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.
The Feb 2025 Radioddity Giveaway Results are In! Click Here to see who won!

Reply to thread

Message

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

<blockquote data-quote="Bill/k4flh" data-source="post: 323971" data-attributes="member: 19007">changed itI&#039;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&#039;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&nbsp; some stress fracturing at the middle ferrule.So instead of watching it break I changed it outI still use it after 7 years. No ground radials.&nbsp; It stood up to two sever wind storms this past spring one being a force 2 tornado! It&#039;s a well constucted piece of gear and worth the 129 bucks.73Bill/K4FLH </blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bill/k4flh, post: 323971, member: 19007"] [b]changed it[/b] [FONT="Comic Sans MS"][SIZE="4"][I]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 [/I][/SIZE][/FONT] [/QUOTE]

Top Bottom