Would this be better?

[ILbandit]

Right now I am running this antenna.. http://www.walcottcb.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=24_163&products_id=382

If I were to switch to this one.. http://www.walcottcb.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=24_163&products_id=388
In your opinions, would the second one be an improvement for me?
Or would it reduce the efficiency of UHF, and VHF?

 

[N_Jay]

Right now I am running this antenna.. http://www.walcottcb.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=24_163&products_id=382

If I were to switch to this one.. http://www.walcottcb.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=24_163&products_id=388
In your opinions, would the second one be an improvement for me?
Or would it reduce the efficiency of UHF, and VHF?

My guess is that it would not be an improvement.

If there is any improvement it would be at 800, with a decrease at VHF.
UHF is a toss up.

RG-174 is not that good. The first one lets you use whatever cable the mount has, so that is a open question.

 

[ILbandit]

OK, that's what I wanted to know. The one I have does great for the UHF,VHF stuff. I was just wanting to do a little better on 800's.

Maybe just switch to some real good coax?

 

[DaveH]

The longer one is probably better on VHF high-band. It looks like two stacked 1/4-waves. The shorter (2nd one) looks like a loaded single 1/4-wave. probably not a hugh difference, a few dB.

By the look of the shorter one, it would be better on 800MHz (the longer one is only spec'ed to ~500MHz anyway). The 9 feet of RG174 should have mininal effect at VHF/UHF, but about 3dB loss at 800/900MHz. Not great, but not terrible. It may out-perform the longer one which is not tuned to those bands.

Dave