My point was that any properly tuned unnamed generic quad should be a
better-performing antenna than a Spiderbeam. However the usual HF quad


free space NEC calculations for both:

Spiderbeam (from www.spiderbeam.net)

20: 6.7 dBi gain
15: 6.9 dBi gain
10: 7.1 dBi gain

full-size 2 el quad (from www.cebik.com)

6.8-7.2 dBi (at freq where f/B is peak, also depends on boom length)

I'd say in practice they are pretty much equal...the quad being three-
dimensional will be much harder for one or two people person to put up.

Tor
N4OGW

I'd say in practice they are pretty much equal...the quad being three-
dimensional will be much harder for one or two people to put up.

Tor
N4OGW

wrote:

My point was that any properly tuned unnamed generic quad should be a
better-performing antenna than a Spiderbeam. However the usual HF quad



free space NEC calculations for both:

Spiderbeam (from www.spiderbeam.net)

20: 6.7 dBi gain
15: 6.9 dBi gain
10: 7.1 dBi gain

full-size 2 el quad (from www.cebik.com)

6.8-7.2 dBi (at freq where f/B is peak, also depends on boom length)

I'd say in practice they are pretty much equal...the quad being three-
dimensional will be much harder for one or two people person to put up.

Tor
N4OGW

I would further speculate that the odds of the "as deployed" performance
(in a temporary portable/field erection) of the quad being what the
model says are lower than for the Spiderbeam. The quad is bulkier and
3D, and deformations and environmental effects might be more of an issue.



Jim, W6RMK