If you want a regular dipole then you simply disconnect the TWO resistors and now the antenna will mostly be omnidirectional. For more directionality, you can extend the TWO legs of the antenna ( + resistors + counterpoises at the end of it them) at about 60 degree from each other and toward the area or region where you want to focus the transmission. You should see a substantial gain with that type of installation toward the direction targeted.
Yea, I want a regular $450.00 Dipole. I was born at night, just not last night. If I want NVIS, I'll just put a $50. Dipole about 10 or 12 feet off the ground. If I want more directional ability, I'll put the $50. Dipole in an inverted "V". Problem solved and I still have $400. in my pocket to upgrade other gear. Oh, and I'm making contacts.
@@johnk23705 Like all branded gear this is for Hams who memorized the test questions, don't want to delve into free space RF propagation and the advantages of technical knowledge. But most guys I know doing EMCOM or Tactical they come to table with skills, some like me with military experience so that's kind of a counter intuitive thing to want a turn key dumb operator antenna. So I'm going to say that using "Tactical" is a marketing buzz word. Chameolan is at least a reputable company and while expensive they deliver fast better than MFJ (Mighty Fine Junk) Plus all these RU-vidrs are paid to review the gear. Some are just plain unethical and stupid. This man is neither stupid or a lier so I mostly enjoy his videos for pro tips.
@@radiotests I agree, Michael gives honest reviews. My comments were not pointed at Michael. He did cover the shortcomings. My problem is the degraded performance the 5 to 1 transformer wide band antennas offer. They are marketed to newer hams who don't have the knowledge of how antennas really work as something special or in the case of this and a couple other antennas as "Tactical" (as you pointed out). Experienced hams if they buy an antenna with a 5 to 1 transformer, they at least know what they are getting and have a good reason for making the purchase. Chameleon makes excellent quality gear. No argument there. The thing is, I can make a quality linked dipole for one tenth the cost that will smoke this antenna in the real world. Too many channels give glowing reports without the short comings because they get free gear from manufacturers. People, follow those who give honest reports. Do the research before buying an expensive antenna. There has been nothing new in antenna design in years. Read this again, nothing new. Just different configurations of old designs. The one's that worked well and those that don't. Most of these designs you can make yourself for a fraction of the cost store bought antennas. If you try a design and it's a Pig, you're out very little. If it works well and you want a commercial version, at least you have not wasted your hard earned $$$ on the one's that didn't..
@@radiotests stay with me, we agree (mostly). I don’t mind the tests are easy and you can study for them using the question bank. There’s a lot of dangerous stuff you can do (drive, buy a gun - and don’t @me I’m pro 2A) that requires less/no work-and nobody has died calling “CQ”. It is a hobby. We don’t need to make it as hard as getting a pilots license. I think it has the right balance-or close enough. Nothing perfect. But the rest of your comment I think is really spot on. I came across a RU-vidr recently who basically gets free stuff from buddipole. Then he makes videos about how they are the “best portable antennas ever“. No real analysis, no comparison, just him going somewhere setting up a buddipole and making contacts. I questioned him about it in the comments section, and he got really upset. He went on to say that there’s no difference between a “review” and an “advertisement”. The worst was he didn’t disclose that he was getting free stuff from buddipole in the video. At least this RU-vidr does, so I give him credit for it. Still, anybody with some background in this hobby knows this thing Chameleon is selling is just crazy overpriced nonsense. You don’t need to spend $500 to bounce signals off of clouds talk to your buddy 200 miles away. Even a cheap (like
@@johnk23705 Hi John, and believe me when I say I agree with your sentiments and that this antenna is ridiculous. But just because an antenna has a transformer doesn’t necessarily make it crappy. End-fed half-waves all use 49:1 transformers, you can use them on multiple bands without a tuner, they can be built small enough to put in a shirt pocket, and they don’t cost anything close to $500 to build or even buy. Even high end EFHW’s for home use that are rated for full power cost less than half of what Chameleon is charging for this cloud-burner.
