Whip Antennas vs. Tactical Flats (Tri-Band)

[Stargater53]

I've been searching YouTube and the Internet trying to find reviews of HT dual- and tri-band antennas, and so far results I can trust are elusive. I've been looking at the Nagoya NA-320A tri-band antenna versus the Abbree AR-771 tri-band versus the Abbree tri-band tactical flat. So far, the last seems to be the best bet, but it makes me wonder if a tri-band whip antenna is even possible.

But here's the thing. The Nagoya reviews have been far less than stellar and the Abbree whip antennas are still a question mark. The tri-band Abbree AR-771 seems also to have a twin brother, the dual-band AR-771! But wait, these two antennas have the same model designation, which makes me wonder whether they're the same. Does anyone know? The tiny tag disk at the base of the antenna doesn't exist on the Abbree, yet the tri-band antenna commands a higher price than the dual-band antenna.

The Abbree tri-band flat-tacts seem to be racking up pretty good reputations, both in dual-band and tri-band, but who knows, really, what's under the hood? I suspect the tri-band and dual band AR-771s are the same antenna, just marketed differently. At under ten bucks each, they seem to be better deals than the Nagoya. Not only are they better antennas, they're less than half the price. But they're still not as good (reportedly) as the Abbree tri-band flat-tacts.

The flat-tacts are two-piece antennas. But what's under the hood? Is the tri-band part in the lower load portion, or the upper flat part? I have a label maker I use to tell all the antenna parts so I don't mix up the dual-band and tri-band parts (tops and bottoms).

So what do you think? Is Abbree doing a shell game with its antennas? When one returns an antenna (for whatever reason), how would Abbree know which parts/antennas are which?

Or are they all the same?

 

[ko6jw_2]

First of all, you would be off looking for HT antennas at a ham radio distributor rather than Amazon. Diamond and Comet have lots of dual band and some try-banders. Diamond SRH77CA is very popular dual band. It is available with several different bases. (SMA male or female etc). The Diamond SRH701A is a compact dual bander. Then there is the SRH770S - a very long dual bander. The only tri-bander I use is the SRH320A 2M/220/440 antenna. All are good antennas. I own them all.

Test results on HT antennas are very difficult to perform. There are too many variables. The radio itself, your hand and body position to name a few. Best to stick with known and established manufacturers. Stay away from "magical" designs. I've tried a few from Amazon and returned them. All HT antennas are a compromise. Whips, loaded, flat, loops etc. There is no magic.

 

[Stargater53]

As you said, test results on HT antennas are difficult to perform. People also tend to get hooked on brands. For example, I tend to like Retevis products, yet I can't test most of the equipment it sells.

When I first got into the technical aspects of antennas (and I have far more antennas than I'll ever need), I heard many good things about Nagoyas. I guess everyone has. But the NA-320A has not done well at all in any test. The 320A number also is used by Diamond (you said it's the only tri-bander you use). But it's also very expensive. How can we determine when any antenna reaches a point of diminishing marginal return, given that it even gets to that point?

Signal Stuff (S.S), which makes the Super-Elastic Signal Stick, is quick to criticize home testing of HT antennas. It says:

Technically, for [our] antenna to work it also needs a 1/4-wave counterpoise to go with it; you may notice that there isn’t one. Because of that, the other half of the antenna is provided by the chassis of the radio, which means that [the] actual SWR is going to vary a bit constantly. While in theory that seems like it would be a problem, in practice it’s the case with nearly all HT antennas.

In short, every SWR meter you connect will give you a slightly different reading. Change the coax? Different reading. Different antenna analyzer? Different reading. It’s easy to get caught up in the theory and say, “Oh, that means they are awful!” Before you do that, please actually try them!

Their antenna, they say, has been “tested over many years in many different configurations, and we have sized it in the way that seems to most consistently work in real-world situations.” Thus, theory and practice can diverge a bit, it says.

