cottentop,
Lets see. You listed 6 antennas. I predict that if you count the number of responses, then multiply by 6, you will probably have the average number of 'which is best', with a slight tendency to lean to ward the 'Wilson's antennas. As with any statistical 'average', there will be a lot of variation in the reason for a particular response. Typically because the responder has never had one or two of those antennas to draw a conclusion about it, or may never even have heard the name before. So, very basically, you are conducting a popularity contest, who likes what 'best'. Nothing wrong with that, it's a fairly common market analysis. Unfortunately, that tells you very little about how a particular antenna performs, only what people have found to fit conveniently in their particular situation. Nothing wrong with that either, it can give you some very nice indications about practicality. Still tells you little about 'best' performance. So, you've found convenience, and practicality. Throw cost in there too, which falls under either convenience or practical, sort of. Also remember that you also have to sort by using the particular circumstances of each installation, which should also include 'looks' of the thing. Lots of variations in that one!
I've found that performance is almost always indirectly proportional to convenience and practicality, and has almost nothing to do with 'looks'. That translates into impractical for most circumstances, inconvenient for a number of reasons, and ugly. About the only constant in the whole thing is that ugly part, which is merely a matter of a 'eye of the beholder' thingy.
There's more.
It's a fact that different 'sizes' of antennas have different radiation patterns. Can't argue with that, it's just a fact. It's also a fact that those 'typical' radiation patterns result from the physical length of the thing. Not 'electrical' length, but physical length. Then you get to the point where some physical lengths just are not practical for the typical mobile. For instance, a 5/8 wave, 20 something foot antenna is going to have to lay waaay back to fit under a lot of stuff. Unfortunately, that 'laying back' also changes it's radiation pattern to something very 'non-standard' and can really negate the whole point of using that particular antenna, right? The closest you come to 'practical' with a mobile antenna at 27 Mhz is a 1/4 wave antenna. Oooo, tell me that's going to be convenient and not ugly, I dare you!
So you are sort of back to where you started. 'Best' ain't always 'best', only convenient, practical, and 'pretty' (sort of). And that will change according to the user and that user's situation. If it 'works' for you, then that's the 'best' for you.
Now that was a @#$$ of a lot of help wasn't it?
- 'Doc
(All puns intended. Most of the above is fact. Almost none of the above is 'palatable' or common thought about antennas. Can't say I'm really thrilled with it either, but it doesn't change what is. Almost like politics, and ain't THAT a nasty thought?)
