On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:47:05 GMT, Lancer wrote:

+On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:13:39 GMT, james wrote:
+
+On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:21:12 -0600, "DrDeath"
wrote:
+
wrote in message
++news:mgcit1lk0jppe7sisb2gp7va9s9tmuqk41@4ax .com...
++ On 25 Jan 2006 04:48:05 -0800, "Professor"
++ wrote:
++
++You don't need the spring... and the 102" is unparalleled in
++performance if mounted in the proper location...
++
++ It depends on what 102" you are talking about. Not all 102"
++ antennas are created equal. Some 102" antennas can actually
++ be beat by some shorter antennas.
++
++ Let the games begin.
++
++Mounted properly the 102" is king.
++
+*****
+
+I concur. A properly mounted 102 inch whip will and should perform
+better than any loaded antenna.
+
+Now I define performance as a combination of radiated power and VSWR
+bandwidth. VSWR bandwidth is as improtant as radiated power as it is
+an indicator of antenna radiation resistance and "Q" of the antenna.
+Both have effect on the efficiency of the antenna over the disired
+operating bandwidth of the antenna.
+
+james
+
+"Should" perform better is fine, "will" perform better is not always
+the case..
*****

Yes even the best antenna, installed poorly will be o ut performed by
a lesser antenna that is properly installed. Installation on a vehicle
is far more influenced by where it is located and the vehicle itself.
SO for vehicular installations it is not very wise and prudent to make
claims as to which antenna is the best. Given all other obsticles
equal, the 1/4 lambda antenna will out performe physically shorter
antennae. Then not all vehicles are equal, then comparison becomes
more a gentleman's gambit.

james