Hygain Penetrator is a highly touted 5/8 wave antenna.

Jay in the Mojave said:

Hello Dick:

All the Penetrator 500 Antennas that I have seen and repaired, from Hy-Gain had all the Aluminum Tubing inside the next sized Aluminum Tubing, of 2 1/2 inches.

So if you make sure its all together with 2 1/2 inches inside the next sixed aluminum tubing you will very close. Look at this address for the CB Tricks Penetrator 500 assembly instructions:

CBTricks Antenna Information "H" Section

You should be able to print them out and look them over. There was a Penetartor 500 that had a 74 inch piece of 1 1/4 inch diameter, P/N 13 that was 74 inches long, the oldest one. Not shown in the CB Tricks 3 ea assembly instructions. But if you assembly the antenna with the factory stock tuning wires, you can simply adjust the antennas length to get the match down. Many have done it this way.

Even if some of the aluminum tubing was cut new aluminum tubing can be bought from Texas Towers, a ham radio store.

Hope this helps.

Jay in the Mojave

Click to expand...

Hello Jay,

Good to see you out here posting.

As you're one of decidedly the foremost authorities on Penetrators (based upon your experience) and a fellow lover of the antenna, can you offer to me (a multiple Penetrator owner) the reason your style of shunt match should excel in performance over that of the Hy-gain P500?

I'm looking for solid theory and reason supporting the many claims I've read on several forums, such as the argument against the P500's elevated radials, the bend, position, or lay-out of the I-10K's Trombone match versus that of the P500s Beta, etc.

I expect you've done your homework or you wouldn't be offering so excellent an antenna, I'm just not yet convinced it would net an improved signal over my P500.

Can you convince me utilizing measurements, theory, etc.?

Uncle Jim's "Not your daddy's Penetrator" comment has me wondering if he didn't have issues with oxide build-up or some other problem.
His claim of 2 S-units improvement from one shunt matched .64 to another, based on the style and shape/location of basically the same type of matching system, makes me wary of believing his review, and then spending $400 (incl ship) just to find there might be no improvement.

Faith in a quality product is a good thing, but I need something to base it upon before I take a $400 leap of faith, expecting this 2 S-units or so of improved performance.

Thank you & 73

Master Chief said:

I didn't see where it said anything about the ground radial systems in your earlier posts. But I have some insight on that subject.

Hy-gain placed their ground radials about 12" up from the base of the main element. I have always thought this to be a disadvanage of this antenna.

The Avanti's ground radials are approximately 3" BELOW the base of the main element. See my pictures here. This is what I reference when I talk about Avanti's elevated feed system. I believe this gives the Avanti an advantage over the Penetrator.

What other antenna on the market uses an elevated feed? The I-10K! We can agree that this antenna is superior to both the Penetrator and my beloved Sigma 5/8.

We have discussed it before, but before there was an I-10K, there was the Mastadon 5000! The Mastadon was an admitted copy of the Penetrator, but with an upgraded feedpoint. The Penetrator could only handle 1.5KW or so (published data) and the Jay and Steve show wanted more from this design. So an upgraded feedpoint was made. Still, this antenna did not perform as well as desired. So what changed? The matching network was turned horizontal and the base of the antenna was raised ABOVE the ground radials (a few other things were changed too). BAM, now they had an antenna with very low loss in the feedpoint and a main radiator that was not influenced by a near-field matching network.

It's only my opinion, but it seems to have worked for the Avanti and the I-10K. We will test a Penetrator and Avanti against eachother in May. As Shaq would say, "Let the TRUTH be told!"

Click to expand...

i have been trying to get a .64 out of a maco, AT 21-10 INCHES AND DROPPING i am trying every angle without changing anything.i noticed you guys talking about the sigma 5/8 wow looks like this maco 5/8.i dont know if this will mean anything but here goes.when i moved the grounplane spider down about 3-4 inches my match got better just like the sigma picture.do you guys know if there were anymore 5/8 or .64 wave antennas with a similar loop?

sigma 5/8-maco 5/8. note the groundplanes are suppose to be 1/2 from loop bracket not the case here.

