• 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.

Base Have a look at this Antenna

5/8 is the distance from the feedpoint down one leg, across the hoop and back up to the tip of the antenna, that would be a more likely source of the new measurement than my other idea including a 1/2wave mast,

i don't think a 5/8 wave tall version would give a good match to coax or perform well.

I use to make a similar claim that the A/P was a 5/8 wave. I've changed my mind though and now believe it is a very effective vertical 1/2 wave.

I made the taller model to see if I could scale it to 22' feet, and see how it worked. I ended up with it near 14' instead of the stock 11' feet. The 22' foot idea did pretty much as you suggested and I was no able to get it to match. I stopped fiddling with it, because I did not get an answer to my email to Tagra. Some folks just don't like questions!

My comment about brexit was in jest. Corruption is ubiquitous in our World.

Do you hear any local comments about the BT-101?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AudioShockwav
Nobody local talks about bt-101 or astroplanes,
i am the only person i know of in the area that has owned an astroplane style antenna, two other guys near me had them in the 70's but both are silent key,

most locals know what im using, some call it "that upside down basket thingy"

i agree on effectively what the astroplane is,
it may have 5/8wave of tube plus a hat that replaces 4ft of radiator,
when you fold it into 1/4wave flared transmission-lines like that you end up with something that is like a hat loaded 1/2wave dipole with some skewing to the pattern, its a bit lob sided like a j-pole,
 
Bob85, I have an Avanti report with some numbers, and some Internet exhibits that claims Avanti professionally tested their A/P.

I also have documents that support what they claimed, who did the tests, and how it was done. i just studied it and tried to follow the idea. So, this is what the models will hope to show.

I scaled them to 144 Mhz. IMO they support much of what is claimed. Again, I just used the information from the testing report to make these models using the same 27 MHz A/P model I posted earlier in this thread.

I will post this and the modles in a new thread...so others can check this out and it won't be buried in this thread.

I'm going to call the tread "The AstroPlane - Another View Point."

Here is Avanti's report and the ad I found in CB Magazine. I found the Technology News report sometime back...while searching Google for the Engineer's name that Avanti used to do their research. I may have posted these items already.

Also note, in the early part of this report there is talk about the PDL and another CB antenna being created at this same time.

Sorry for the poor copies. Try using the PDF print or the Zoom functions to help improve the images.
 

Attachments

  • The AstroPlane - Another Viewpoint.pdf
    3.2 MB · Views: 16
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AudioShockwav
not seen that before Eddie, interesting story,

they have it wrong about where 1/2 & 5/8waves radiate from so the illustration is misleading people into thinking the astroplane has a big advantage in getting over obstructions,
in reality it has 4ft or so advantage over a straight radiator 1/4 1/2 or 5/8 at the same FCC legal tip height & less than that if the groundplane is hat loaded,

4ft sounds like not a lot but its worth having when your antenna is in the situation illustrated in the avanti advertising or even lower below the roof line,

i am also unsure if they are trying to tell us that the astroplanes folded design decouples it from mast & feed-line ( which is false )

or are they saying that the mast must be isolated at some distance below the hoop to minimise cmc & preserve the pattern which i believe to be true.
 
I didn't post this information with an idea the details were right.

At best the models show me the error they made in getting the high gain they report as 4.46 decibles over isotropic radiator (their words).
 
  • Like
Reactions: AudioShockwav
i think we have a fair understanding of which parts of the advertsing are true & which are sales bluster,
the story of how the astroplane came about sounds reasonable to me, lou martino is the guy that had his name on the pdl & astroplane patents.
 
@Marconi & @bob85
Did you fellow notice in the patent application for the original AP that it was said that changing the length of the "conducting mast" below the ring would change the TOA of the maximum gain, and that it is possible to create downward tilt to below horizon as the mast is lengthened? Interesting...

http://www.google.com/patents/US3587109

I think this could account for a variety of reported experiences with this antenna.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AudioShockwav
@Marconi & @bob85
Did you fellow notice in the patent application for the original AP that it was said that changing the length of the "conducting mast" below the ring would change the TOA of the maximum gain, and that it is possible to create downward tilt to below horizon as the mast is lengthened? Interesting...

http://www.google.com/patents/US3587109

Homer, I don't recall this specifically in the patent, but this has often been claimed as steering. I could have easily missed something, but I would think a few members here would have set me straight on this issue in a hurry.

