from the testing position at 15 feet.

So, the 2:1 VSWR bandwidth on my A-99 as it stands is 3.52 MHz—which ain’t too shabby. The 2:1 bandwidth of the little ground plane was 4.05 MHz. So while it was better in that regard, it wasn’t all that much better, though I think I could have adjusted it to cover 12 through 10 if I’d been serious about it.

Here are a couple of interesting measurements:

A-9919MHzVSWR.jpg


A-9922MHzSWR.jpg


These fall just outside the amateur bands of course, and I see several moments of low VSWR in the VHF spectrum (not 6 or 2 meters, dang it…)

I’m curious to see what other folks are seeing from their A-99s, and whether this is typical (I'd guess it is).

Rick
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Well Oldtimer,

Rather than rely on my memory (which is suspect already!) I thought I’d take a few minutes and actually measure what my A-99 looks like. First thing, it’s actually fed with 100’ of LMR-400, not 75’—it’s my yagi that’s fed with 75’, sorry for the error. Here’s what I measured with my MFJ-259, measured at my operating position through a 10’ jumper into a switch:

A-9927MHzVSWR.jpg


(24.5 appears twice because I had to round the numbers off to one decimal place so the chart wouldn't be so cluttered. The 2:1 point was 24.518 MHz.)

Not bad, really. I remember now during my testing that I tried to shift the whole thing upward a few hundred KHz to get more of 10m while still getting 12m, but that just did not happen. As I recall, the tuning in its final position, 30 feet in the air (the bottom of the antenna) was not much different from the testing position at 15 feet.

So, the 2:1 VSWR bandwidth on my A-99 as it stands is 3.52 MHz—which ain’t too shabby. The 2:1 bandwidth of the little ground plane was 4.05 MHz. So while it was better in that regard, it wasn’t all that much better, though I think I could have adjusted it to cover 12 through 10 if I’d been serious about it.

Rick

Rick, here is my Autek VA1 and SWR Bandwidth Curves for my A99 at about 41' to the mount. Your curve looks pretty close to what I see too, except you're a lot lower in frequency.

View attachment A99 Autek VA1 SWR Curves.pdf
 
Last edited:
A99 / I-MAX

Thanks Guy,
I don't disagree with anything written, My point most radio operator wants to get there station up an running quick, and they will get a lots of bang for there buck on 11meters ...........Oldtimer:)
 
Many thanks for posting your chart, Marconi. That is interesting, very similar curves. If I'd been able to move mine up 400 KHz, that would have been nice.

I did get on 12 meters today for a while with it. Nothing much on the band but a CE3 with a sizable pileup. After about 5 minutes I just turned it off and went back to work-- I ain't standing in line for South America!


Rick
 
I had the antron A-99 and was told to buy it over a big stick. Was also more money at the time. was given a groung plane kit that I thought made it look cool but made no improvrment. The I-max200 was bought with new coax and almost a flat match on 10 and 11 mtrs factory tune, great antenna..But I miss my PDL-2
 
changed it

I've run both A99 and the 2000. The 2000.
is superior in all aspects from construction to performance over an A 99.
The 2000 is NOT a 5/8 wave antenna it is a .64 wave.(do the math if you doubt this).A .64 antenna is a better configuration than a 5/8 wave. This is probably the main reason for it's superior performance.(A 99 being 1/2 wave)
Now for a contradiction.
I changed the 2000 out for a MaCo V 5000(5/8 wave). Same exact location same coax. No changes except the antenna. The performance gain was surprising. 2 -3 s unit gain on both receive and transmit! I expected no change.I was replacing it because of the age of the Imax. I had done my yeearly inspection and cleaning of the connector and noticed what looked like some stress fracturing at the middle ferrule.So instead of watching it break I changed it out
I still use it after 7 years. No ground radials. It stood up to two sever wind storms this past spring one being a force 2 tornado! It's a well constucted piece of gear and worth the 129 bucks.
73
Bill/K4FLH
 
............A .64 antenna is a better configuration than a 5/8 wave................
Now for a contradiction.
I changed the 2000 out for a MaCo V 5000(5/8 wave). Same exact location same coax. No changes except the antenna. The performance gain was surprising. 2 -3 s unit gain on both receive and transmit!....................

is it really a contradiction ? of is the first comment simply wrong ?
 
