Handheld Antennas

As of late, I became preoccupied with thinking about just how much better my radios would do if I were to "upgrade" some of my antennas. I've had a couple of the Smiley antennas and some extenable whips and was always rather pleased with their performance. But I couldn't leave well enough alone and had to see what else was out there. So I looked through the catalogs I had at hand and came up with a list of likely candidates. I placed my order with three separate companies and 2 to 3 days later I was up to my eyeballs in BNC connectors, rubber coatings and flashy chrome plating! I did my best and put this bunch of antennas through their paces to find out just what they could and couldn't do. What follows below are my results after many hours of grueling testing and collation. What follows are my personal impressions regarding the performance of a number of handheld antennas. This, in no way, should be viewed as an endorsement to purchase any of them. I have no personal or business relations with any of the represented companies nor was I supplied with any of these free of charge. I bought these out of my own pocket from the same dealers you can buy from. A lot of hard work and effort has gone into the testing and writing of this review. I would appreciate it if every effort is made to keep this document whole with me as the original author. Of course, it doesn't hurt that this document is copyrighted and therefore protected by US law and international treaties governing intellectual property. Except for personal use, and for the sake of brief passages quoted in reviews and given appropriate credit, no part of this work may be reproduced in any forms or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without prior written permission of the author. I'm hoping that this information will be as helpful to you as it has been for me. If it does help you out, I'd like to hear about it! Thank you and enjoy! Rich Wells N2MCA Strong Signals web site

This document contains the following sections:

Original review

Original recommendations

Original shortwave comments

Update #1: ANT-8 gone!

Update #2: Long whips

Update #3: SMA tele whip

Update #4: Watson 881 & Pryme models

Update #5: SMA models

Update #6: Stubby models

Update #7: Active Duck and RadioShack 20-034

I also decided to test the following stock antennas from a number of other radios just to see how they "stack up" aginst the competition.

Pictures

OEM antennas

Stock antennas

Telescoping antennas

The useful Watson W889

Watson W801 that broke during testing

The length of the antenna will usually determine, to a large degree, the type of frequencies it can receive best. That is why the telescoping whip is just an all-around good choice. Its length can be varied to help match the desired frequency range. This type of classification would sepearate the antennas into telescoping (7) and non-telescoping (18) versions.

Visual inspection will reveal differences in an antenna and usually a clue as to its coverage. Many antennas claim to be wide-band but if they are fixed in length they can only do so much. You could stick a coathanger in your BNC connector and sell it as a wide-band antenna if you felt so inclined!

Your typical antenna is a coiled piece of wire coated with a plastic or rubber coating. There are also those which are usually tuned for one frequency range and consist of a simple length of wire and are called a whip.

If your antenna has a larger bulge near the base it is probably a dual-band antenna designed to work good in two distinct ranges of the VHF and UHF spectrums. A bulge or coil near the middle of the antenna means it was probably designed to work in three bands. And by mixing a few types, you can come up with versions like the base-loaded coil with a whip or telescoping whip.

Here's a break-down of these type of classifications :

Physical Descriptions
In the following descriptions, antenna plastic and rubber parts are all molded in black except where noted.

Frequency Ranges
I tested these antennas over the 30 - 960MHz frequency range. For the purposes of tabulation and comparison, I broke this range down into several sub-ranges. Mainly 30-80, 80-108, 118-137, 145-205, 225-400, 400-512, 850-870, 870-900 and 925-960MHz.

Measurements
These readings were taken over two very similar days (clear, low 60s, moderate humidity) between the hours of 3 and 10 PM ET. My Yupiteru MVT-7100 was the test radio used for all measurements due to its wide frequency ranges, adjustable steps sizes and receive modes and more importantly, it has a well-calibrated S-meter (compared to the AR8000, HS200, IC-R1 and IC-R10).

The 7100s S-meter consists of a BUSY indicator, 8 segment indicators and one block indicator at the far right end when the signal "pegs" the meter. Much like a modern transceiver S-meter, which is calibrated from S0 to S9+, I assigned a number from 0 (no signal) to 9+ for a full- scale reading for the measurements taken.

For every reading taken, the receiver was moved so that the strongest signal reading could be taken. For the tests in which an extendable/ telescoping antenna was used, it was adjusted in length so that the largest signal reading could be received using that antenna.

Notation
In the raw data charts that follow, the measurement taken for a particular antenna/frequency pair is listed as the number I assigned to that reading according to the S-meter indication. In most places, a straight number is used (0, 1, 2, ..., 9). In places where the signal was fluctuating, a dual number was recorder to represent half-values. For example, if the signal fluctuated between 3 and 4 (segment 3 was solid with segment 4 lit approximately half the time), then the value indicated in the following chart would be 3/4 and can be thought of as 3.5 (not the most accurate system since it is linear while an S-meter is graduated in dB which are logarithmic...but you get the general idea). For readings which gave a full scale indication, 9+ is listed.

Raw Data

Totals
To make a comparison between antennas, the raw data numbers were assigned a numeric value (e.g. 1=1, 2=2, 3/4=3.5, 9/+=9.5, 9+=10). These values were then added for each frequency range and are displayed below. Adding all the frequency range values together horizontally results in the Full Range value listed under Total in the last column.

