It is shorter Bill, and yes the JR base-loaded antenna demonstrates
significantly less gain (as does any base-loaded whip no matter who
makes it) than an OEM telescoping unit...type-acceptance or not.
Most folks seem to miss the point; as long as you range test and see
similar results when compared to the OEM antenna, there should not be a
problem other than some directivity with a whip. Directivity relates to
the emanation of the signal in a specific direction, all whips offer the
highest gain somewhere in line with the antenna element (a human
standing holding the TX with the antenna parallel to the ground - the
point of highest transmitted dbm is somewhere above this due to the GND
plane).
Where loss of range in this scenario comes into play is when something
EMI/RFI-wise occurs to further reduce RF headroom at the RX. Using a
(quality) base-loaded whip has indeed removed 15-20% (on average)
headroom...
Anyone with access to a spectrum analyzer, a network analyzer (look at
return losses) or an anechoic chamber can compare and confirm for
themselves...
Bill Swingle wrote:
I appreciate your candor. But, I said aftermarket. If it's no shorter
than stock what's the attraction?
Bill Swingle
Janesville, CA
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe"
and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note
that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format
with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail
and AOL are generally NOT in text format
--
Simon Van Leeuwen
RADIUS SYSTEMS
PnP SYSTEMS - The E-Harness of Choice
Cogito Ergo Zooom
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe
messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email
such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