Tell me if I'm missing something here. In the picture of the Avanti, that ring is only a single turn coil connected to the base and vertical portions of the antenna. There is no tuning/shorting strap. The pictures of the 'new' antenna show that ring as an adjustable impedance matching device, has that tuning/shorting strap. I'm not seeing an insulator between the base section of that antenna and the vertical section the 'top' of the 'ring' connects to. Is there no insulator there, or does the 'vertical' part fit down into the base tube and an insulator there? (and I'm just not seeing it??)
- 'Doc

W5LZ said:

Tell me if I'm missing something here. In the picture of the Avanti, that ring is only a single turn coil connected to the base and vertical portions of the antenna. There is no tuning/shorting strap. The pictures of the 'new' antenna show that ring as an adjustable impedance matching device, has that tuning/shorting strap. I'm not seeing an insulator between the base section of that antenna and the vertical section the 'top' of the 'ring' connects to. Is there no insulator there, or does the 'vertical' part fit down into the base tube and an insulator there? (and I'm just not seeing it??)
- 'Doc

Click to expand...

ok sorry here is the insulator at the top.question for you?according to a frequency wave calculator for 5/8 wave length on 27.485 comes out to 22.375 after that # i multiplied it by .015 to make up the difference=.335 then i added it to 22.375=22.710 now i have heard that antennas tend to be 5% shorter so 22.710*.05=1.135-22.710-1.135=21.575 does this make any sense or am i off in right field?if that was remotely close than my 21-10 inches has to come down about 4 inches or so.

1342,
It looks like you are using '984' as the "magic" number to find a full wave length. I would just use that, times 0.64, then divide by the frequency.
(984 x .64)/27.485 = 22.91 feet, or 22' 11".
I don't know where you are getting that 5% shorter thingy.
- 'Doc

W5LZ said:

1342,
It looks like you are using '984' as the "magic" number to find a full wave length. I would just use that, times 0.64, then divide by the frequency.
(984 x .64)/27.485 = 22.91 feet, or 22' 11".
I don't know where you are getting that 5% shorter thingy.
- 'Doc

Click to expand...

ok thanks for your help doc.i spreaded my loop out a little and my match came down on all bands!i think i need a bigger loop.

...And that reminds me why I asked about that insulator. If the vertical part of the antenna extends very far down into that insulator in the bottom part, it is acting like a capacitor (not a big one, but some). Since that ring is really a variably tapped coil (just a different shaped one), adding some capacitance to it means it isn't furnishing as much inductance as required. Making it slightly large really should help.
- 'Doc

About 276" (23') should be the magic number of length of the radiator if you want to have basically a .64 Sigma5/8 @ 27.375mHz, and it should have a ring of ~15.75" outside diameter which should be fed at the bolt of the lower of the two 8" ring mounting arms which fold into the center for mounting the ring.
From that feed point to the ground / radials there should be an insulator and a coil connecting ground to the feedpoint of about 10-12 tight turns of enameled 14-16ga, about 1" diameter former, to bleed static to ground.

Make sure the entire ring is insulated from ground except, of course, for the top of the coil, which goes to ground.

That's basically the heart of an Avanti Sigma5/8.

From the pictures it appears your matching network is not that of a Sigma5/8 rather it looks like it's from a MaCo V-5/8 which would be more like 12" diameter, and fed by a movable wire somewhere near the center of the ring.

If that's the case, you should try shortening the radiator to around 19' 6".

CDX-007 said:

About 276" (23') should be the magic number of length of the radiator if you want to have basically a .64 Sigma5/8 @ 27.375mHz, and it should have a ring of ~15.75" outside diameter which should be fed at the bolt of the lower of the two 8" ring mounting arms which fold into the center for mounting the ring.
From that feed point to the ground / radials there should be an insulator and a coil connecting ground to the feedpoint of about 10-12 tight turns of enameled 14-16ga, about 1" diameter former, to bleed static to ground.