Below each column is the average for that column (frequency range) as well as the average for the top five performers in that column. This will help you to spot check the performance of a particular antenna against the whole.

Rankings
Using the totals in the above table, the antennas were ranked from strongest received signal to the lowest. Here are the results :

Observations
It's no surprise that the top five positions for full range coverage belong to some form of telescoping whip (ANT-8, W889, ANT-19, 20-006, MVT-7100). Of the top ten, seven positions are held by this type.

Many users of the Condor and RH-77CA have often praised these antennas and I can see why since they appear in the top ten (8th and 6th, repectively).

In the middle of the pack we can see the dual-band type antennas as well as the stock ducks for the Radio Shack and Uniden models. The end of the listings for full frequency coverage gives us the noted poor performers (AR8000, FA-4B) and the antennas tuned for single band usage.

Taking a look at the the frequency range breakdowns, tallying up the number of times each antenna ranks within the top five, we get :

A surprising note here is that the RH-77CA was ranked in the top five so many times but didn't make the top five overall (ranked 6th). It was obviously hurt by its middle-of-the-pack performance in VHF lo-band where it was ranked 8th.

Another surprise is the W889 performance. A quite short (collapsed) telescoping dual-band whip that placed 2nd overall! Its poorest prformance was also in the VHF-lo band where it ranked 7th due to the fact that the whip could not be extended as far as the ANT-19, ANT-8 or MVT-7100.

Very similar to the W889 is the 270A which placed 7th overall. Its lowest rankings were in the 850-960 ranges (14th out of 18, 11th out of 16 and 8th out of 11). Its twin, the SS-IV, performed similarly. These are great choices for 100-450MHz monitoring!

Recommendations
For use at home, an extendable whip like the ANT-19, ANT-8 or 20-006 is obviously going to give the best performance since you can tune it for the desired frequency range you are working in. And at the lowest prices of the bunch, they are definitely a bargain!

Next up would be the RH-77CA or Condor antennas. At $30-$35, they give good coverage for a not too bad price. While they can be used on your handheld when walking around, they are very big! I personally would choose the RH-77CA because it performed a little better, is much thinner and very flexible.

For normal, everyday walk-around use, the W889 is sure to please. It is quite small and can be left collapsed and will work nicely for UHF coverage. For those harder to get VHF signals, extend the whip and you'll get better reception. Also nice is the elbow joint that allows you to adjust the tilt of the antenna according to the position of the radio. At $20, it's a definite best bang for the buck!

After this, your choices are for the dual-band types like the FA-1443B. While they do improve reception, their overall performance is not that much better than the stock antennas found on the Radio Shack and Uniden models. Dual-banders typically give better VHF performance, about the same for UHF but tend to suffer in 800MHz coverage.

If you are just into monitoring specific ranges, then you should buy a telescoping whip which can be tuned for that range, or simply peruse the data in this article for those antennas which seem to fit the bill.

SW Commentary
For those of you with receivers that cover the HF bands, there is much to be heard below 30MHz. If you use the right antenna, that is!

For best reception, the antenna needs to be as closely matched to the length of the frequency being tuned. In short, the lower the frequency, the longer the antenna needs to be to allow you some success in receiving it.

With this fact in mind, there are a few antennas mentioned in this review that can serve our HF purposes. Obviously, the ANT-8 sticks out as the best choice and since it also serves well on VHF and UHF, it's one of the first antennas I stuff into the bag for trips. Another choice is the ANT-19 but this is starting to get a bit too small to be really effective.

If you want to do some experimentation and have a few basic skills, you can easily build Gerald Santomassimo's 'Quicky-n-dirty wire antenna' mentioned on my TIPS page. You get to pick your own length of antenna using a simply piece of wire!

A final word of warning : too much of a good thing can be too much! If you're having fantasies of 100 meter wire atnneas strung across your property you might want to think again. Such an antenna will undoubtedly deliver some signals much too strongly. The end result could very well be interference in terms of intermod and imaging. Especially those of us with a VOA transmitter on our back doorstep! Not only will this effect your HF reception, on some receivers this interference can extend well up into the VHF bands. So if you start receiving the BBC around 50MHz...

While today's wide range receivers are technological wonders, the ones that cover HF can be overloaded without too much difficulty. So if you're going to construct a wire antenna, try starting with 15 - 20 feet at fist and see how your particular radio handles the signals in your area.

And of course, if you are new to the SW bands, pick up a good book on the subject to learn more about those who use it as well high traffic areas, signal propagation, etc!

Update - May 29, 1998
Unfortunately, it seems that Grove is no longer selling the ANT-8 and ANT-19 antennas I tested in this review. I have heard that when this one-time production run of antennas from Cushcraft was exhausted, that was it.

Grove did replace them with newer models but both have spring coils at the bottom and are said to perform poorly on VHF-lo. Last I heard, there were no more of the new ANT-8s left. How soon will the current supply of ANT-19s last?

As another note, the Watson antennas are no longer available from EEB as they have closed their doors to us. If you are interested in obtaining them, you'll have to go to Scanners Unlimited (California, USA), STD Electronics (Virginia, USA), Durham Radio (Canada) or any number of dealers in England for the European community.

