Air band specific antenna

dispatcher812

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
627
Location
Connecticut
Is having an antenna specifically tuned for just air band worth it? Does it make a big difference in the reception of mil air as opposed to a triband? Scanner master has one and I am looking on thought about it.
 

GTR8000

NY/NJ Database Guy
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
15,421
Location
BEE00
A good band-specific antenna is always going to outperform a wideband antenna to some degree. "Is it worth it?" is a question only you can answer. Do you feel that you're missing out on hearing traffic by using a wideband antenna? If yes, then it's probably worth upgrading. If you listen to other bands that the wideband antenna does pretty well on, and you don't mind the compromise, then it might not be worth it to you.
 

imonitorit

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2003
Messages
162
Location
New London County, Connecticut
I would stick with the wideband omni.
Some exceptions would be a yagi in the 260 range if you want to try monitoring the military satellites or 137 for GOES . They can be simple to build yourself.
 

G7RUX

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
362
Is having an antenna specifically tuned for just air band worth it? Does it make a big difference in the reception of mil air as opposed to a triband? Scanner master has one and I am looking on thought about it.
In short, yes absolutely. The correct antenna is always a very good choice.
 

Ubbe

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
8,944
Location
Stockholm, Sweden
MIL air use a huge frequency range and probably no tuned antenna can cover that. A discone covers it but without any gain but are probably anyhow the best antenna to cover both civil and mil airbands.

/Ubbe
 

iMONITOR

Silent Key
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
11,156
Location
S.E. Michigan
I probably should have mentioned this is for a mobile setup.
1681930548591.png

Harvest D-103 120/300Mhz 2.15/5.5dBi Air Band Receiving Mobile Antenna (Rx Only)



I've been using one of these for about two months now. Mine doesn't have the fold-over feature as shown in one of Amazon's pictures. I think that was in error. No one else is showing that feature. It has a PL259 connector that requires a SO239 connector on what ever type of mount you choose. It's on a mag-mount sitting on top of a 4-drawer steel file cabinet. Performance has been noticeably better than anything else I've tried for several years.
 

dispatcher812

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
627
Location
Connecticut
Are some radios better at receiving mil air then others? This morning I put the 438 frequencies I have into a BC125AT and found the quality of reception better and more activity.
 

G7RUX

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
362
Are some radios better at receiving mil air then others? This morning I put the 438 frequencies I have into a BC125AT and found the quality of reception better and more activity.
I would imagine so, yes, to an extent.
 

vagrant

ker-muhj-uhn
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 19, 2005
Messages
3,150
Location
California
Almost daily I use a Larsen NMO 150/450/800 antenna. I sometimes use a Comet CA-2x4SRNMO antenna when big and ugly is not a problem. They both work fine for aircraft RX. Still, neither are intended for civilian or military aircraft frequencies. I use a Uniden BC125AT in the vehicle.

When monitoring civilian or military aircraft, I don't have problems when one considers line of sight and the aircraft elevation. How far away do you want to monitor?
1k' ~ 50 miles
5k' ~ 100 miles
10k' ~ 150 miles
20k' ~ 200 miles
30k' ~ 250 miles
One mile is around 0.87 nautical miles.

What I do have problems with are local FM broadcast stations, as well as one particular simulcast paging system around 152 MHz. To handle those RFI issues, I use several filters made by Dale Parr. I use/enjoy a wide banded antenna, so that's what I get. When I use a dedicated (tuned) 225-400 MHz antenna, it attenuates that FM and paging RFI to some degree.
 

iMONITOR

Silent Key
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
11,156
Location
S.E. Michigan
Are some radios better at receiving mil air then others? This morning I put the 438 frequencies I have into a BC125AT and found the quality of reception better and more activity.
Yes some are definitely better than others. The BC125AT is designed as a dedicated analog scanner, and a VHF/UHF scanner. Higher end scanners like the BCD436HP & BCD536HP as well as the SDS100 & SDS200 digital scanners are specifically designed to be digital scanners and I have to believe they are also optimized to perform their best in the 700-900MHz spectrum. They're certainly capable of receiving analog signals as well as those in the VHF/Lo, VHF/Hi bands and UHF below 700MHz, but they don't appear to be at their best for that application.

The BC125AT receives ongoing praise for it's superior performance in the Personal, Commercial & Military air bands. Likewise the BCT15X mobile/base is also highly respected as a analog scanner with outstanding performance on those same air bands.

Another thing to consider when scanning VHF aircraft frequencies is the use of an FM-Notch filter to help eliminate interference from strong FM broadcasting stations which can desensitize your scanner.
 

Edelweiss

Author of: Scanning the UK Airbands with the Beast
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
137
Location
England
Very general question. Depends on many factors. Basically any for purpose antenna will be a better choice but with cheap antennas you never know what you will get. Especially for receive purposes you may get any stiff shoe string and they then just label on it that says air band antenna on the package. All from far east generally. If you want more input see my book which has a large section on air band antennas.
 
Top