since mack cant post here and we have been talking antennas again we would like to know what do you guys think about the wolf antenna vs the maco, the cost is similar and wolf talks a good fight but in reality do his antennas outperform the v5/8 and are they stronger construction, i have never talked to anybody that has actually tried the wolf, yes i agree the i10k is better than either but out of the two which is better :?:
-
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 v5/8 vs wolf .64
- Thread starter bob85
- Start date
Bob, can't speak to the 5/8, never owned one. I do however like the Wolf .64 that I am currently using 
. It is well constructed and I have been pleased with its performance . I'm glad it tuned easily, because once I got it up in the tree there wasn't going to be alot of taking up and down to chase an SWR adjustment using a hired bucket truck :roll: . I put it together and mounted it on a short mast hoseclammped to a metal fence post that you can drive into the ground to make the initial adjustment. Once it was mounted and pushed up in the tree, SWR turned out to be 1:1 on 27.475, I got lucky I guess. My first install got blown over , more bucket truck time :x . The mast I was using wasn't guyed and needed to be a thicker schedule pipe, which was corrected and guyed on the reinstall. Live and learn I guess :roll:. Like yourself I would have prefered the I10K but my total antenna budget(which I really blew due to the reinstall :evil: ) prevented getting the I10K. I do consider this antenna to be a very good value based on how well it has performed for me and the weather beating it has endured. If interested I can post a link to my install if you want.
Hope this helps alittle.
73's
. It is well constructed and I have been pleased with its performance . I'm glad it tuned easily, because once I got it up in the tree there wasn't going to be alot of taking up and down to chase an SWR adjustment using a hired bucket truck :roll: . I put it together and mounted it on a short mast hoseclammped to a metal fence post that you can drive into the ground to make the initial adjustment. Once it was mounted and pushed up in the tree, SWR turned out to be 1:1 on 27.475, I got lucky I guess. My first install got blown over , more bucket truck time :x . The mast I was using wasn't guyed and needed to be a thicker schedule pipe, which was corrected and guyed on the reinstall. Live and learn I guess :roll:. Like yourself I would have prefered the I10K but my total antenna budget(which I really blew due to the reinstall :evil: ) prevented getting the I10K. I do consider this antenna to be a very good value based on how well it has performed for me and the weather beating it has endured. If interested I can post a link to my install if you want.Hope this helps alittle.
73's
bob85,
Lets see. 5/8ths wave or 0.625 x 36 feet is 22.5 feet. 0.64 x 36 feet is 23.04 feet. Roughly .54 foot or about 6 inches, or about 1/72nd of a wave length. I've no idea of what the difference in cost is, or the quality of construction, but if the cost amounts to more than about 75 cents, you ought to ask him to kiss you too! Difference in performance? None. Reliability? Depends on the construction, no opinion here. Would the difference be worth it to me? Nope. Would it to you? Beats me...
- 'Doc
Lets see. 5/8ths wave or 0.625 x 36 feet is 22.5 feet. 0.64 x 36 feet is 23.04 feet. Roughly .54 foot or about 6 inches, or about 1/72nd of a wave length. I've no idea of what the difference in cost is, or the quality of construction, but if the cost amounts to more than about 75 cents, you ought to ask him to kiss you too! Difference in performance? None. Reliability? Depends on the construction, no opinion here. Would the difference be worth it to me? Nope. Would it to you? Beats me...
- 'Doc
It was found years and years ago that the MAXIMUM wavelength of a monopole that provides the maximum amount of gain was .64 wavelength. Anything longer than .64 wavelength caused distortion of the wave pattern and exhibited reduced gain.
So, manufacturers made antennas to this size (or real close to it) and called it a "5/8" wave. I remember Radio Shack had a .64 wave for sale back in the late 70's early 80's, but MOST manufactures decided to go with the fractional name.
Is there a difference between a .625 wave or a .640? Maybe, but it would be minor and almost undetectable. I would rather error to .625 wave rather than risking breaking the bubble at .64. Just my opinion of course.
This does raise a question though, if an antenna is .625 on channel 40, will it be .64 on channel 1? :twisted:
I would really like to see and test a Wolf .64 wave someday!
So, manufacturers made antennas to this size (or real close to it) and called it a "5/8" wave. I remember Radio Shack had a .64 wave for sale back in the late 70's early 80's, but MOST manufactures decided to go with the fractional name.
Is there a difference between a .625 wave or a .640? Maybe, but it would be minor and almost undetectable. I would rather error to .625 wave rather than risking breaking the bubble at .64. Just my opinion of course.