Update - November 3, 1998
In an effort to provide hobbyists with a replacment antenna for the now defunct Grove ANT-8, I went searching for likely candidates and ended up with the following:

Maxon WTA-1

Premier AL-800

Smiley Super-Stick II

Smiley Flexi-Coil

Here's the gratuitous photo.

First, let's consider the Grove ANT-8. This was a specially built, chrome plated, telescoping whip made by Cushcraft. Its length can vary from 7 to 46 inches and receive coverage was claimed at 25 - 1300MHz. It was available from Grove for $17. It took first place in my Handheld Antenna review above and does a wonderful job on HF. It's one of my favorites...I own two. One is used for a base radio while the other gets stuffed in a backpack for handheld use.

The Smiley Super-Stick II is another large telescoping whip antenna. It is designed for amateur radio use on 2 meters as a 5/8 wave antenna with 6 - 9 dB gain. Its length can vary between 10 and 54 inches! It is chrome plated as well and has a rubber coated casing around the base which covers a flexible spring. It's carried by most amateur radio dealers for $20.

The Smiley Flexi-Coil is similar to the previously tested Smiley 270A, but on a larger scale. It is a chrome plated telescoping whip varying in length from 9 to 35 inches. It is designed as an 2 meter, 1/2 wave amateur radio antenna with 7 -9 dB gain. The lower half is covered in a rubber coating which hides a flexible spring. This coating also extends over the BNC connector. It's carried by most amateur radio dealers for $26.

The Premier AL-800 is really two antennas in one. Designed for amateur radio use on the 2 meter and 440 bands, it consists of a base plug which houses the BNC connector. Into this plug is connected either the VHF telescoping whip portion or the "rat-tail" UHF portion.

Here's a picture showing the AL-800 in both VHF and UHF configurations as well as its respective components.

As you can see, the antenna is coated in a black matte chrome finish with polished brass fittings. It is rather attractive and probably helps to explain its $35 price tag from most amateur radio dealers.

The VHF portion contains a loading coil with 4 telescoping segments above and below it. The UHF portion is simply a flexible length of rubber coated wire. In its VHF configuration, the AL-800 varies in length from 10 - 34 inches and allows 3.2dBi of gain. In the UHF configuration, it is a static 9 inches in length and gives 5.5dBi gain.

The last contestant is the Maxon WTA-1 which I found while browsing the Scanners Unlimited web site. It's really a CB antenna that can extend from 10 inches out to 38 inches. Half of it is a chrome plated telescoping whip while the lower half is covered in hard plastic and contains a small flexible coil near the base. It was priced at $18.

For testing purposes, I extended each to its full length then tested them on frequencies between 4 and 124MHz using my MVT-9000. For each frequency tested, I simply received the strongest signal I could and noted the number of bars on the S-meter. This bar count is noted in the following table and if an antenna could not receive the signal, a '-' is listed.

As you can see, the Super Stick II was the overall winner. Not surprising considering its 8" length advantage. I was surprised to see it excel above 30Mhz as well! Its price is great considering the performance but the bigger concerns are its retracted length (10") and the amount of stress it puts on the radio when fully extended.

Both the Flexi-Coil and AL-800 worked decently above 100Mhz but were simply horrendous on lower frequencies. Definitely not a good choice for HF or VHF-lo monitoring.

The WTA-1 did very well on HF and VHF-lo; the peak for the CB band in the 26 - 27Mhz range can be easily seen. At $18 it is a good buy for this type of monitoring but should also be avoided for frequencies above the VHF-lo band.

So if you're looking for a handheld or base antenna to give you premium reception like the past ANT-8 review winner, the Smily Super Stick II seems to be the choice. Just be careful when using it on a handheld since its excessive length can create LOTS of stress on the BNC connector which could lead to problems down the road.

Since I had the opportunity to test it, I put the AL-800 in its UHF configuation and stacked it up against the winners in my review for the various UHF bands (FA-4B for 400 - 512Mhz, WS1000 for 850 - 890Mhz and FA-B01RE for 925 - 960MHz).

The AL-800 proved an almost identical match to the FA-4B and did slightly better on 800MHz than the WS1000 antenna. Obviously a good choice for this type of UHF monitoring. On the 900Mhz frequencies, it was not even close to competing with the FA-B01RE which left it in the dust. This antenna was obviously not designed to work much above 890Mhz from what I saw.

Update - June 27, 1999
Having bought an IC-R2 and not being happy with the inflexible stock antenna and wanted the better reception that is usually gained via a longer antenna, Robert Edwards went in search of a suitable replacement.

He first tried an SMA-to-BNC adapter with some longer telescoping whips but found the lengths and weights simply too much strain for this small radio. The next step? Build your own, of course!

So Robert built his own R2 antenna based on a small telescoping whip with an SMA adapter. He offered a prototype for use by yours truly and what follows are my thoughts about this unique innovation.

A quick look at this antenna reveals what can best be described as a older cordless telephone antenna mated with a BNC-to-SMA connector. While the top of the antenna tip is still in its chrome plated form, the rest of it has been painted in flat black enamel.

Pictured on the Icom IC-R2.

In its collapsed state, it measures 3.75" high. When fully extended, the 5 whip sections create a useful 12" length! Better still, it remains very light and should help keep strain off the radio's antenna connector thus avoiding costly repairs down the road.

