Antenna Specialists Super Magnum

[Commish]

Hey, I'm a new guy here! I started in CB back in the mid 60's and kind of got away from it in the late 70's. Dabbled in ham radio with a novice license back then too. Anyway, for whatever reason, the radio big has bitten me again! I still own some classic cb gear from my early days, in fact, still have my first rig!
My question....I was out hunting around in my other building today, and there up in the rafters was my neatly bundled original Super Mag antenna! I had forgotten all about it. I really want to get it back up, but wonder what shape it will be in electrically. Physically it's in very good condition. The original red coil housing is faded pure white. The bottom bracket is pretty rusty, but should clean up. What should I expect, how should I go about checking it out, should I expect the loading coil to be bad....how do I get my old ground plane back up and running?!!!

 

[Mudfoot]

Easy! Clean it up, put it together and talk on it.

 

[midnight special]

depending on which super mag it is not running a lot of power thru it is not recommended because it will burn coil out,, the only to tell if it works is put it up in the air and see,, i had one back in the mid 70s,, the one with the coil that would burn out,, it is basically a circuit board with a small wire coil on it ,,,,they are a very good antenna,,,loved mine but was sad on losing it because i went thru a lot of other antennas experimenting,,,,

 

[Jay Mojave]

Hello Commish: The Super Mag Antenna will work better than the fiberglass non ground plane antennas.

General cleaning, use Scott Bright to clean up and make the connection areas all shinny. Use new coax like RG8, RG213, or LMR400 the good stuff.

The SO-239 connector will need to be cleaned up and make sure the connections are solid. The Coil is made from 14 gauge enamel wire and should be ok. If the enamel has rotted off the coil it can rewound with new wire.

The weak part is the coil housing or tube. It needs to be replaced or reinforced with fiberglass cloth and harder, and painted black to protect it from the suns UV.

http://www.cbtricks.com/ant_manuals/ant_specialists/m_117/ad/index.htm

Good luck, let us know how you make out.

Jay in the Great Mojave Desert

 

[Commish]

Thanks for the replies! I'm excited that I found it. Originally got it in 1968. Don't remember if it was new or from another CBer. I know if I look out there I will find my old Hygain five element beam too. I'm going to clean it up, check out the coil housing, and let you all know how it does!!

 

[gamegetter]

i seem to remember the receive on them was really quiet. and heed the advice on the wattage from above. enjoy the hobby.

 

[Jay Mojave]

Yeah you can't run big power thru those Super Mag antennas because the coil is a tightly wound 14 gauge enamel wire, about 1 inch long, on a approx. 1 inch diameter, so its a small matching coil. I would think 1KW max would be its power limit.

The 5 element Hy-Gain beam will work well. Suggest you use the Hy Gain Balun as they work well together. Usually a good crank up and tilt over tower is a good call, and a good rotor. Takes some engineering and doing but the Hy-Gain 5 Element Beam performance is well worth the effort, as experience shows.

See: http://www.hy-gain.com/Product.php?productid=BN-4000B

http://www.cbtricks.com/ant_manuals/hygain/model_410/graphics/hy-gain_410_five_element_beam.pdf

http://www.cbtricks.com/ant_manuals/hygain/model_411/graphics/hy-gain_411_five_element_beam.pdf

Good luck

Jay in the Great Mojave Desert

Kreedentials:
Passed Traffic school, only took twice this time, No Kolledge credits
New Left hand Head Gasket on 64 Buick, no leaks, 455 motor hauls the mail
Voted last time, and even found the right place, no donuts or coffee
Even Louder and more Bodacious PA System in 4X4 F250 400 HP Truck, watch out ladies on cell phones
New 5 element beam antenna at 75 feet, no damage from last horrific wind storm

 

[Marconi]

Commish could you give me the dimensions for your Super Mag? I would like to model it, but I'm not sure of the dimensions.

 

[gamegetter]

Marconi, if commish doesn't return or can't get you measurements, i can likely get you some measurements, but it will be a few days maybe next weekend. I still have my super maggie, even though it has a severe bend on the lower end when a storm knocked my mast down several years ago. I had a thread on it somewhere on here but i never got it repaired since I really wanted to try the gainmaster.

 

[Marconi]

Thanks.

GG, I probably will find the old HyGain design that I think was used as the base for the Super Mag with raised radials.

My Eznec models of the design works a bit better than the same length element with radials located at the base.

