• 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!

Because I was asked - Best Vertical

HomerBB

Sr. Member
Jan 4, 2009
3,934
2,662
273
68
Rogers, Ar
Because I was asked, the best vertical of those I've made:

1. 1/4 wave Ground Plane:
Smaller than many others, light weight, easy to mount, simple to build. Wide-banded, easy match. No matching network required which translates to diminished losses. Potential to handle lots of power because there isn't anything to burn out.

2. Half Wave Dipole:
Simplest to build, lightest weight, nearly infinite configurations. Power limited only by the materials of choice when building it. Most portable after # 3. Most stealthy.

3. Sleeved Dipole:
A little more work than a simple dipole, it is basically the same as and on a performance par with the common dipole. Common Mode Currents are more likely from this dipole, but the trade off is the ease of mounting it vertically compared to a center fed dipole. As a portable the coaxial sleeved dipole is the king.

4. End Fed Half Wave (EFHW):
Performance adequate, but without radials not as good as either the Dipole or the 1/4 wave GP. When the radials are added and the antenna meticulously tuned, performance is on a par with some 5/8 waves. Most complex matching section. More potential losses. More power limited due to matching network.

5. Astroplane:
Smaller in height and breadth than either a 1/4 GP, or a proper EFHW, as light as either, if not lighter, but more robust performance. Much smaller than a 5/8 GP. No matching network as the antenna design itself acts as both antenna and matcher so greater power potential than the EFHW. Works as well as any 5/8 wave I've made and used. Must have adequate height, long enough metal mast, and sufficient clearance from other conductive materials to achieve peak performance.

6. 5/8 wave/ .64 wave: All these types I've built have had radials and either an inductor coil or ring to match impedance to feed line. All of them have out performed a 1/2 wave by a little, but neither the .64 or .625 have had any detectable performance differences between themselves in my experience. Power handling I would suspect is completely dependent upon the robustness of the inductor in the matching network. Building and matching a working 5/8 wave is the effort of a single afternoon. There is nothing at all complicated about this antenna, and simpler to build and tune than an EFHW.

7. Vector 4k:
Noticeably higher gain than the 1/4, 1/2, or 5/8-.64 verticals. Taller than the others by feet, it trades off from the other vertical types by being no broader than the Astroplane - tall and skinny. The ears are the best, and it has farthest reach TX-wise than the others. Not noticeably better within 20 to 25 miles than the others, it comes into its own as the far field local work begins making communications with stations I strained to hear, or could not hear in this mountainous terrain out to 65 - 80 miles much easier by comparison.

Which do I like the best of the 11 meters verticals I've made?
a. For simplicity and portability, the dipole.
b. For classic elegance, the 5/8 wave.
c. For uncomplicated reliability, the 1/4 wave GP.
d. For shear outreach above the others and total beauty, the V4k.
e. For a mix of simplicity, size, reliability, better than most other antennas I've used, and uniquely eye pleasing appearance, the Astroplane.

The one I like the least is the EFHW, the number one pick is the Astroplane.

EFHW negatives - more prone to CMC, more complex to match, more losses by design, and less power handling.

Astroplane positives - Small, easy to build. Inherent matching without network. Greater power handling potential. Pretty. Out performs all others except for V4k, but out points it because of its ease of mounting, building, and maintaining.

These are my personal preferences/observations based on building, testing, and using each of these for a minimum of weeks on end. All of this is subjective and relies on my personal level of satisfaction, and the differences in the demands of my Ozark Mountains locality. In another place I might have to re-evaluate each of these and come to different personal conclusions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people

I am surprised that there is not yet any response to this post.

This comparison is easily worth any 25 other comparisons combined that you run across anywhere. I applaud Homer for his efforts, and his willingness to share what he has learned. I can't wait to see what he does next...


The DB
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
I appreciate Homer's list. Sounds like he gave it a lot of thought before writing it.

Homer likes the Astroplane; but I like the Vector 4000 for the #1 position.
Xlnt thread, Homer.
 
I appreciate Homer's list. Sounds like he gave it a lot of thought before writing it.

Homer likes the Astroplane; but I like the Vector 4000 for the #1 position.
Xlnt thread, Homer.
Well, Robb, I certainly understand your choice for #1. If I were tempered in a way that permitted me to put up an antenna and leave it alone I would likely have chosen the Vector 4k, too. But when it came to looking at what was speaking to the most attributes for a given temperament, namely mine, I landed on the AP. If I'm going to be putting them up, and taking them down, like I do, the AP scored the best.
Which one looks like Jesus (pardon the reference) made it? The V4k. Which one would Moses carry around as he moved around making a new camp every few weeks his 40 years in the wilderness? The Astroplane.