The next question is how well does it stack up against the R2 stock antenna? To help answer this, I put a BNC-to-SMA adapter on my MVT-7100 and proceeded to compare the fully extended whip against the R2 stock on a number of frequecies from AM broadcast to 938 MHz LTR frequencies. I simply tuned a frequency then read the resulting signal strength off the S-meter. Where no signal reception was detected, I list a '-':

And the results speak for themselves. The whip was only beaten by the R2 antenna twice. Its increased length helped greatly for VHF coverage. As the we got into the UHF range, the R2 was more up to the challenge and by 800/900, they were equal which is surprising noting the whip's extra 5"! Better results can be had by shortening the whip's length.

Robert says he has continued development after supplying me with a prototype by increasing component assembly strength and an enamel paint which adheres even better.

If you are interested in acquiring your own SMA telescoping whip, Robert says he is willing to build you one! He says antenna plus shipping and handling will come out to about $25.

To finish up, I'll say "Kudos!" to Robert for his unique offering which should prove quite popular for small radio owners with SMA antenna jacks. Like most telescoping whips, they offer an adjustable length for best signal reception as well as being quite portable. In this case, Robert's antenna is a great match for the R2. Nicely done Robert and thanks for the chance to evaluate it!

Update - August 7, 1999
Once again, the natives were growing restless. It seems a few hobbyists were just not happy with the current crop of "well known" scanning antennas for their handhelds, so they struck out to find something worthy of their dollar.

After all the talk had died down on the mailing lists and USENET, the Watson W881 Super Gainer seemed to be the up and coming favorite. Having read my review, many of them were asking if I could compare it to the Diamond RH-77CA which seemed to be the most worthy competitor.

At just the same time, as luck would have it, I was contacted by of Premier Communications who wanted to know if I would be interested in reviewing their Pryme antenna models! I heartily agreed and they were kind enough to ship 5 BNC (AL-800, RD-78, RD-8, RD-9 & RD-98) and 2 SMA (RD-9SMA & RD-98SMA) models.

I quickly got on the phone with Glenn from Scanners Unlimited and ordered the Watson W881 and a Comet SMA-503 (for an upcoming evaluation). For this update, I tested the Diamond against the W881 and Pryme BNC models.

For starters, we'll go over the physical descriptions and begin with the RH-77CA to refresh your memory.

The RH-77CA has been held in the highest regard amongst scanner hobbyists, and for good reason! Looking back at my original handheld review, this is the antenna which took top spot for non-telescoping models. It was also the only non-telescoping model to make the top five rankings in 7 of the 8 bands tested!

Taking a look at the Watson W881, its appearance is nearly identical to the RH-77CA! They both are colored black. Both have the same BNC connector and rubber slip ring. Both have base loaded coils with 5 rings near the top edge. Both have two whip segments covered in a rubber coating which step down to a smaller diameter whip roughly halfway up their length. Both are tipped in the same plastic cap with 7 "ribs". The differences? The RH-77CA has a sticker with silver writing while the W881 has blue lettering stenciled directly on the body. Oh, and the W881 is about an inch longer putting it at about 15".

Moving on to the Pryme models, we'll go in numerical order which brings the RD-78 up first. Deja vu all over again! This antenna looks just like the previous two! Except for the gold BNC connector and being an inch longer than the W881 (so about 16"), most features are nearly identical. The step down point along the whip is lower on the RD-78 and the plastic end cap is slighly different.

Looking at the RD-8, it is basically a pint-sized copy of the RD-78. It too has a gold BNC connector, the same style loading coil and plastic end cap. Since it is only 6.5" long, there is no step down in diameter along the whip.

THe RD-9 is definitely a different breed from its siblings. It too has a gold BNC connector but a smaller base coil which tapers quickly. The whip is only about 1/16" in diamter making it very "whip-like"; skinny and flexible. The antenna length is listed as 7" long.

The RD-98 is simply a longer version of the RD-9 except, strangely enough, it is the only one of the group without a gold BNC connector. With exactly the same style whip, it tops out at 17" in total length. Looing at the whip very closely, there is a very small step down reminiscent of the RD-78.

The last antenna is the AL-800. If you've read the section of this review where I was looking for a replacement for the ANT-8 for HF work, you'll remember that I tested the AL-800. Since this is a dual purpose antenna, I had also put it through its paces on 800/900 MHz as well. While I had my doubts about testing this telescoping model against these particular models, I eventually concluded it would do no harm considering Premier was kind enough to send it along for free.

The AL-800 is a large, base loaded coil with a screw in top insert to accomodate either a telescoping whip portion, or a 800/900 "rat tail". For this testing, I simply used the telescoping whip and adjusted its length as necessary for best reception. At it full length, the AL-800 measures 34".

I proceeded to test these models on a number of frequencies between 20 and 940 MHz. For this purpose, I used my MVT-9000 and simply recorded the reading off of the S-meter as a means of tabulating antenna performance. My results appear in the following table.

After I had posted these results, John Ward wrote in and said that he thought it would be useful if I plotted the results of a stock Uniden/Radio Shack stock ducky alongside these other antennas as a "standard reference." I agreed and have added the "U/RS" column for this purpose.