The patent has 2 columns and each line is numbered. Maybe you could post the location with column and line numbers. That will help me narrow down what it is that you've noted.

I'm sure I've posted about this before, and I probably did models to help me show what I was seeing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AudioShockwav
Homer, the link at the bottom is a link to a thread discussing steering.

The posts noted below are specific comments about steering in the long thread at the bottom. These comments will give you a sample of the discussions I mentioned in my earlier post #41 above. Maybe you won't have to read the whole thread...if you find words in these posts on the issue about steering.

You were right, there are comments about the steering ideas in the patent, the guys here talk about it. However, there were no references given. I don't mind reading it over, but I would have to hope I found the words you mentioned.

somewhere on this forum there is a thread where i talked about the patent claiming that masts shorter than 1/4wave below the hoop caused radiation angle to rise,
and reducing the radial flare causes radiation to be below the horizon,

imho a 1/2wave mast gives the lowest mast currents,
that's why i chose to isolate my astroplane 1/4wave below the hoop,

Yea, the patents talks about it said elements changing the angle of radiation, I quoted both sections above. When it comes to the radial flare and hoop size, modeling shows that it takes quite a bit to see a 1 degree change in said angle. When you have a 15 inch radius hoop and it takes adding or subtracting a foot or so change the radiation pattern by one degree... That being said, I only tried it with one mast length so far, and different mast lengths may have different results. when it comes to radial flare with modeling all I can say is need more testing. I was also mistaken about the mast length that I used, it wasn't optimal length like I thought it was. I had overridden that in the data for the model itself. This happened before I made said model, and I don't recall why I did that (or even doing it). The mast in that case was one wavelength long and not the optimal length that I claimed before. The result that I got would have been because of this. When I discovered that and corrected the model to have an optimal length mast the result was closer to Marconi's results.

When I checked the angle of radiation based on mast length, very short lengths match what you said, the radiation angle lowered going to about 10 feet in length or so, then it gradually and steadily rose until it was about 25 degrees at about 25 feet (estimate). After that point the angle quickly dropped to negative angles, namely -6 degrees, and it stayed their from 30 to 40 feet where I stopped.

Its not really that hard to understand what it is I am doing. For this I am simply using freespace as the environment because I want to see what direction the antenna is putting said signal before said signal interacts with an earth. It is nothing more complicated than that.

ASTROPLANE best vertical antenna ever?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AudioShockwav
Did you fellow notice in the patent application for the original AP that it was said that changing the length of the "conducting mast" below the ring would change the TOA of the maximum gain, and that it is possible to create downward tilt to below horizon as the mast is lengthened? Interesting...

http://www.google.com/patents/US3587109

I think this could account for a variety of reported experiences with this antenna.

That alone would be enough for me to avoid this antenna like the plague. It clearly has serious common mode issues, insufficient RF ground and unless you have the ability to model the installation to figure out the best length of mast it'll be entirely down to luck whether it either ends up being the best DX antenna you've ever had or no better than a dummy load.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AudioShockwav
Thanks, Marconi.
@M0GVZ.
I understand your response, however, CMC has never been an issue for me. I just do the CST (common sense thing) and isolate my mast 1/4 wavelength below the ring, and use a CMC choke in the coax at the same location.
There are great reason to have such steering capabilities in a design such as getting a signal out of a hole, or into a lower elevation, etc.
One of the best CB antennas I've ever had the pleasure of flying.
 
Thanks, Marconi.
@M0GVZ.
I understand your response, however, CMC has never been an issue for me. I just do the CST (common sense thing) and isolate my mast 1/4 wavelength below the ring, and use a CMC choke in the coax at the same location.
There are great reason to have such steering capabilities in a design such as getting a signal out of a hole, or into a lower elevation, etc.
One of the best CB antennas I've ever had the pleasure of flying.
Gotta like that CST (y)
 

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • dxBot:
    Tucker442 has left the room.
  • @ BJ radionut:
    LIVE 10:00 AM EST :cool:
  • @ Charles Edwards:
    I'm looking for factory settings 1 through 59 for a AT 5555 n2 or AT500 M2 I only wrote down half the values feel like a idiot I need help will be appreciated