Sidebar Sidebar
  • 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.

Maco 103C vs a V-Quad

F

Ferrarimx5

Reading the mail
Apr 7, 2012
25
5
13
68
Florida
Why would anyone want a Maco 103C over a Maco V-Quad?
Same performance, but the V quad is half the size, much less wind-load and only weights 8 lbs.


Boom: 6 feet vs 11.5
SWR: 1.1 vs 1.5
Longest element: 12 vs 19

Yet, the V-Quad has the same gain and rejection.

Already ordered the Maco 103C, but now I am wondering if I made the best choice for my needs.

For those that have not made the leap, you might look at the V-Quad and see how it stacks up.

Everyone recommends the Maco 103C so there must be a practical side to the decision.
 

Cost.
Ease of construction.
SWR is a meaningless aspect, as they both use a gamma match to attain a usable SWR.
Three elements are better than two; more directional.
Less wind load with a 3 element Yagi than a V-quad - too. With that aspect, the evidence is anecdotal, but seems to be the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wavrider
Robb said:
Cost.
Ease of construction.
SWR is a meaningless aspect, as they both use a gamma match to attain a usable SWR.
Three elements are better than two; more directional.
Less wind load with a 3 element Yagi than a V-quad - too. With that aspect, the evidence is anecdotal, but seems to be the case.
Click to expand...

Robb, thank you for your response.
$10.00 difference in price. (The Quad is for some reason more expensive)
Shipping is less for the V-Quad, smaller package and lighter in weight
V-Quad Wind Load is 3.33 vs 3.99 for the 103C

Ease of construction?
two elements should be easier vs three
Very short boom, (6 foot verses 11.5 feet)
Lighter, easier to work on and to mount.
Seems like the V-Quad is still the outstanding value

SWR is important.
The SWR should be lower if the 103C is mounted Horizontally.

But, a lot of CB'rs prefer the Maco 103C.
Most prefer it mounted vertically

I am sure the reality is the Vertical aspect of the 103C is the over riding selling point.

Regardless, I will be assembling the 103C next week.
Horizontal seems to be the most logical way for my application, but still undecided.

Thank you again for responding.
 
In one case you have a three element beam with a boom length of 11.5 feet, in the other you have a two element beam with a boom length of six feet. These antennas will not perform the same unless Maco really screwed up the performance characteristics of the M103C, and I highly doubt they did that. Maco does list the same gain for both of these antennas, however, their "power multiplication" numbers are different. Power multiplication when it comes to an antenna stat, that is funny as beam antenna's don't multiply power at all, they just direct where the power they get goes at the expense of power going in other directions...

Anyway, with the "power multiplications" listed for these antennas, one of them would have just over 11 dB in gain, while the other would have over 13 dB in gain over what they are being compared to? So what are the Maco antennas being compared to, a wet noodle?

The numbers Maco provided are just numbers, they don't really mean anything, nothing but advertising.

Also...

Ferrarimx5 said:
SWR is important.
The SWR should be lower if the 103C is mounted Horizontally.
Click to expand...

When it comes to performance, SWR, once you get it to an acceptably low reading, will make absolutely no difference. It is a highly overrated and misunderstood stat.


The DB
 
  • Like
Reactions: Robb
[QUOTE="Ferrarimx5, post: 575074, member: 2517
Same performance, but the V quad is half the size, much less wind-load and only weights 8 lbs.


Boom: 6 feet vs 11.5
SWR: 1.1 vs 1.5
Longest element: 12 vs 19

Yet, the V-Quad has the same gain and rejection.....[/QUOTE]

assuming equal construction,...

I don't care what Maco's stated numbers are, a 2 element beam on a 6 foot boom isn't going to compare favorably to 3 elements on an 11 foot boom.

Does Maco even mention the designs beamwidth?
 
If you're looking to shoot skip, I have to believe the 3 element will outperform the V quad. I haven't owned both of those macos but I have owned a different 3 element and I did own the maco V quad.
 
While I prefer Quad's (true Quad not the V-Quad) if you live in an area with high winds or prone to ice storms a quad is probably not the best options. Look here for real quad's - http://www.cubex.com/CB.htm#cb6

Below was taken from Cubex's site -
QUAD VS. YAGI

Dear fellow Amateur,


Why should you choose a Quad antenna over a Yagi? Well lets see! More gain, lighter weight, smaller turning radius, better front to back ratio, better side rejection, less QRN (static), better reception, lower radiation angle, and will work efficiently at a lower elevation than a Yagi. Wow that's a lot of reasons, lets look at them one at a time.

