Ae409 stainless whip vs. elevated feed UHF antenna
Submitted: Thursday, Jan 30, 2014 at 06:42
ThreadID:
106007
Views:
7727
Replies:
5
FollowUps:
2
This Thread has been Archived
Andy A
Howdy I'm looking for a new UHF antenna set up.
I've had the gme ae409 stainless steel whip before but wondered how the current crop of elevated feed antennas compared?
It'll be a Bullbar mount. Interested to hear others experiences
Reply By: Rangiephil - Thursday, Jan 30, 2014 at 08:42
Thursday, Jan 30, 2014 at 08:42
In general a elevated feed or Ground Plane Independent antenna will give a much more symmetrical radiation pattern than a straight antenna mounted on a bullbar.
UHF transmission depends on a ground plane with the most symmetrical radiation being from an ( non independent) antenna mounted in the middle of the roof.
On a bullbar most of the radiation is backwards because all of the groundplane is to the rear.
So you should notice a much better transmission performance when radioing someone a fair distance in front.
AFAIK there is no difference in Db gain from like antennas , although a rubber duckie I bought a couple of days ago is rated 2Db gain without a Independent ground plane and 3Db with an independent base.
Regards Philip A
AnswerID:
525360
Follow Up By: Echucan Bob - Thursday, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:06
Thursday, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:06
Phil
Many thanks for clearly
well informed comments. The only thing I'd add is that the radiation from the vertical is circumferential, but a lot of the the forward component is just heating the bitumen, instead of beaming into the sky.
Bob
FollowupID:
807337
Reply By: Member - Boobook - Thursday, Jan 30, 2014 at 10:11
Thursday, Jan 30, 2014 at 10:11
Rangiephil above pretty
well sums it up IMO.
I had a GME 4018K elevated feed mounted on the top rail of my bullbar. It was ok most of the time but not great for outback touring where the vehicles get some distance between them to minimise dust. Apart from the fact that the grounding of the vehicle pushes the radiation to the rear, I have tinting ( which is metallic) and a cargo barrier which both contribute to blocking rearward signals. In a convoy it was hard to hear the tail end charlie or visa versa reliably over say 10km
Then I bought a AE409K and a 3db rubber duck antenna and mounted it to a cheap aluminium knock down bracket with a SO239 connector on the roof rack. When I hit say a
carpark roof with the rubber duck it simply folds back. It performs a lot better than the bull bar mounted antenna ( I could reliably hit repeaters from further away as the
test). Then I use the AE409K for touring where there is nothing above the car to hit. It is quite a long antenna and flexes at 100kmph when it's set for 9db but what an antenna! Last time we went away I could hear other distant conversations as clear as a bell, and the other 3 groups could not even hear anything with squelch off at the same time. It was chalk and cheese.
My advice is to find a way to mount the antenna on the roof so it folds down as priorities 1 - 5, then 6th priority is to choose an antenna.
AnswerID:
525366
Reply By: MEMBER - Darian, SA - Thursday, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:30
Thursday, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:30
I went off the 409 model years back - mainly because it flops about too much when used in the 2 coil, longer mode. As it was explained to me, the radiation pattern
swings about madly while the antenna flops around and is often orientated way up into the sky. Much better to have a semi rigid setup in my view. I now use a GME elevated feed, ground plane independent unit, with a 150mm stumpy wire for 'close order' work. For longer distances I have a 600mm wire seen
HERE - it has a phasing 'corkscrew/spring' type coil I'm told, BUT the lower section is encased in a plastic moulding (to absorb vibration and to stop the antenna breaking at the base, like so many of the plain stainless ones do, especially when mounted on the bullbar. Works for me.
AnswerID:
525373