PCTEL 800mhz whip vs Antenex Phantom Elite

[NSPD]

I currently have three PCTEL 800mhz Whip antennas on the roof of my explorer. All three are used for receive only, with one being hooked up to a scanner for 800mhz and the other two being hooked up to 900mhz maxtracs for data decoding.

Has anyone done a side-by-side comparison of the standard 800mhz whip antennas and the Antenex Phantom Elite "sharkfin" antennas? Most of my 900mhz work is with simplex, and I need to keep the current performance that I have, but I would like something that is a little lower-profile.

Anyone have any input?

[tvsjr]

The Phantom Elites are the best of the worst - basically any low-profile antenna is a compromise. However, there's much less compromise at 700/800/900 than at VHF.

Are you currently using quarterwaves (unity gain) or the 3db "curly-Q" antennas? From my limited experience (no, I haven't sat down with a spectrum analyzer to calculate all of this), the Phantom Elite should perform as well as the quarterwave and slightly less well than 3db/5db gain antennas?

Keep in mind that, while your whips are flexible, the Phantom Elites are not. If you hit something at sufficient speed, you will likely tear antenna and mount out of the roof of the Exploder, whereas you might only destroy a whip otherwise.

Also, you might consider the presence of the roof rack rails (if installed) and the greater likelihood of them affecting the performance of a much shorter antenna like the Phantom Elite (they may well change the pattern of the antenna to be more cardioid/dual-cardioid than true omni).

Personally, on the new truck, I returned to all whip antennas - typically heavy whips with springs. I didn't feel the performance loss was worth the reduction in size... not like my vehicle isn't fairly conspicuous already.

[Josh]

I have no idea what a PC-TEL whip antenna is, but I have experience with the "curly q" whip and antennex phantom (not elite, the 'can' one) at 800Mhz. I have my antenna in the center of the trunk and haven't noticed any difference between the two, when connected to the same NMO mount and radio. RSSI's are about the same all around. Antenex specs their antenna at 3db too, it's just more compact.

[NSPD]

Took me a while to find the exact model of what I have...

http://www.tessco.com/products/displayP ... ventPage=3

I would just like to be less conspicuous, I do have roof rails on either side, but I have removed the two crossbars.

[Bill_G]

"Best of the worst"

I like that phrase. Describes all the cool looking low profile antennas pretty good. If your system has a solid foot print, most users do not notice any performance difference. We put the Phantom Elites on the VRM of a few cars, and saw a slight increase in their affiliations and a slight decrease in their reported rssi. Not enough for us to be concerned. We did notice a big difference in the hockey puck style. However, the hockey puck is useful for the maintenance vans with high roof tops and low hanging branches. The salt shaker styles were a coin toss. The 3db gain always worked better.

[Pj]

I have that same antenna that you linked to...and I like it alot (in fact, it tx/rx rather well in VHF above 146...UHF and 800) thru a MX3000 triplexer.

I also have a WiFI/GPS/800 sharkfin on the truck now which seems to work pretty well. When I get my truck back next week I'll swap antennas on the 800 radios and play with stuff.

[motorola_otaku]

I think you will notice a big improvement on 700/800/900 receive on your scanner after switching to an Antenex Phantom. My experience is purely anecdotal, but the "puck" provided the best overall performance and best compromise between receive range and front-end overload and desense when compared to this, this, and a plethora of gain and unity-gain 800/900 antennas. FYI, this was on the roof of an Impala with a drilled NMO mount and Times LMR195 cable feeding a pair of 996s.

For your ATCS monitoring stuff I honestly couldn't see it making that big of a difference. All of your monitoring is done trackside either in the middle of or close to the signal path anyway, right?

Conspicuous is subjective anyway. You'd draw more attention from law enforcement here with a roof of lo-pro antennas than with a roof of whips and pigtails (in their minds, whip antennas equal ham/hobbyist whereas lo-pro pucks equal public safety.)

[apco25]

I've recently picked up some of the sharkfin antennas for testing on 800. I've been a big fan of the MLPV series from Maxrad. Their UHF bandwidth is signifcantly wider than the antenex can, sharfin or a standard whip. Field testing has shown no appreciable difference with a standard 1/4 whip based on RSSI and what my ear tells me. 800 works as well or slightly better than an 800 1/4 wave. Cell/PCS combo for data card usage works flawlessly. 3db or higher gain whips will always win over the cans - performan vs looks at least on 700/800/900 systems. I keep the coil gain types around for fringe areas when needed when I am out west. I am experiencing a bit last multi-pathing with the shark fins which may be a result of the field diversity design.

Mechanically I've finally started to replace my original MLPV's I put on my personal vehicle back in 2003. Some minor pitting on the chrome rings with the big failure being the glue used to attach the plastic radome to the chrome coil is failing - hence the top comes off without the ring. Not bad for nearly 7 year old antennas. I've also noticed the center contact plunger seems to be a bit weaker than new, but still making good contact. Despite these issues the antennas are still performing with no failure of the actualy radiating portion of the antenna. Pretty good product if you ask me.

I've seen some of the shark fins fail already on public service vehicles with cracked radomes. I am curious how the actually two piece design with the rubber gasket will stand up to daily use as they are not standard hand tight nmo type antennas. Laird/Antenex requires them to be torqued with slip joint pliers (put several layers of heat shrink tubing on the jaws to avoid ripping up the base of the antenna)