If the signal could not be received, a '-' is listed. If a signal was just barely received with the squelch opening but no reading on the S-meter, a '0' is listed. Otherwise, the number of bars indicated on the S-meter display is listed.

Taking a look at the big picture, I see the following:

How poor the AL-800 does on HF/VHF-lo considering its 34" length

How the AL-800 seems to "kick in" above 100 MHz

Good results of the AL-800 on upper mil aero

Nearly identical results across the full spectrum for 77CA, 881, 78 & 98

Surprising results of the 9 on VHF-lo

Surprising results of the longer antennas on 800/900 MHz

Comparing the scores for the 4 longest, non-telescoping models puts the W881 in the lead with the RH-77CA and RD-78 back one "point", and the RD-98 back 6 points. So, for all intents and purposes, the W881, RH-77CA and RD-78 perform identically. Considering the latest pricing, the RH-77CA rings in at $25, the W881 at $35, the RD-78 at $23, and the RD-98 at $25. Comparing price versus performance makes the decision between these pretty easy.

The other factor to consider among these four is the flexibility and weight savings (roughly 1/3 as heavy) of the RD-98. This might be an advantage to some. The biggest drawback I saw using the RD-98 is that the flexibility kept this antenna constantly flailing around on a handheld unit. For weaker UHF signals, this caused a considerable amount of fading on some signals as the antenna moved back and forth among the air waves.

The RD-9 was a good performer and more than justifies its $1 increase over the $18 RD-8. It is also lighter and more fexible. While neither of these did well on VHF-lo, they did OK elsewhere considering they are designed as 2m/440 amateur radio models.

The AL-800 is best suited for its dual capabilities as a long whip for VHF/UHF and "rat tail" for 800/900 MHz. It might be the choice for you if VHF-lo is of no concern. Its two-in-one role does help justify the $35 price tag.

All things considered, I think it was a good test and gave everyone out there a few more options when it comes to choosing the antenna that's just right for their monitoring regimen!

Update - November 11, 1999
With more and more amateur handheld radios being designed with the smaller footprint SMA antenna connecters, it's probably just a matter of time before we start to see the same thing happen to our micro-sized receivers.

With this in mind, I set out to compare a few of the models readily available on today's market. For this review, the Premier RD-9SMA and RD-98SMA were kindly supplied by Premier Communications! For another test point, I purchased a Comet SMA-503 from Glenn at Scanners Unlimited. Since I currently have an Icom IC-R2 and Yaesu VX-5R in my stable, I figured I'd through their stock antennas into the fray to see how they fared.

The Premier RD-9SMA is a nice looking model with its black exterior and gold plated ring around the base. The lower base-loaded coil section is roughly an inch high which then quickly tapers off. It then changes to a very fine piece of wire coated in polyurethane and topped with a small plastic cap. Total length is 7 inches. It's billed as being an amateur radio antenna for 2m/440/900 and sells for about $22.

The Premier RD-98SMA is a longer version of the 9SMA. It's a whopping 17" long, most of which is the same fine piece of coated wire. The base coil section is much smaller than the 9's but the gold plated ring at the bottom is twice as thick and has grips around its circumference. It's billed as a 2m/440 antenna and sells for about $28.

Next up is the Comet SMA-503. It is similar in design to the RD-9SMA with a length "rat tail" tipped with a plastic cap but it's almost an inch longer. The base loaded coil is about 50% thicker in diameter. It's touted as a 2m/440 amateur antenna and sells for about $30.

The IC-R2's antenna is the FA-S270C. It's seven inches long and a bit more like a typical "duck" antenna. The entire length is coated in rubber compound which extends over the SMA connector. It's about the same diameter as the RD-9SMA at the base and stays that way until about half way up where it tapers to about half the base width. As noted in my R2 review, this antenna is an overall average performer when compared to the standard duck antennas that comes with most Radio Shack and Uniden models.

The newest SAM antenna in my shack is the one that came on the VX-5R supplied by Lentini Communictions. It's nearly identical to the Icom model in every way. The only real visible differences are the rubber flange that extends over the SMA connector and the screw-off end cap. The flange is used to seat into a recess when screwed onto the VX-5R thus forming a water resistant seal. The screw-off cap allows an antenna extender element to be added which increases its resonent length supposedly making it better when tuning below 50 MHz. For this review I did not use the extender.

Here's a picture of these models with the following antenna from top to bottom as follows: RD-9SMA, RD-98SMA, SMA-503, FA-S270C, and VX-5R stock.

Click for full-sized picture.

As usual, I got all of these models together and with the help of my trusty MVT-7100, we proceeded to evaluate them over a wide range of frequencies with the help of a BNC-to-SMA connector. For each frequency, I simply counted the number of bars on the S-meter and recorded them below. If a signal was not received, a '-' is listed.