Good review. You explained what the antenna was for. Was in the Air Force in ground radio and you were not looking for the best, just looking to make contact when you needed it. Portable, fast, and directional was our tactical.
Have you noticed the sideways disparaging remarks about good enough for military guys? I don't think they understand the Navy, Airforce, Space force, MC and USA are not dumb grunts. I spent almost 2 years in schools learning to operate, repair, engineer and even fix components to board level in the field. Our guys forgot more about RF propagation than they will ever know.
I don't believe I made any disparaging remarks towards the military in this review, but if there were, it was unintended. This is a complex antenna and it took a bit of time to fully understand it. That same will apply to those using it in military situation. You need to know how the antenna works in order to properly utilize it. That takes learning and training, and I hope I got that point across in the video.
According to the RF-1944 datasheet, the VSWR peaks at about 2.75:1 @ about 5 MHz. Limiting oneself to only the ham bands, sure 2:1. It also mentions 'terminating resistors', so it includes a resistive aspect. Once could also insert a 3dB pad in the coax to achieve a 6dB Return Loss at any frequency... It's always an option.
14:13 I have found almost the exact same thing as you....the 5:1 lossy transformer design reduces radiated signal by about 12dB. A "wideband" antenna such as this is great for the military and others who are not knowledgeable about resonance and antenna matching, but need an easy to deploy system. I am surprised that folks who are radio enthusiasts would use this. Thank you for providing an honest review!
Funny thing about the military, the item or tool doesn’t have to be the best, it just has to fulfill the mission. The people using these antennas aren’t necessarily enthusiasts, they just have a job to do. For the rest of us, we can get into the nuts and bolts and debate the effectiveness of it.
You are right, you do give up some efficiency with an antenna terminating into a resistor. So far, my 130ft EFHW 80m-10m antenna is out performing my Chameleon Emcomm III portable. On 80m the Emcomm III portable is -6dBr from the EFHW based on ancedotal signal reports. My EFHW is too big for my manpack go-bag kit that I built around my FT-857D. I should be adding ferrite choke beads to my coax tomorrow to see if it helps with SWR or performance. Chameleon highly recommends choking. I will continue testing to optimize performance primarily for 80m NVIS. I've only the Emcomm III as an inverted-L and sloper. For NVIS they recommend horizontal. Depending upon testing I may move to the Packtenna 40/20 EFHW and add a 80m link.
Nice antenna but for $450 American and I'm in Canada that be like 500 plus shipping I could buy a lot of wire for that making antennas and that's the fun in it making your own antennas trial and error...
Thanks for a solid review. The time to set up was very helpful. I find that the set up of any antenna is a bigger pain in the tuchus than getting it tuned or even making contacts. This particular antenna looks good in theory but the cost in efficiency (and out of pocket) leads me to stick with my spools of wire & a remote control z-match (built back before I lost the patience & steady hands needed to build such stuff ;-) ) Very good review! Much appreciated. 73 de W8IJN
Seems like a lot of kit to be “tactical” and portable. For a semi-permanent install, might as well save $100 and get their Skyloop 2.0. For something actually tactical, their TD Lite (without the terminating resistors) seems much more reasonable. I sincerely appreciate that they successfully cloned L3Harris’ design though. That’s legit.
@@KB9VBRAntennas We never had a load out, complete with batteries, whip and cables exceed 20lbs. Other guys carry your extra water and ammo. I think the gear you see coming to surplus is mobile gear. Tactical is grossly overused to market to Cosplay fellers who don't know better.