This does raise a question though, if an antenna is .625 on channel 40, will it be .64 on channel 1? :twisted:
I would really like to see and test a Wolf .64 wave someday!
me too chief i have never tried one and wondered how they compare to the maco for mechanical strength and performance in the real world, is there any truth in what wolf says and demonstrates with his antenna drawings.
eduk8tr yes i would like to see your wolf .64 install, sorry to hear the first one folded.
and doc there ya go again confusing me with mathematics, my abacus is weak, if its over 10 my socks are comming off
eduk8tr yes i would like to see your wolf .64 install, sorry to hear the first one folded.
and doc there ya go again confusing me with mathematics, my abacus is weak, if its over 10 my socks are comming off
[quote="eduk8tr yes i would like to see your wolf .64 install, sorry to hear the first one folded.[/quote]
Only the mast folded. The antenna survived unscathed.
Here is the link for the install. CDX-787 base install.
Only the mast folded. The antenna survived unscathed.
Here is the link for the install. CDX-787 base install.
Probably not a lot of difference as I claim for just about all of these 11 meter verticals. There may be some difference in the way these antennas work in a technical sense however. The Maco uses a tuning coil to match and the Wolf use a gamma match to tune.
I have been discussing common mode currents produced by several of these type antennas recently so there might be something to consider in that. If the gamma does in fact balance the feed point of the antenna and the ground plane radials do a good job, then that might be an advantage if both antennas are installed out in the open real good.
Aside from this, all I know is that Wolf really does a good job in building his kits, using high quality tubing and ss parts.
BTW, Eduk8tr, I sure would be interested in seeing the docs that Chicconi sends with his .64, any chance of that, maybe emailed?
Marconi
I have been discussing common mode currents produced by several of these type antennas recently so there might be something to consider in that. If the gamma does in fact balance the feed point of the antenna and the ground plane radials do a good job, then that might be an advantage if both antennas are installed out in the open real good.
Aside from this, all I know is that Wolf really does a good job in building his kits, using high quality tubing and ss parts.
BTW, Eduk8tr, I sure would be interested in seeing the docs that Chicconi sends with his .64, any chance of that, maybe emailed?
Marconi
Marconi said:
This is probably the biggest difference between the two antennas. A gamma is not as efficient as the loop. A loaded antenna is is usually a compromise over a full length antenna. But there is something to say about top loading and moving the current further up the radiator.
Wolf does use stainless steel and probably de-burs the aluminum. They both have their plus' and minus'.
The proof would be in testing the Wolf Point 64 against the Maco.
Marconi said:
Marconi,
Let me see what I can do. I'll need to scan my manual and the get your email to send it to you.
73's!
I don't know about the loss factor of either, but it would seem to me that if the gamma did in fact minimize any CMC on the feed line and the coil, by its nature almost insures one of CMC's, then who can tell what the real advantage or disavantages are.
Regarding the TVI thing, if it is true that gamma's do balance the antenna at the feed point pretty well, then I would pick the gamma for doing the best job, all other things being more or less equal. I know we hear all kinds of stories about TVI and this or that antenna doing better or worse, but I guess we can all agree that antennas and CMC's are probably the one most common cause of TVI?
What is it about a coil loop that allows it to be more efficient?
Marconi
Regarding the TVI thing, if it is true that gamma's do balance the antenna at the feed point pretty well, then I would pick the gamma for doing the best job, all other things being more or less equal. I know we hear all kinds of stories about TVI and this or that antenna doing better or worse, but I guess we can all agree that antennas and CMC's are probably the one most common cause of TVI?
What is it about a coil loop that allows it to be more efficient?
Marconi
FWIW - Lightning strikes
There are very few, if any, 'CB' antennas on the market today that stand even the smallest chance of surviving a lightning strike. At least a direct one. One that's close? Maybe, but just depends on how close it is, and don't count on it! Thgat's just a 'fact of life' for most antennas, and the equipment they are connected to. Doesn't really matter what's 'promised', and a replacement for a lightning struck antenna ~is~ a very nice idea, but alone, isn't a very good recomendation (which says nothing about the antenna it's self).
- 'Doc
There are very few, if any, 'CB' antennas on the market today that stand even the smallest chance of surviving a lightning strike. At least a direct one. One that's close? Maybe, but just depends on how close it is, and don't count on it! Thgat's just a 'fact of life' for most antennas, and the equipment they are connected to. Doesn't really matter what's 'promised', and a replacement for a lightning struck antenna ~is~ a very nice idea, but alone, isn't a very good recomendation (which says nothing about the antenna it's self).
- 'Doc
Marconi said:
I want to answer this question in more detail but will have to wait until I get back from Las Vegas. I'll be there for a trade show through Saturday. I'll attempt to answer your question when I get back!
Keep a close eye on the ANTENNA section while I'm gone!