Does anyone have experience with the Sti-Co antenna with a tri-band mobile radio? With APX 8500?
-
To anyone looking to acquire commercial radio programming software:
Please do not make requests for copies of radio programming software which is sold (or was sold) by the manufacturer for any monetary value. All requests will be deleted and a forum infraction issued. Making a request such as this is attempting to engage in software piracy and this forum cannot be involved or associated with this activity. The same goes for any private transaction via Private Message. Even if you attempt to engage in this activity in PM's we will still enforce the forum rules. Your PM's are not private and the administration has the right to read them if there's a hint to criminal activity.
If you are having trouble legally obtaining software please state so. We do not want any hurt feelings when your vague post is mistaken for a free request. It is YOUR responsibility to properly word your request.
To obtain Motorola software see the Sticky in the Motorola forum.
The various other vendors often permit their dealers to sell the software online (i.e., Kenwood). Please use Google or some other search engine to find a dealer that sells the software. Typically each series or individual radio requires its own software package. Often the Kenwood software is less than $100 so don't be a cheapskate; just purchase it.
For M/A Com/Harris/GE, etc: there are two software packages that program all current and past radios. One package is for conventional programming and the other for trunked programming. The trunked package is in upwards of $2,500. The conventional package is more reasonable though is still several hundred dollars. The benefit is you do not need multiple versions for each radio (unlike Motorola).
This is a large and very visible forum. We cannot jeopardize the ability to provide the RadioReference services by allowing this activity to occur. Please respect this.
Sti-Co Tri-Band Shark Fin Antenna w/ APX 8500
- Thread starter erico
- Start date
That's what they were designed for.
They work as well as most people need them to.
They work as well as most people need them to.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
We've got a few VHF only (not the tri-band model) at work. Used on "unmarked" cars that are pretty obvious what they are….
Other than the more appealing aesthetics, there are some drawbacks:
They are expensive.
The slight tilt back probably reduces performance slightly as compared to a true vertical. Slight, but no zero.
Installation requires access to both sides of the roof, so you'll need to choose install location carefully. Ours are installed on the back of the Ford interceptor utilities, so access wasn't much of a challenge.
For the marked vehicles, I've spec'd the Larsen NMO-150/450/756SF's. Cheaper, work well, easier to install, and easier to replace if needed.
But the Sharkfin antennas do look good if you are trying to reduce the visibility.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2022
- Messages
- 340
I've got 2 on my car. One for my NX-5K's and one for my XG-100M. I love them for the simple fact that I couldn't drill a center hole due to the sunroof and they allow me to be partially incognito. Great SWR and is a quality product.
Much better than the 19in VHF on the roof. No clearance problems.
Much better than the 19in VHF on the roof. No clearance problems.
Was looking for real world experience.
FFPM571
Member
Real world Yes they work... do they work as well as 3 separate antennas . No they are for undercover use
Does anyone have a sweep of VHF/UHF? I know what StiCo claims for bandwidth, but I wonder just how hard they fall off outside their claimed band coverage. I've got questions like to see the sweeps on the RFMT-NT-V/U/C and GDR-DB-VHF/UHFH-R if available. I ended up in a garage last week that seemed to have much less clearance than claimed, especially on the transition ramps between levels.
And that's what you got. They work well in a well-designed system. I've used them and they work as intended. I don't know what your use case is as your post is very vague.
Will it work as good as a 1/4 wave for accessing a repeater 50 miles away? No, but most public safety users aren't doing that. Specify what "real world experience" you're looking for.
KK6ZTE you need to relax. Your responses are discourteous.
"They work as well as people need them to" is not real world using them experience.
They are going on Fire apparatus and Fire Command Vehicles if I decide to go that route.
Thank you to those who gave some experience and comparisons.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
These antennas are designed for low profile use. The idea is they blend in on top of an SUV and don't scream "AnTeNnA!!!!!" They do that at the expense of some performance due to the tilt and high cost.
I think low profile/high cost isn't something that's necessary in this application.
You can get antennas that perform better for a LOT less money, and are much easier to install.
Unless someone in charge just wants to spend money, or wants it to look cool, it's not the ideal antenna. They should be prioritizing performance over looks.
The only place we run those shark fin antennas are on unmarked cars/take home cars where they don't want to stand out as such. They do that well. But on all the patrol cars, I have standard vertical antennas. For multiband use, I've been running the Larsen NMO 150/450/756SF or the EM Wave tri band. Those have worked well over a few years and honestly don't really stand out that much.
Project25_MASTR
Millennial Graying OBT Guy
Considering I've had a Sharkee with the "Trident" since January of 2015 and the APX8500 wasn't released until 2017 I don't know if there is any validity to that claim.
I ran the Sharkee on my personal vehicle from 2015 until 2023 when I went to an individual antenna setup. I never utilized anything other than LMR on the Sharkee and the triband whip just didn't cover well enough below 150 MHz. I did notice some minor polarization issues form the canted mount on the Sharkee and it was made worse if you were running the nitol whip which had a serious case of bent-tenna when it got cold out.