Frequency	9	98	503	R2	VX-5R
42	7	8	1	7	7
59	2	6	1	2	2
73	1	3	-	1	1
88	7	10	2	7	7
96	5	8	2	5	5
102	2	4	1	2	2
107	2	8	1	2	2
117	3	5	3	3	3
124	2	4	1	1	2
127	7	7	6	6	6
132	1	1	1	1	1
147	6	7	4	6	6
150	7	8	7	7	7
155	1	1	1	1	1
158	7	9	9	8	8
162	7	9	9	6	7
203	8	10	10	9	9
220	1	5	4	1	1
258	1	1	1	1	1
442	3	4	2	2	2
450	9	8	9	9	9
453	4	4	5	3	5
460	1	1	1	1	1
463	3	2	2	2	3
487	8	5	5	8	8
631	7	5	4	5	8
852	5	4	4	4	4
856	6	7	4	5	5
862	6	6	5	5	6
868	3	4	3	4	3
880	6	7	5	5	5
891	4	6	4	5	4
936	4	4	4	6	5

If we sum up the columns, we get an indication of how each antenna did overall for being able to pull in the strongest signals. Doing so puts the RD-98SMA in first place with 181. The RD-9SMA and VX-5R stock tie for second with 146. The IC-R2 stock brings up a close third with 140. That leaves the fourth and final spot to the SMA-503 with 121.

Taking a look at the big picture, I see the following:

Notice how poorly the SMA-503 does below 108 MHz

The SMA-503 also does poorly in the 600 - 800 range

The first, second, and third place models do surprisingly well comapred to the RD-98SMA which is more than twice as long

The "rat tails" of the Premier and Comet models make then very attractive since it makes them very light, very flexible, and almost invisible. While the RD-98SMA turned in the best results, I find it bothersome watching the S-meter fluctuate as its length coupled with its "whispiness" allows it to oscillate too easily. This is best used when at home with the radio at rest.

On the go, a better choice for full frequency coverage would be the RD-9SMA, IC-R2, or VX-5R stocks. Again the benefits of the RD-9SMA make it the best choice from all that I can see. If you do just UHF monitoring, the SMA-503 might also be a choice for you. The VX-5R is also not a good choice since the rubber "lip" extending over the SMA connector makes it difficult, if not impossible to use on most radios (unless you're willing to cut it off).

But if you truly need VHF/UHF reception, the price and benefits of the RD-9SMA make it the obvious choice. You can probably see why it's been very popular with yours truly when using the R2 and VX-5R.

Being just a bit better than the average duck as far as performance goes, its size and flexibility might be worth buying an SMA-to-BNC adapter to use it on your favorite BNC scanner. Definitely something to think about!

Update - January 7, 2000
In this installment of handheld reviews, I have concentrated on a number of "stubby" BNC antennas. Typically used by race fans to limit their receive range to local radio traffic, such antennas can also used to cut down on strong signal overload as well as to provide very portable yet stealthy profile. Just remember that you don't get something for nothing and that's especially true when using these pint-sized models.

For this review I decided to test a Comet CH-32 Miracle Baby, Diamond RH-3 (which was tested in my original handheld review), Optoelectronics DC-440 (which is usually supplied on their frequency counters), and two models which come stock on "racing" scanners, the RadioShack PRO-74 and RCA RP-6198.

Except for the RP-6198 model, these antennas are roughly 1.75" tall while the RP-6198 measures in at a towering 3" or nearly twice as high as the others.

Here's a pretty picture to look at before I start discussing various physical attributes. From left to right are the RP-6198, PRO-74, CH-32, DC-440, RH-3, and a typical Uniden/RadioShack stock antenna. Fitted to a VR-500, such short antennas do help micro-receivers become even more portable and stealthy.

The most popular of the stubbies is probably the Miracle Baby which is designed for amateur radio transmissions on 2m, 70cm and 23cm. It is all black which consists of the hard plastic body, metal BNC connector, and rubber O-ring which encompasses the middle of the BNC connector. Printed on the side of the body is "MIRACLE BABY CH-32 COMET ANTENNA" and on top, under a clear plastic coating can be seen "3BAND COMET HANDY".

Nearly identical in function is the Diamond RH-3 which is an amateur radio antenna designed for the same bands. This antenna is also all black with a plastic body, metal BNC, and rubber O-ring. But while the Comet top is largely squared off, the Diamond has a rounded top. When I first got the RH-3, it had light blue printing on the body which wore off quit quickly.

Almost identical in appearance to the Comet is the Optoelectronics DC-440. The coloring, size, components, and shape appear identical but this model has no writing on it. Supposedly designed largely for UHF use on their frequency counters, I was interested to see what this model was capable of.

The PRO-74 antenna has a body which is coated in black rubber like a typical ducky while the BNC connector is the usual chrome finish. And, of course, this model does not have an O-ring about the connector thereby allowing the grooved BNC mating slot to be seen.

The RP-6198 antenna looks just like a typical rubber duck but only half the usual height. Its semi-flexible body is coated in black rubber with three rings inscribed near the base. Again, the BNC connector is chrome with no O-ring.

When performing any antenna testing between multiple models, it becomes a chore to constantly swap them in and out to test their receive qualities on a number of signals spread throughout a typical scanner's frequency range. It doesn't take too long to see which antennas slide on and off nicely, and which present more of a challenge!

The easiest one to get on and off was the PRO-74. Second place was a tie between the Diamond and Comet. Last place was a tie between the DC-440 and RP-6198 with both taking an excessive amount of force to push on, and a very firm grasp to take hold and lift off. All models attached firmly and securely.