  1. More gain. Numerous tests over the years have shown the Quad to have 1 to 2 db more gain for antennas on the same length boom with the same amount of elements over the Yagi (2 el Quad = 3 el Yagi).
  2. Lighter weight. Due to the use of light weight fiberglass spreader arms Quads are typically lighter in weight than Yagi's of similar gain.
  3. Smaller turning radius. A two element quad with a gain of 8-10 dbi has a turning radius of only 10.1 ft. You won't find a Yagi with that much gain that will turn in that little space.
  4. Better front to back ratio. When a Quad antenna is properly tuned the lobes off the back of the Quad can be brought to a smaller magnitude then is normally found in a Yagi array.
  5. Better side rejection, less QRN, better reception. The design of the Quad is such that the top half of the vertical element is 180 degrees out of phase with the bottom half which causes any signal striking the vertical portion of the driven element to be canceled. This is also believed to be the reason that a Quad is so outstanding at being a low noise antenna for reception.
  6. Lower radiation angle; operates efficiently at a lower elevation. The Yagi half-wave elements are more affected by their proximity to the ground because of the presence of high voltage at the element tips - 'tip to ground capacity' One effect is to lower the arrays frequency as it approaches the ground. The Quad loop on the other hand is essentially a stacked two-element array of very low proximity effect, and this "stacking effect" results in an inherent gain and a lower angle of radiation. This is why the Quad will be efficient at an elevation as low as 35 ft. The low angle of radiation also means less skips to any distant station which results in a stronger signal on the other end where it counts.

So you might say, why isn't everybody using a Quad antenna? Well I don't know for sure but I think its because the early Quads were built with bamboo spreader arms, and make shift, wood arm-to-boom supports. Although quick and easy, these materials were rather fragile, and the antenna structure was prone to pre-mature failure. The quads that Cubex builds today use nothing but best fiberglass spreader arms available, cast aluminum hubs for strength and heavy duty aluminum booms on our HF quads. Let me tell you these Quads are tough. When Hurricane Andrew came through Florida there were a lot of towers that came down with the Quads still intact (until they hit the ground!). We have unsolicited reports of Cubex Quads withstanding over 100 M.P.H. winds with no damage. Check out some of our customer comments as to the ruggedness and survivability of their Cubex Quads.

In closing I might add that the Cubex five band Quad is actually 5 separate, full wave loop element arrays, independent of each other on one support structure. I would say that's really a fantastic antenna and I haven't seen any Yagi's that compare.

Some of this information is from the Crown Manual written by Clarence C. Moore W9LZX the inventor of the Cubical Quad Antenna.

Just keep in mind the V-quad is NOT a true Quad.
 
Last edited:
Not long ago i put a v quad for a friend they are very out of balance we had to put bolts through the boom plate and boom to stop it from spinning and it still sagged, The new version was not the easiest to build and put up due to it not having any counter balance and stringing the wire through the pvc pipe at mid point. As far as performance was not a lot of difference over his imax vertical when he switched over and he is about 12 miles away. IMO I would go with the Maco 103C.

Also i have owned and used v quads, y quads, comets, shooting stars, moonrakers and the best was the SS/ moonraker 2nd was comet 3rd YQ I never liked the VQ
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tokin
w9cll said:
While I prefer Quad's (true Quad not the V-Quad) ... Look here for real quad's - http://www.cubex.com/CB.htm#cb6..
Click to expand...

Agree 100%, i built a clone of the CUBEX "Killer Bee" quad.
GREAT performance! I have a neighbor about 15 miles away that has an M2 antenna (don't get me wrong, the M2 is a great antenna too)...many times I will hear and work stations both before or after he can't hear them.

Yeah, I understand that sometimes happens on 6, but,............ this happens too often to be sporadic conditions.

There is a lot of truth in the statement about quads opening and closing the bands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Needle Bender
I was surprised at these results, but here is what my Eznec models predict for these two. Notice the Quad not only shows more gain, but it is 2* degrees lower than the M103C.

I also added close up views of the reflector coil added per the specs in order to improve accuracy of the model.
 

Attachments

  • VQ2-Quad vs. M103C at 36'.pdf
    1.5 MB · Views: 60
  • Close up view of the coil on the VQ-2 Quad's reflector.pdf
    197.1 KB · Views: 31
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lonestarbandit, 222DBFL, IMD262 and 1 other person
Marconi said:
I was surprised at these results, but here is what my Eznec models predict for these two. Notice the Quad not only shows more gain, but it is 2* degrees lower than the M103C.

I also added close up views of the reflector coil added per the specs in order to improve accuracy of the model.
Click to expand...

Marconi, Thank you for the additional information..
This has been an eye opener for me, but since I have ordered the 103c, it will be my antenna until a hurricane removes it.

Can't go wrong with the 103
 
These models are to specs and I have not altered them from the manual. IMO you would not detect a difference, except maybe the rejection on the M103C horizontal looks better.

The VQ model is difficult to model, but I got it to specs.

The VQ looks very delicate to me. The M103C is far more robust and the elements are not nearly as long as the VQ at about 141"+ inches.

Good luck and keep us posted on your results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 222DBFL

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • @ Wildcat27:
    Hello I have a old school 2950 receives great on all modes and transmits great on AM but no transmit on SSB. Does anyone have any idea?
  • @ BJ radionut:
  • @ ButtFuzz:
    Good evening from Sunny Salem! What’s shaking?
  • dxBot:
    63Sprint has left the room.
  • dxBot:
    kennyjames 0151 has left the room.


      Top Bottom
      Back