Hi John, Carl and all,
Agreed. I think it is better to find a good all-around use antenna for your
HT then stick with it, never changing it or changing it very rarely. I
decided on the Diamond SRH77 antenna for my IC-T90A and haven't looked back.
It is essentially a long duckie. I believe it is about 19 inches long. It
covers 144 and 440 and happens to be an excellent broadbanded receiving
antenna to go with that radio's wide band receive capability. It is only a
quarter wavelength on 2 meters, but is a half wave on 440. Since I'm mostly
on 440, I love the increased performance of this setup. I'd stay away from
those longer, metal telescopic antennas for use with any HT regardless of
BNC or SMA connection; you're just asking for trouble the first time you
accidentally run into something with that antenna and strip the connector
right off the top of your radio... :-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: HT purchase! Wahoo!
> Problem is, the connector isn't that strong, they don't use the BNC
> connectors anymore so if you are changing antennas for different bands all
> the time and for when you're bored to scan around, you'll kill that
> connector, those SMA antenna connectors aren't very good at all for
changing
> stuff around all the time. They're alright for putting an antenna on and
> leaving it there, or an occasional very careful change but I know a lot of
> people that have broken them and those telescoping antennas are the best
way
> to do that, they're too heavy for that connector.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carl Martin" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 6:46 PM
> Subject: Re: HT purchase! Wahoo!
>
>
> > Hi,
> > I have never heard anyone suggest just changing the antenna on
> the
> > F6A to a monoband antenna for the band you are using. I am mostly on 2
> > meters and that works for me. also I wonder about a telescoping 2 meter
> > antenna. Starting at the 19 inches for 2 meters you could squash it
down
> > to the proper lenghts for 70 and 23 centimeters. Would that work?
> > 73, Carl
> >
> >
|