I have a high regard for my old CLR 2 antenna that was the first base station antenna I used for many years.

Thanks for the help.

 

[Marconi]

GG I checked and Commish has not been around for some time, so thank you for your help.

 

[2RT307]

Marconi, I don't want to hijack the thread, but wanted to ask you if you remember a Taylor .64 wave ground plane? I had one back in '79-'80, and it was a great antenna. I never hear or see anything about them.

73,
Brett

 

[Marconi]

Brett, I just now read something about such an antenna in an old post somewhere dated 2009, and it suggested that I and Eddie (Wolf Antennas) and another antenna hobbyists might have talked about this .64 antenna. I am acquainted with Eddie Chacconie...the originator of Wolf Radio, however, and I own two of his CB antennas including his .64 wave vertical ground plane. It worked good for me, but it was so big...that actually I never had it up too long.

IMO, it needs to be mounted pretty high and on a tower, but the radial system (works fine) would likely fail and is of weak design.

I also remember reading a story, a true account, a fable, or fiction, about a pre-WW2 science study in a white paper for US broadcast network radio. It seems there was a pitted battle of technologies and science between some America and Japanese radio engineers of the time. Both arguing the merits of the .625 wave being the maximum gain vertical possible vs. the .64 wave idea by the Japanese.

We hear the modern day claims about the superiority of the .64 wavelength antenna, and IMO that was all blown out of reasonable proportions by the CB antenna industry of the past...just to try and sell more antennas.

However, I can't say any of this is true, and I have never found any supporting documents to verify it...but the idea is interesting.

I also don't think my Eznec models will support the idea of the .64 being the best either. I'll check that out Brett, just to make sure though.

Thanks for the post.

 

[The DB]

When it comes to antenna length, I've done a study using models on this in the past. The .64 wavelength came up as the maximum gain length on exactly one setup, a ground mounted antenna with many 1/2 wavelength radials. I have tried many other configurations, heights, grounds, ect. and every one of them had their max low angle gain somewhere between .6 and .64. None of them, however, made it all the way to .64, and most were very close to .625.

Another note on that modeling experiment, even though the length caused less gain to go to the lower angle lobe, it was not, however a dramatic change. The low angle lobe didn't just mysteriously vanish or anything, it simply had slightly less gain than the maximum gain amount. What seemed to matter more than anything for typical antenna designs used on the CB band was how close the antenna was to the ground, and potentially the ground quality as well. If I remember correctly, the closer the antenna to the earth the shorter it's maximum gain length was.

A more recently discovery changed things somewhat, I have seen an antenna design that might well be longer than that .64 wavelength for maximum gain. That was the Imax vertical with the capacitor installed I modeled in another thread. NOTE: I am leaving the j-pole and vector designs out of this as most people believe that part of the vertical is matching system and not antenna.

More recently than the Imax capacitor experiments I was playing with a linearly loaded design for a 5/8 wavelength model, at least that is where it started. With some playing I discovered that its maximum gain length was .58 wavelength. This length outperformed any other linear loaded length from .5 to .65 wavelengths tested. I was surprised at how short the highest gain length ended up being. Because of this I am considering building a Maco model with full matching section, and perhaps also an I-10k/more recent trombone matching variants model including their matching section to see if something similar happens. Their may be a reason the Maco design was so short compared to other 5/8 wavelength antennas...

I have yet to read the article/document/study that many CB'rs refer to when stating that .64 is the absolute maximum length for gain, and get the impression that at least most, if not all, people who refer to it haven't actually read it either. If anyone has a link to it I would love to read it myself.

I have yet to see a source I consider reputable enough on the subject as well, mostly internet sites singing the praises of said length have no real data behind them, at best just a reference to said article/document/study with no actual links to it.


The DB

 

[gamegetter]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/TAYLOR-GLR-...OUND-PLANE-OLD-1970s-/172077936437?rmvSB=true

googled and got lucky(i may want to buy a lottery ticket today), there is an old taylor for sale on ebay. It is the glr-4 6400. The packaging on the outside of the old original box states it is a .64 wavelength, although the ebay seller possibly incorrectly lists it as a 5/8 wavelength.

Other info on the old box: Grand Slammer 6400 Taylored for Communication
extended gain ground plane
Taylor Radio Company
3329 Commerce Drive
North (something?) Industrial park
Augusta, Georgia 30904
phone 404-736-3336

i doubt the address and phone are valid anymore, but there it is.

check the link out above.