I congratulate you on the antenna, a very good product, and I as an antenna builder have very much appreciated the video, I for my part have built an antenna, also dipole, and I can confirm that it works great, I did 100 connections with all of Europe, America and Brazil, and I listened to 9.20 full scale signal, and also I listen to 9.20 practically all over the world, I am gamma for mike Sierra delta from the island of Sardinia, operator Stefano😁😉😉😉🔝🔝
Thanks for the review Michael. I think it was an honest one, while still trying to be nice. This antenna is like all their others that use Chameleon's 5 to 1 transformer. Giving up at least 2 "S" units (12 db) for a little less time to set up. This one increases the carnage by putting resistors at the ends. I can see where this antenna has some very specialized uses, but for the average Ham, this antenna is a non starter. I can do the same thing, yes, a little slower with a linked Dipole that I can make for under $50.00 and put out a far better signal. When band conditions are very good, this may not be as much of an issue, but often they are not. The difference in number of contacts between the Chameleon and your Dipole was extreme. The Dipole smoked the Chameleon. Why would I spend $450.00 for something that performs sub standard when I know that my results will be far better with a linked Dipole or even a HFHW ? Also, the directionality when they claim NVIS type performance. Chameleon makes excellent quality antennas that have sub standard performance with their 5 to 1 transformer. Again Michael, thank you for the good review. This antenna is a hard "NO" for me. I guess I have an issue with Chameleon. They sell very high priced antennas, trying to get the average guy to think they need what they are producing at a very steep price, when some wire and coax will in every case far outperform their "Magic" 5 to 1 transformer based antenna. Don't fall for marketing hype. I noticed you ran 100 watts instead of your usual 50 watts and still were not picked up by many other operators. Be very aware that a broadband antenna almost always uses Resistors and magic coils with fancy names. They all will be way down on transmitted signal and not hear very well at all. No matter who makes it. Only the Government demands this level of inefficiency.
I think we tend to look too critically at inefficiency and consider the utility of an antenna like this. The antenna is designed for a purpose and when you take it outside that box, it’s performance falls apart. In a military or emcomm situation, you want to be able to put the antenna up, go to a frequency, and make the contact. It doesn’t matter if the contact is S1 or S5. As long as you got a clear transmission, you are good to go. I put this antenna up against the dipole to illustrate that difference. Whenever I do a review, people ask: how does it compare against X or Y. This gives you a reference. It was harder going with the tactical dipole than it was with my regular link dipole, but I still made contacts. Will I use it on a regular basis? probably not. The size is a limiting factor and and the tactical nature of band hopping and directivity isn’t something I regularly need. But it’s another tool and something I can recommend for specific circumstances.
If you go back few posts earlier - you'll understand that when installed with the resistors and the counterpoises, the antenna become directional toward the axis between the two resistors. In that case with an inverted V - straight up to the sky for NVIS and skywave communication while creating NULLS on other sides thus losing few S- units - by design. That system works like a beam antenna. Anything not in the V axis path will be attenuated but everything in its axis will have gains. This is why the military are using that kind of system. They can install the antenna toward a specific azimuth and establish a communication with less power but with some gain and unidirectionality thus reducing interferences coming from the sides.
@@KB9VBRAntennas I agree, it would be a good antenna for use when being able to get on most bands without any adjustment for SWR being necessary and if you need a fast deployment. Very few people need this kind of antenna in a practical sense. For general use, a linked dipole will give far better results. For those very few who have a need for this type of antenna, then maybe it would be worth having. My problem with all the Chameleon antennas that use their 5 to 1 transformer is the loss of signal output and input. They are marketed as great antennas for portable use. Yes, they are quick to deploy, but at a cost. The fact that you and other U Tuber's rarely use these type of antennas (with the 5 to 1 transformer) when doing POTA or other outdoor radio activities speaks volumes (unless you are doing a review). You, me and others use the antenna that will perform best while still being portable and easy to set up and use. Every portable antenna is a compromise. Being compromised, why would I want to use an antenna that is on average two full "S" units down from a simple wire dipole ? The idea is to make as many contacts as possible, not just make contacts with strong stations. To have a readable signal that does not require the other station to keep asking you your call sign because the signal is in the noise. If you have to have an antenna that you can throw up in 10 minutes and switch bands without adjustment, then maybe this antenna and other antennas with the 5 to 1 transformer may be for you. Most people will never have this need. Amateur radio has always been about putting out the best signal possible. Building your own antenna, one that puts out the best signal for it's type has always been the norm. I fear too many are getting lazy. Clogging up the airwaves with poor signals because they want an antenna that requires a few minutes less to deploy and use. Chameleon makes great quality antennas that don't use the 5 to 1 transformer. They are costly compared to many others, but they work great. Life is too short to use an antenna that has a dummy load as a part of the antenna unless you have the need for a wide banded antenna. Chameleon makes a good wide band antenna for those few who need this feature.