CQ, CQ, Pearly Gates, do you read Wilderness Radio 183?? ;)
 
7. Vector 4k:
Noticeably higher gain than the 1/4, 1/2, or 5/8-.64 verticals. Taller than the others by feet, it trades off from the other vertical types by being no broader than the Astroplane - tall and skinny. The ears are the best, and it has farthest reach TX-wise than the others. Not noticeably better within 20 to 25 miles than the others, it comes into its own as the far field local work begins making communications with stations I strained to hear, or could not hear in this mountainous terrain out to 65 - 80 miles much easier by comparison.

why do i get a feeling i have heard this before ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
i've only made/used a few of the antenna styles you mentioned Homerbb , but my impression of those few on tx/rx is in the same order . BTW homerbb , where would your full wave omni loop fit in your antenna results ? thanks for the fine thread :)
looking forward to your merlin construction and results .

why do i get a feeling i have heard this before ;)


it's amazing what can happen when the ground elements are turned upward and "work for a living contributing to radiation in a favourable way" , huh bob ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Because I was asked, the best vertical of those I've made:

1. 1/4 wave Ground Plane:
Smaller than many others, light weight, easy to mount, simple to build. Wide-banded, easy match. No matching network required which translates to diminished losses. Potential to handle lots of power because there isn't anything to burn out.

2. Half Wave Dipole:
Simplest to build, lightest weight, nearly infinite configurations. Power limited only by the materials of choice when building it. Most portable after # 3. Most stealthy.

3. Sleeved Dipole:
A little more work than a simple dipole, it is basically the same as and on a performance par with the common dipole. Common Mode Currents are more likely from this dipole, but the trade off is the ease of mounting it vertically compared to a center fed dipole. As a portable the coaxial sleeved dipole is the king.

4. End Fed Half Wave (EFHW):
Performance adequate, but without radials not as good as either the Dipole or the 1/4 wave GP. When the radials are added and the antenna meticulously tuned, performance is on a par with some 5/8 waves. Most complex matching section. More potential losses. More power limited due to matching network.

5. Astroplane:
Smaller in height and breadth than either a 1/4 GP, or a proper EFHW, as light as either, if not lighter, but more robust performance. Much smaller than a 5/8 GP. No matching network as the antenna design itself acts as both antenna and matcher so greater power potential than the EFHW. Works as well as any 5/8 wave I've made and used. Must have adequate height, long enough metal mast, and sufficient clearance from other conductive materials to achieve peak performance.

6. 5/8 wave/ .64 wave: All these types I've built have had radials and either an inductor coil or ring to match impedance to feed line. All of them have out performed a 1/2 wave by a little, but neither the .64 or .625 have had any detectable performance differences between themselves in my experience. Power handling I would suspect is completely dependent upon the robustness of the inductor in the matching network. Building and matching a working 5/8 wave is the effort of a single afternoon. There is nothing at all complicated about this antenna, and simpler to build and tune than an EFHW.

7. Vector 4k:
Noticeably higher gain than the 1/4, 1/2, or 5/8-.64 verticals. Taller than the others by feet, it trades off from the other vertical types by being no broader than the Astroplane - tall and skinny. The ears are the best, and it has farthest reach TX-wise than the others. Not noticeably better within 20 to 25 miles than the others, it comes into its own as the far field local work begins making communications with stations I strained to hear, or could not hear in this mountainous terrain out to 65 - 80 miles much easier by comparison.

Which do I like the best of the 11 meters verticals I've made?
a. For simplicity and portability, the dipole.
b. For classic elegance, the 5/8 wave.
c. For uncomplicated reliability, the 1/4 wave GP.
d. For shear outreach above the others and total beauty, the V4k.
e. For a mix of simplicity, size, reliability, better than most other antennas I've used, and uniquely eye pleasing appearance, the Astroplane.

The one I like the least is the EFHW, the number one pick is the Astroplane.

EFHW negatives - more prone to CMC, more complex to match, more losses by design, and less power handling.

Astroplane positives - Small, easy to build. Inherent matching without network. Greater power handling potential. Pretty. Out performs all others except for V4k, but out points it because of its ease of mounting, building, and maintaining.

These are my personal preferences/observations based on building, testing, and using each of these for a minimum of weeks on end. All of this is subjective and relies on my personal level of satisfaction, and the differences in the demands of my Ozark Mountains locality. In another place I might have to re-evaluate each of these and come to different personal conclusions.
very good review. your results are what id expect.seems to me the vector4k and astroplane
get the best marks/points so to speak.so when dealing with your mountain terrain terrain
and stations up too 80 miles which does the best 4 you astoplane up high or vector4k.
which raises another question how hard /or unstable is it raising up a 30ft. antenna vs a astroplane?does the extra effort math the extra gain,sorry for these qiestions but its 2 ive always wondered about in the terrain that u live in.as mine is very similiar
 
I appreciate Homer's list. Sounds like he gave it a lot of thought before writing it.