I wouldn't run them on a county vehicle today but if you don't need to go below 150 MHz they work fine.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
The ones we use on VHF have a wire that coils up the outside, so there's likely some impact compared to a regular 1/4 wave even if the Sti-Co was straight.
I don't know how much impact the lean has on performance, but it's something greater than zero. In a public safety application, I'd want as much going for me as I could, and an expensive antenna with a tilt to make it look like a consumer fin antenna isn't very high on my list of wants.
But for the right person, in the right application, I'm sure it's the right antenna.
I don't know how much impact the lean has on performance, but it's something greater than zero. In a public safety application, I'd want as much going for me as I could, and an expensive antenna with a tilt to make it look like a consumer fin antenna isn't very high on my list of wants.
But for the right person, in the right application, I'm sure it's the right antenna.
Are you a rural or urban department? As far as a Command vehicle, will it be a Chief's vehicle that he cruises from meeting to meeting or would it actually take command at an incident? Which band is your primary?
None of the sharkfin style are exceptional at VHF, if that's your primary band (and you're a rural department). I think they work "good enough" for the Chief to monitor an event and feel important/involved. If you're in an urban department with a very well built radio system (i.e. good HT coverage on VHF everywhere), it'll be fine. Direct/tac channel range will be impacted, but that's a tradeoff that may be necessary (especially if low parking garages may be a concern). It's up to what your specific needs are in your area. I absolutely would not run them on actual apparatus.
We have an allied agency that is running those on every Chief vehicle, and it works fine in their OA. It works fine in 95% of our County as well. That said, there are areas where there may be a noticeable difference, but it's not critical to them. They made the tradeoff and found it acceptable.
However, if your primary band is UHF or 7/800, you may have better results. I have the Panorama Sharkee (FINB base with ASFC-155-U2-821 whip) on OES vehicles that are primarily UHF but need resonance on VHF (since they will monitor Fire calls and may occasionally "accidentally" transmit). They work well for monitoring VHF and are excellent on UHF or 7/800. My complaint is not the coverage on them, but rather how easy the studs break off the base, requiring the headliner to be dropped to repair. Our cold is 30 degrees, so we may not see the same issues that others may see in their cold environment.
Since I'm obviously against the grain here, I'll mention I'm not a fan of the Larsen NMO150/450/758 antenna. We get them on every new Fire build by vendors who are convinced they only need to stock that one antenna since "it covers everything you need". It's shorter than a standard VHF whip and it shows. It doesn't go wide enough to cover the USFS frequencies very well. It's resonant (but so is a dummy load!)
I'm a much bigger fan of the Sinclair SW-2340(X)-(Y), which performs very well, with a thicker whip that manifests in a wider working bandwidth at VHF. My work truck has one connected to a Harris XL-200M (also not a fan) and it's a huge improvement in coverage compared to the Larsen I had on it before. However, I'm in very VHF and UHF heavy environment, with virtually no 7/800 to worry about. If you're 7/800 heavy with VHF as a secondary or tertiary band, the Larsen may be a fine option for you.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Thanks for rattling my memory. I've been looking at that SW-2340 for a bit now and wanted to try one out. Kind of hard to find dealers and only 2-3 showing up on a Google search, similar to finding EM Wave dealers a few years back.
I know Sinclair makes great base antennas and passive products. I've got a number of their base antennas at work.
I've requested a quote from Primus, but would be interested to know who you bought yours from and what the price was. From what I can see as MRSP, they are quite a bit more expensive than the other brands and would love to know if it's worth the extra cost.
We use a lot of VHF, but also UHF and quite a bit of 800. I've heard others say the non-center loaded/colinear whip designs work better on VHF, and that's of value.
But I want to try one out and see how they do on UHF and 800.
I know others that have used their single band mobile antennas and they always gave them top marks. Looking forward to trying one of these myself.
Around $140 from Tessco. I'd be curious about your experience on 7/800 with it.
Every antenna choice is a tradeoff as you're well aware. There's no "perfect antenna for every situation". It's all compromises and decisions that have to be made. Even different vehicles in the same agency might have different antenna choices made based on different factors.
@mrweather what is your terrain like? Do you have high mountains with repeaters or more flat/level ground and tall towers? I wonder if the design ends up being a 3/4 wave antenna that has a radiation pattern that hurts in your terrain?
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Thanks for the info, I appreciate it. I did search Tessco and Talley, as well as antenna farm and a few others. None of them showed it.
I did get a quote from Primus for $118.80 and I think I'm going to pull the trigger on that today.
I've got VHF, UHF and 800 at work, so I can give this a good try. I'll try to remember to sweep it and post the results.
Yeah, that's my thinking. I've looked at a number of different options, but have been happy with the Larsen and EM Wave. Since our systems are designed for hand held coverage in most areas, it's not much of a challenge for these antennas. If I put this one on my personal truck, I can get out on the fringes more than our officers will and see how it does.
There are no coils or anything on the long whip to break it up, so its probably a VHF whip operating as a 3/4 wave on UHF. That would explain the advertised gain which will not be at the horizon. For 700/800/900 some of these antennas rely on a strategically placed fat spring where the spring length us resonant at 800 and the discontinuity to the whip isolates it on 800.
A design like this usually works a little better on VHF and is down a dB or two on UHF.