Make sure the entire ring is insulated from ground except, of course, for the top of the coil, which goes to ground.

That's basically the heart of an Avanti Sigma5/8.

From the pictures it appears your matching network is not that of a Sigma5/8 rather it looks like it's from a MaCo V-5/8 which would be more like 12" diameter, and fed by a movable wire somewhere near the center of the ring.

If that's the case, you should try shortening the radiator to around 19' 6".

Click to expand...

cdx i am trying to get as much length out of this antenna without changing the design so far so good i have managed to get the length over 21 feet and the match to 1.2 on 38 and 1.3 on 55.i have made minor changes so far by dropping the ground planes down to the mounting bracket and increasing the loop gap by 2 inches with adjustments to the tap point also.i have also drilled the rivets out for the connector and replaced them with nuts and bolts,then took the crap wire off and replaced that with 12 gauge double insulated copper with a gromet for the pl-259.see pictures.i was hoping you would eventually reply as i have read many of your posts.what do you think about the grounplanes being lowered it brought the swr down and looks similar to the sigma 5/8.maco calls for 1/2 inch from the bracket.

1342 said:

cdx i am trying to get as much length out of this antenna without changing the design so far so good i have managed to get the length over 21 feet and the match to 1.2 on 38 and 1.3 on 55.i have made minor changes so far by dropping the ground planes down to the mounting bracket and increasing the loop gap by 2 inches with adjustments to the tap point also.i have also drilled the rivets out for the connector and replaced them with nuts and bolts,then took the crap wire off and replaced that with 12 gauge double insulated copper with a gromet for the pl-259.see pictures.i was hoping you would eventually reply as i have read many of your posts.what do you think about the grounplanes being lowered it brought the swr down and looks similar to the sigma 5/8.maco calls for 1/2 inch from the bracket.

Click to expand...

Interesting about the tuning, spacing and radiator length.

You've heard it said, as well as have I, that a dummy load has a flat SWR but doesn't radiate worth a sheit, well, I can't say what your radiation angle or pattern look like, but if you want to go with what's been shown to work well and have a low angle (not necessarily the best sporadic E antenna design, BTW) then I would encourage you to lengthen out the radiator to what is a true .64 and then bring the matching network into alignment.

I've measured the Penetrator at 276" for best SWR and x of zero, and the Sigma5/8 I have in storage is also very close to that, so how about picking up a little 3/8 copper or aluminum tubing and fabricating a 15.75" diameter single-turn ring with two 8" mounting arms folded in to the center to go with about a 23' radiator?

Feed the entire ring at the very beginning bottom bolt and make sure it's insulated from ground with a piece of fiberglass or even well-sealed oak doweling. I've had to utilize odd insulator materials and a dry piece of oak when sealed from moisture can work well, but make sure it's going to weather the weather, but overall you're better off with fiberglass.

Locally, 6 feet of 1" is $30, which is enough for several antennas.

As far as the radials height with regard to the ring, I haven't played with this oddly different sized 'system' that you're working with so I can't comment intelligently about it, but again, I'd feel better if it were mine knowing the radiator was the correct length for what I was after, a .64, and then work the ring until I had resonance, low SWR, and a well radiating, non-reactive, X=0 antenna.

Someone please correct me, but I believe the radials are 3.5" below the ring on the Sigma5/8. I'd measure for that but it's in storage.

Hope that might have helped...??
73

Hello CDX007:

The Penetrator 500 made by Hy-Gain is a great antenna, who can argue that. The penetartor 500 was the result of years of testing and experience at Hy-Gain.

Now be advised I have to fill in here as I never worked for HY-Gain or got to talk to any of their design engineers.

The P500 came after The CLR-II and a few like it. Hy-Gain came out with a Golden Colinear in the early 1960's and even got a whopping $92.oo dollars for it at first.

The Golden Colinear had the vertical element supported by a large plastic insulator which broke making the antenna useless. Just try to support a 21 foot length of aluminum at the bottom with your hands, its not do-able.