Now, the moment you've all been waiting for! It was time to put these puppies to the test and see what they're made of. I got out the trusty MVT-9000 and tested each on a number of frequencies spaced between 42 and 938 MHz using AM, FM and wide FM signals. Each antenna was tested on the same frequency and signal while the received signal strength was noted on the LCD of the MVT-9000.

I logged the results for each test by simply indicating the number of bars displayed by the S-meter. If a signal was just able to open the squelch but no bars were displayed (just the 'S' appears on the LCD), I recorded a 0. If the signal simply could not be received, I recorded a '-'. As a "benchmark", I also tested a typical Uniden/RadioShack 6" ducky antenna and recorded its results as well. My final testing results appear in the following table.

Frequency	6198	74	CH-32	DC-440	RH-3	U/RS
42	3	1	0	0	0	4
59	0	0	-	-	-	0
71	10	8	6	6	6	10
82	10	10	10	10	10	10
90	6	2	0	0	0	8
92	4	0	0	0	0	6
97	3	0	-	-	-	10
101	3	0	-	-	-	10
104	3	0	0	0	0	3
117	1	0	3	2	-	6
124	1	0	-	-	0	3
127	5	2	2	2	2	6
132	1	0	-	0	0	2
147	3	3	2	1	0	9
150	3	2	0	-	-	10
153	4	5	3	4	4	10
154	6	4	3	-	-	10
155	-	-	-	-	-	5
159	2	2	-	0	0	10
163	0	2	1	1	1	10
203	7	6	3	2	3	10
221	4	3	2	2	2	4
258	-	-	-	-	-	-
308	-	-	-	-	-	0
349	-	-	-	-	-	0
388	0	0	-	-	-	3
450	3	1	0	0	0	4
453	3	3	3	3	0	7
460	2	1	2	2	0	5
464	2	1	1	2	0	4
493	10	0	0	0	0	10
523	10	7	2	3	4	10
631	10	5	0	0	0	10
679	0	-	-	-	-	0
852	4	3	4	3	5	4
856	2	2	2	1	4	3
860	3	4	4	2	6	2
865	4	4	4	3	6	4
880	5	4	4	4	6	5
893	2	4	2	2	5	5
936	0	3	3	-	4	3
938	-	0	0	-	1	-

To gain a glimpse of the overall picture, I then added the numbers for each antenna to come up with a total received signal indication. For the '-', I simply used a -1.

The winner was, of course, the Uniden/RadioShack antenna. It scored a total of 233. Second place went to the RP-6198 with 134. Just the score you would expect for an antenna that's half the height of the Uniden/RadioShack.

Third place went to the PRO-74 with 87. Fourth place was kind of a tie between the RH-3 and CH-32 with 57 and 54, respectively. The fifth and final place went to the DC-440 which accrued 41.

The PRO-74 was definitely a surprise given that is roughly 1/4 the length of the Uniden/RadioShack yet scored about 1/3 of the 233 top score. It's even more remarkable when you consider the scores of the other three antennas of the same height.

While the RP-6198 might not be a "true" stubby, it might be an alternative for those who want a smaller portable antenna without making all the signal reception sacrifices of its smaller competitors. I have no idea of what the price of this antenna is but I would assume about $10. The harder part might simply be trying to order one since I'm not sure if RCA is even in the scanner game anymore.

The PRO-74 is the clear cut winner of the 1.75" models. While it is a winner on mos of the spectrum, it does appear a bit weaker on the low part of the VHF aero band, on the 450/460s, and on the low 850s. It did turn in very surprising results on a number of TV audio frequencies! Since RadioShack has the PRO-74 scanner listed in their 2000 catalog it should be fairly easy to obtain one by visiting your local RadioShack store.

Considering their performance, the Comet and Diamond models sure don't seem worthy of their $30 and $25 price tags if you're only going to use them for receiving and not make use of their transmit capabilities.

As I mentioned earlier, you don't something for nothing so if you are thinking about one of these micro models, keep in mind the signal reception you'll be sacrificing for such diminutive stature. If you just need a neat antenna to monitor locally strong signals with your latest micro-receiver then one of these just might fit the bill!

Update - August 31, 2000
Two of the newest handheld antennas to hit the shelves are the Active Duck Amplified and RadioShack 20-034 (both are pictured next to the GRE-made A0337 from a PRO-92). And they couldn't be more different.

The Active Duck is manufactured exclusively for Grove Enterprises by Leonard Trembley, N7FAE. While it is spec'd for 0.5 - 1300 MHz reception, it is intended primarily for use on the MW and SW bands where signals are amplified. Signals in the 0.5 - 20 MHz ranges are amplified 15dB +/- 3dB while 20 - 60 MHz is amplified 10dB +/- 3dB.

Physically, the Active Duck can be broken down into three sections; antenna, amplifier box and BNC connector. The antenna is 4.25" long and is quite flexible. While it doesn't just flop around, it can be easily flexed and can hold some curved positions. The outer jacket is a very soft rubber which doesn't even come into contact with a simple length of heavy gauge wire.

The antenna passes through a circular opening in the amplifier box and is held in place simply by the pressure exerted on it by the two sides of the box. This box is made of plastic and measures 1.25" x 2" x 0.5". A screw on the back panel is used to gain access to the insides which will be necessary to replace the battery (12 volts, 32mAh, Duracell MN21 or Eveready A23).