That 'contradiction' is probably because of how the things were measured and their construction. Their length just isn't 'cast in stone', depends on how/where that matching section is done. I have a very hard time believing that a few inches difference in length can't be accounted for by the differences in the inductance provided by that matching device. Not to mention that almost 3 dB difference in performance? That isn't to say that I don't believe that the user seeing that difference, but it is kind'a much for such a small difference in length.
- 'Doc
 
I changed the 2000 out for a MaCo V 5000(5/8 wave). Same exact location same coax. No changes except the antenna. The performance gain was surprising. 2 -3 s unit gain on both receive and transmit! 73
Bill/K4FLH

I talked to the same station in Germany two days in a row last week on my Imax 2k. Day one he was S9 but day two he was S9 +20 and I didn't even change my antenna! So, unless you were comparing gain on an antenna range with test equipment I say that doing nothing will give you as much overall gain as replacing the Imax 2k with a Maco V5000. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
I seem to get excellent preformance from my A99 and here is a good example....
Just today I spoke to a fella on a small Island called St.Martin in the Carribbean and that was with my RCI 2950 with only 5 watts pushing off the A99:whistle:(y) from Belleville, Ontario Canada.
 
A99/IMAX

On 10-11-12m these antennas are hard to beat for a vertical antenna, low wind load light weight very low Standing Wave Ratio and american made, never found another vertical antenna that will work any better and cost less than these two antennas!.........KB6HRT
 
Now give it some rational thought and be objective about it.
A. Efficiency has very little to do with SWR. It has quite a bit to do with resonance.
B. SWR tells you nothing about how well an antenna is working, only about the impedance match with the feed line, -IF- that measurement is done at the antenna's feed point. If it's measured at the transmitter's end of that feed line it tells you NOTHING about the antenna's impedance matching, only the combination of impedances of both feed line and antenna.
C. The definition of resonance is the absence of reactance. Resonance has nothing to do with impedance. A low SWR is NOT a sign of resonance.
D. A dummy load has (or should have) no reactance in it, only resistance, so if designed correctly will show a very nice SWR at almost all frequencies. A dummy load is a terrible antenna. But it can, and will, radiate.

On the air reports are very unreliable. You have no sure way of duplicating the conditions which define if that report is 'good' or 'bad'. They are all 'subjective', not 'objective' at all. There are just too many undefined 'parts' to them. Even a blind pig can find an acorn once in a while, but the ones which can see finds a lot more. I have a problem with depending on 'blind' pigs finding my 'lunch'. I'd rather have a pig that knows what an acorn looks like and can see them.
Think about it...
- 'Doc
 
Well here are my .02 worth...

I have a Imax 2000 and dont like it one bit... The TX is good but the RX side Xcuse the Xpression SUX A$$... keep in mind I am in a hole but what I dont get is that running 100-125 W when the skip was good I would get into Euro with a 5x5 5x6 sometime better but on the RX side They would hit me at 0x2 sometimes 3x4.. And it didnt matter what radio I was using..Kenwood, galaxy or the Lincoln..


When I can my METAL antenna goes back up.....

PS: no ground kit
 

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • dxBot:
    Greg T has left the room.
  • @ BJ radionut:
    EVAN/Crawdad :love: ...runna pile-up on 6m SSB(y) W4AXW in the air
    +1
  • @ Crawdad:
    One of the few times my tiny station gets heard on 6m!:D
  • @ Galanary:
    anyone out here familiar with the Icom IC-7300 mods