Homer likes the Astroplane; but I like the Vector 4000 for the #1 position.
Xlnt thread, Homer.

Robb I agree, but it is my thinking that Homer, based on all of his cleverly documented reporting, would likely choose the V4K over the A/P...just like he indicates below. However, IMO he does not ignore the surprise he likely realized when he finally re-built and used an A/P. I too agree that the unlikely AstroPlane works remarkably well and it still gets very little attention. This even applies to the New AstroPlane...which gets even more unjustified criticism and hardly no praise.

So, I agree with him, he was considering everything "overall" in his choice.

Well, Robb, I certainly understand your choice for #1. If I were tempered in a way that permitted me to put up an antenna and leave it alone I would likely have chosen the Vector 4k, too. But when it came to looking at what was speaking to the most attributes for a given temperament, namely mine, I landed on the AP. If I'm going to be putting them up, and taking them down, like I do, the AP scored the best.

Which one looks like Jesus (pardon the reference) made it? The V4k. Which one would Moses carry around as he moved around making a new camp every few weeks his 40 years in the wilderness? .

CQ, CQ, Pearly Gates, do you read Wilderness Radio 183?? ;)

Homer calls it temperament, but I suspect that Homer is truly a curious man intellectually, and prefers to try and prove ideas rather than just listening to the ideas and words of others. When I'm allowed, I'm with him in that effort.

why do i get a feeling i have heard this before ;)

Hey Bob, you have heard this before and, in this case, it's all coming from the same man that finally duplicated your Vector findings some years ago.

Too bad the proof of the ideas is not ready for the text books yet. However, if we consider the life of Tesla, we can find solace in the fact that there may still be a chance for these ideas to surpass argument and become truly evident. Unfortunately it all depends on human nature, pride, and the bias of mankind.
 
very good review. your results are what id expect.seems to me the vector4k and astroplane
get the best marks/points so to speak.so when dealing with your mountain terrain terrain
and stations up too 80 miles which does the best 4 you astoplane up high or vector4k.
which raises another question how hard /or unstable is it raising up a 30ft. antenna vs a astroplane?does the extra effort math the extra gain,sorry for these qiestions but its 2 ive always wondered about in the terrain that u live in.as mine is very similiar

Hotrod I agree. By chance have you used both the V4K and the A/P up high, because I'm curious about the bases of your expectations? I don't mean to pick on you, but I ask because you would typically be among a very few...that would ever suggest the A/P to show anywhere near the performance of the Vector.

I'll wait for Homer to respond, but I could learn something talking about terrain, based on the perspective you present. I just never thought about the subject this way before.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
very good review. your results are what id expect.seems to me the vector4k and astroplane
get the best marks/points so to speak. so when dealing with your mountain terrain and stations up to 80 miles which does the best 4 you astoplane up high or vector4k.
The V4k edges out the AP at that distance. The AP has yet to be outperformed by any of the other verticals in my list.
which raises another question how hard /or unstable is it raising up a 30ft. antenna vs a astroplane?does the extra effort match the extra gain,sorry for these questions but its 2 i've always wondered about in the terrain that u live in as mine is very similar

The very tall V4k likely would be a challenge to mount for some folks, however, it has not presented a problem for me. I have the crank over tower i made just so I could raise and lower antennas by myself with ease. The AP should not cause any distress whatsoever for anyone.

Is the V4k worth the difference? By all means. If, as I said, I wasn't so inclined to switch out antennas the way I do it would be the one I settled on. Hearing what is out there is of the utmost importance to me. it is easy to get your signal out there with additional power on most other antennas. The challenge is to hear those signals that are indistinguishable normally. Using a pre-amp is no solution because it raises the noise floor, too. The Vector 4000 has repeatedly delivered when and where the others just didn't quite do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
Hey Bob, you have heard this before and, in this case, it's all coming from the same man that finally duplicated your Vector findings some years ago.

Too bad the proof of the ideas is not ready for the text books yet. However, if we consider the life of Tesla, we can find solace in the fact that there may still be a chance for these ideas to surpass argument and become truly evident. Unfortunately it all depends on human nature, pride, and the bias of mankind.

antennas that operate on the same principles are in the text books eddie,
i never doubted what CEBIK told me, the proof is in the cst plot,
its the falacy that its a simple 1/2wave that's not in the text books,

the results obtained by the people who bothered to buy or build the 4 radial extended version and make it work correctly still puts a smile on my face:D,
i don't see a que forming to complain i was pulling their todger.
 

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • @ kopcicle:
    If you know you know. Anyone have Sam's current #? He hasn't been on since Oct 1st. Someone let him know I'm looking.
  • dxBot:
    535A has left the room.
  • @ AmericanEagle575:
    Just wanted to say Good Morning to all my Fellow WDX members out there!!!!!