@@Chameleon_Antenna I'm not the military. No one I know has the need for this type of antenna. If someone does, this may be the antenna for them. I can do much the same with wire and coax for a fraction of the cost. If you have an actual need for this type of antenna, buy it. For general use, this antenna and the other portable antennas made to be wide banded with the 5 to 1 transformer degrade the signal compared to a simple wire antenna. Those who have been in Amateur Radio for any amount of time know this. Experienced hams avoid wide banded antennas because of the poor performance except for very limited uses. I feel bad for the new ham who thinks they are getting some trick antenna only to be disappointed in the low contact rate they get. They see those on U Tube making one contact after another and lose interest because they can't duplicate the results others are getting with just a wire dipole. Wide banded antennas with the 5 to 1 transformers should be something you buy if you have a need for the specialized use they provide, not as antenna you use for general operation. Yes, this one is designed for specialized use. Others you market with the 5 to 1 transformer are marketed for general portable use. If you don't care that your signal will be about two "S" units down from a wire antenna, go for it. Your antennas with the 5 to 1 transformers work very well as a wide band antenna (wide band: antenna that can be used on multiple bands with no adjustment for SWR, but generally 12 db down from a tuned, resonate wire dipole). No dispute there. Problem is, wide band antennas will never perform at the level a simple dipole will. This is the issue I want new hams to know. A wide band antenna is a specialized antenna, not one you would use when you want to make as many readable contacts as possible.
I see a lot of comments concerning the "Loosy 5:1" which clearly shows a lack of knowledge and understanding of why we're using that ratio for our CHA TD 2.0. Let me explain: For traveling wave (CHA TD 2.0), END FED (CHA EMCOMM II & III) or portable 20-31 foot vertical antennas (CHA MPAS 2.0) the 5:1 UNUN makes a good transformer for converting 50 ohm coax to a 250 ohm feed point. That's all it is. It's simply the RIGHT ratio choice for the current antenna impendance. This is the same reason why we're using a 49:1 for our CHA LEFS 8010 EFHW antenna and not a 4:1, 9:1, 16:1 or 5:1. Same reason why we're using a 2.5:1 for our CHA SKYLOOP 2.0 and not a 4:1. We needed the right impedance transforming ratio. The real purpose of the CHA TD 2.0 is to install it for NVIS and HF skywave communications (from 0 to 1500 miles) and also in a sloper V-shape configuration (about 60 degree between each legs) toward a specific direction like a beam antenna. A sloper V antenna is a type of long wire antenna whose structure is designed in the form of a V. It operates in the high-frequency range between 3 to 30 MHz and offers high gain and directivity. Because the TD 2.0 is a non-resonant antenna it's fitted with a resistive load (terminated resistors) which create an unidirectional radiation pattern toward the direction of the V axis. If you want to read about how it's used by the military please go on our main page and look for the document labeled "CHAMELEON ANTENNAS IN THE ARMY HF LOW POWER COMPETITION (QRPX)" and go on page 9. This antenna has a very specific purpose and must to be used precisely and accordingly. If the terminated resistors are removed it can be used as a normal broadband dipole antenna.
I don't think the comments are a result of "lack of knowledge or understanding". Have you performed any tests on your 5:1 transformer to determine efficiency? Please don't cite that the military used your product at one point for a competition as evidence that a broadband and do-everything antenna matching transformer has high efficiency. Comet uses a similar design, and they openly disclose that the transformer is not efficient. Do you have evidence to refute that about your product???