A quick look at the insides reveals a battery, slide switch and a simple RC network connected to a transistor. Of course, coming out of the bottom of the box is the BNC connector which is held in place by a captive slot around the connector which is engaged by the edges of the two sides.

The front panel of the box is covered by a sticker which identifies the antenna and labels the two positions of the slide switch. In the down position, the amplfier is off and signals pass straight through. In the up position, the amplifier is enabled and signals in the 0.5 - 60 MHz region are boosted accordingly. The amplifier is spec'd at 1 mA drain and is supposed to last typically 24 - 32 hours.

My biggest beef with the physical design is that the slide switch protrudes out from the case side by far too much. I would prefer half the current amount or even less to help prevent it from catching on items and turning on accidentally.

For testing, I put the Active Duck up against the ANT-19, a 19" telescoping whip, on MW and SW and a GRE A0337 6" duck for VHF/UHF frequencies. I performed the testing on a MVT-9000 MkII and for each signal tuned I noted the signal strength using the Yupi's S-meter. In the chart that follows, I noted the signal strength readings I took. If a '-' is listed then the signal was not received. Blank entries indicate no measurement was taken.

Freq	ANT-19	Active Duck OFF	Active Duck ON	A0337
5	1	-	4
6	10	5	10+
9	10	9	10+
10	6	-	8
13	5	0	4
15	5	0	4
18	10	4	8
20	3	-	2
22	0	-	-
43		3	4	3
88		0		0
93		0		0
98		0		3
104		0		0
117		-		0
124		-		1
147		0		5
155		-		5
156		-		2
163		3		9
221		2		0
410		-		2
453		1		4
461		1		4
855		1		3
858		1		2
936		-		0

As you can see, the results with the amplifier on are quite remarkable! Even more so when you consider that the antenna itself is only 4" long! Since the antenna is a straight piece of wire, the results on VHF/UHF were expected when compared to the A0337 which is a typical duck antenna which is a coil of wire and thus acts as a much longer antenna.

For some MW testing, I compared reception of AM broadcast signals on the MVT-9000 MkII using its internal MW antenna versus the Active Duck with amplification. While the Yupi's antenna did a better job at reception of signals with good clarity, the Active Duck pulled in more stations but it also amplified noise components which made readability a bit tougher. But I think the most important point is that use of the Active Duck made more signals available.

As promised, the Active Duck is a great accessory for MW/SW and even some VHF-lo work but should only be used on VHF-hi and above for the strongest of signals. Its portability and small size make it a great traveling companion and useful stealth monitoring accessory!

While the recent arrival of RadioShack's 2001 catalog didn't contain anything new in the way of scanners, there was a new handheld antenna, Cat No. 20-034, which promised better VHF/UHF reception as well as the ability to transmit on both 2 meter and 440 amateur radio bands.

Looking it over at the local RadioShack, I was a bit put off by the bottom of the package which read "CB Accessory" but seeing as how I have more curiosity than the average cat, it was a foregone conclusion that this antenna was coming home for testing!

Similar in design and construction to most of today's rubber ducks, the 20-034 is 50% longer and tops out at 8.75" in length. The overall shape is one of an hourglass with the middle section being about 25% skinnier. The top is also tapered a bit and rounded off nicely. It is a bit flexible but when attached to a radio it should not be excessively flexed to avoid straining the BNC connector.

It was not time to pit the new kid on the block against the average performing GRE-made A0337 to see just what it was capable of. I tested both on a wide range of frequencies from HF to VHF to UHF using a AR8200 MkII and noting the S-meter reading which is listed in the table below. If the signal could not be received, a '-' is listed.

Freq	20-034	A0337
3	2	0
5	2	0
10	0	0
12	9	7
15	0	0
43	11	8
44	0	-
47	1	-
73	0	1
76	0	1
88	1	2
92	6	6
97	4	4
102	1	1
107	1	0
117	3	1
119	3	0
124	-	2
127	7	8
132	3	3
146	12	11
147	7	6
152	12	11
155	0	1
163	3	3
221	0	0
410	0	0
442	12	11
451	0	0
452	0	0
453	7	8
461	3	3
461	4	5
464	4	4
851	10	10
854	11	11
856	12	12
858	12	11
862	12	13
865	10	9
868	5	5
875	12	11
880	12	11
885	12	11
890	7	5
936	12	12
938	4	4

For the most part, we see that the two antennas turned in very comparable results on VHF and UHF. There were spots that the 20-034 did a bit bitter and vice versa. But overall, the only trend is on HF where the 20-034 did a bit better.

Considering that the A0337 is an average performing antenna, that doesn't speak too well for the new 20-034. With its 50% longer length, one would expect it to be an exceptional performer on VHF-lo and perhaps the VHF aero band. But it is likely too deeply tuned for the amateur radio bands which effects its overall reception.

Closing Comments
I hope this review has been helpful to you and that you can make good use of it to enhance the enjoyment of your radio monitoring hobby. Feel free to distribute this review to others or simply point them here on the web if they have the necessary resources to do so.

And if you want to share your thoughts about this review with me or have further questions, feel free to e-mail me at the address below!

Aug 31, 2000

---

Copyright © 2010 by Richard J. Wells