Then they went to the CLR-II which had a "Two Point Mount" that was a vast improvement in mechanical support of the vertical element. But the CLR-II and few other of the same types of ground plane antennas had a circuit board matching inductor in the base insulator of the antenna, that didn't a take lot of power. As the traces of the circuit board would fry seeing too much power feed to it.

So Hy-Gain comes out with the Penetrator 500, and is advertised as a "Two Point Mount" and will take 1500 watts of power. And it takes even more power that advertised. But Arcs over at the 3 to 4 KW levels.

Ok I have never meet Uncle Jim, or saw his antenna installations. So I can't say as I didn't measure anything at his location. So I can't say anything about it. But you normally would not see a 2 S-Unit increase from a Penetartor 500 to a I-10K Antenna. Unless there was something wrong with the Penetartor 500, coax or was mounted too low. This is why its important to do side by side testing of the two antennas, and using a reference antenna for antenna comparison.

We know from our own measurements that the I-10K will nose ahead of the P500 as it has a less lossy matching system. As the P500 Arcs over at 3 to 4 KW Levels, this is a indication of RF Energy loss, and we designed the I-10K to not have such losses.

We offer a "No Questions Asked" Money back 30 day Guarantee of the Interceptor 10K Antenna. Just return the antenna in the original box and in good shape.
Since 2002 when we started we have never had to refund any ones money.

Also note that in many antenna installations were a older antenna is replaced by a newer antenna the coax is most often changed with newer coax that has less loss. And this is good practice. No sense in having a Dime hold up a Dollar, with cheap old water logged lossy coax. Many customers have reported back fantastic broad banded performance of the I-10K Antenna to find out the old coax has way too much loss, causing the I-10K to have several MHz in under a 2.0 to 1 SWR, which is a false measurement as the excessive loss in the coax causes this.

Any antenna will have a lower SWR and wider Bandwidth when loss or attenuation is in the transmission line. Thats why its always a good call in install new coax.

The I-10K was designed to handle sever weather, take the power that some use, and have good TVI rejection, by pointing the RF Energy away from the neighbors direction. The assembly instructions cover Pre Assembly and Saftey, Assembly Instructions, and Tuning Instructions. Steve and I are avialable to assist in any questions you may have.

Hope this is a help.

Jay in the Mojave

CDX-007 said:

Hello Jay,

Good to see you out here posting.

As you're one of decidedly the foremost authorities on Penetrators (based upon your experience) and a fellow lover of the antenna, can you offer to me (a multiple Penetrator owner) the reason your style of shunt match should excel in performance over that of the Hy-gain P500?

I'm looking for solid theory and reason supporting the many claims I've read on several forums, such as the argument against the P500's elevated radials, the bend, position, or lay-out of the I-10K's Trombone match versus that of the P500s Beta, etc.

I expect you've done your homework or you wouldn't be offering so excellent an antenna, I'm just not yet convinced it would net an improved signal over my P500.

Can you convince me utilizing measurements, theory, etc.?

Uncle Jim's "Not your daddy's Penetrator" comment has me wondering if he didn't have issues with oxide build-up or some other problem.
His claim of 2 S-units improvement from one shunt matched .64 to another, based on the style and shape/location of basically the same type of matching system, makes me wary of believing his review, and then spending $400 (incl ship) just to find there might be no improvement.

Faith in a quality product is a good thing, but I need something to base it upon before I take a $400 leap of faith, expecting this 2 S-units or so of improved performance.

Thank you & 73

Click to expand...

Thanks Jay for the reply. I'll look forward to hopefully meeting you guys one day when I get down that way, possibly on my way to Vegas to visit my buddy who keeps KBET on the air.

I may even take an I-10K away with me.

If time and money allows I'd love to do a field test with both the I-10K & the P500, along with a Sigma4, SD, Astroplane, etc. I'm sure it would be a kick & an eye opener.

Sounds good. 73