You can get a more consistent reading if you isolate the feedline and meter from the antenna using an RF choke, such as a large ferrite just below the antenna connector—you’d then need to add a counterpoise to the shield, and then you can get a consistent reading. Of course, unless you’re operating that way it’s arguably not realistic, but it’s consistent and shows that the antenna can have very good SWR. Another thing that works similarly is to provide a good solid ground on the shield and that will often improve things significantly.

But what if someone puts one of its antennas on an SWR meter/antenna analyzer and the SWR is fantastic? Well, they say, they're delighted, but their advice still stands, and people need to be wary of the results.

Retevis, which makes the RHD-771 (high grade) and RT-771 (standard), gets a bit riled when folks report high SWR readings for its antennas. It maintains its antennas are individually tested, but I doubt this is true for the standard line. That said, I very much like the RHD-771. It's made from a heavier gauge of wire. It also has a 20W power rating instead of 10W. The RT-771 has a 10W rating and is a low-grade product. But Retevis stands behind it. I suppose it will be fine for someone who just wants some walkie-talkies for camping or knock around use. I'm not willing to get an ultra-expensive antenna in the $40-$50 range unless it's for mobile or base station use. I have one I can throw over a tree branch, but that it. I also like the Signal Stick, but I have to use it more to get a better feel for it.

 

[mmckenna]

The only real way to test/compare them is to set up some sort of test bed that provides a suitable ground plane/counterpoise.

Each manufacturer is going to, of course, claim theirs is best.

Each individual user is going to have an opinion. Like most things, you need to find out what they are using as a comparison.
I usually have a hard time trusting someone who claims an antenna is "best" when they don't back it up with quantification that's based off something better than 'seat of the pants'.

There's been a lot of money spent on this, and if you look at the big radio brands (Motorola, Harris, Kenwood), you'll see some commonality.
On the other hand, they are usually testing into radio systems that are designed from the ground up to work well with the known performance issues of a hand held radio worn on the belt.
Ham radio doesn't have any such standard for testing.

And the SWR thing, as has been pointed out, really depends on a lot of variables. Counterpoise, proximity to the body, etc.
SWR isn't a good test of antenna performance. Low SWR just means that it's doing something with the RF energy that's been given to it by the radio. That may mean it's getting radiated well, or just getting converted into heat well. A 50Ω load looks like a really good antenna if all you are looking at is SWR.

I think the popularity of the tape antennas is because it starts to look like what the military uses. It's broadband due to it's width, and it's not going to snap off when it hits a low branch.
It should work fine if it is being use on the frequencies it is designed for, and the person using it understands the limitations.

 

[Stargater53]

Has anyone actually done any type of testing of the Abbree AR-771 and the Nagoya NA-320A? Lately I've had doubts that either ones works very well.

In the past YouTube testers have split open there Abbree flat-tacts and inside there is measuring tape. Aha! quoth they. See, they're only measuring tape inside! To which I think, yeah, and some antennas are just speaker or television antenna wire! Reminds me of the guy who fixed my dad's car seat by hitting it sharply with a hammer. "Five bucks," the guy said.

"Well," my dad said, trying it out. "It seems to have fixed the problem, but five dollars seems to be a bit steep for just hitting it with a hammer."

"I didn't charge you for hitting it with a hammer," the man said, my dad imitating the mechanic's western Kentucky accent. "I'm charging you five bucks because I knew where to hit it with a hammer!" It sounds a bit apocryphal, but my dad swore it was true and repeated it numerous times through my life. Sometimes maybe it's about knowing what to put in those flat-tacts. Whatever it is seems to work. And the fact that neither the Abbree NA-771 or the Nagoya NA-320A seem to test well leads me to suspect that maybe making such a tri-band whip is impossible. The Abbree flat-tact, on the other hand, does seem to work (at least better than the other two). And Abbree makes a flat-tact that's 42.5 inches in length is even more impressive.