@@daveN2MXX I’m going to repeat myself again: which transformer ratio type would be the most suitable to match a 50 ohm coax to a 250 ohm feed point? (Hint: the answer must be close to 50 ohm as possible) A - 9:1 B - 4:1 C - 5:1 Remember, efficiency is relative to a specific task or design needs, it’s not universal on itself. The LMR-400 coax cable is an excellent, efficient and low lost cable which is great for base station antenna installations but horrible for portable and POTA needs. Hopefully you understand my point. Comet uses a 6:1 transformer in their units which is also equipped with resistors that are attached directly on the transformer that bleed un-used RF power. It’s probably not the most efficient transformer on itself but Is it the most suitable one for the antenna design needs, probably yes. Have they sold a tremendous amount of them - yes. Have they helped thousands of operators to get on the air worldwide - yes. Our transformer do not have resistors attached directly to it. They might be “similar looking” but they are not the same - at all.
@@Chameleon_Antenna You would be better off not responding if you can't control your insulting remarks to your customers. Yes, I have purchased chameleon products. I was looking for measured efficiency data...from your response, I'm guessing you don't have that.
@@daveN2MXX We aren't trying to be insulting - my apologizes if you perceived the reply that way. But we don't like to be insulted either. The efficiency will tremendously be different from one antenna setting to another with that specific antenna system and from band to band. As a rule of thumb - keeping the SWR under 2.0:1 at the load will be maximizing the power output. So if the initial antenna installation aren't providing a SWR curve that resemble what we've online, then look and troubleshooting the installation until you get equivalent results. Under those circumstances, I estimated the efficiency to be between 85% to 95% with the variables mentioned earlier.
I almost always ignore anything with the word 'tactical' in it, but I thought I'd take a look at your review. It seems like a decent antenna, but for $400 I believe I'll just build my own. Good parts just aren't that expensive. Of course, someone needs to understand antenna design, but learning that sort of thing is what ham radio is all about, or should be.
Hello Michael. A good review of the CHAMELEON TD dipole style antenna. I own one of these similar Chameleon dipole products. The model antenna that I have does not use terminating resistors at the dipole leg ends. And I just (usually) run QRP low power. At any rate the antenna you reviewed worked very well. And I have had good success with my Chameleon product here as well. I have my wire set up as an end fed antenna. And I still use a long 25-30 foot long counterpoise wire along the ground as well..which is a good balance for the antenna. Finally have you noticed any immediate improvement by using the supplied 18 inch coax with torroids (balun) at the coax feed point? I personally just made a conventional coil type balun using my RG-8 coax at the feedpoint..I made approximately 6 turns or loops each 5 to 6 inches in diameter and use this as a coax balun. Perhaps using the balun at the feed point will also help prevent any RF energy from flowing back towards the radio during operation. What have you observed ? Keep up the good work. Thanks for doing the antenna review. The Chameleon products work well and are somewhat affordable. 73 for now :-) Thanks for reading. Don.
Thanks for the video. SP2ROB greetings from Poland. I have a question, the transformer is 5: 1 and is the resistance value of the resistors 300ohm. You could measure their value and write here. Perhaps it is 500 or 350? Thanks.
Living in hurricane zone, I can see the value. Grid destroyed, antenna up in 15 minutes with little to no fiddling. Sounds good to me, besides we won't be talking to Italy or France in that situation. I'm sure there are many other things you can use but this is quick and it gets you on the air, just what it's supposed to do.
It seems still bulky for a non military role but still probably more suited for emergency services as compared to POTA etc. It's great to have these options for winlink as you mentioned. A serious pepper should have one of these in their kit. On a side note, does someone sell car yard cord with those plastic flags that flap around to use to tension the wire antenna? Would be handy to see where cords are in public places.
Michael I know I've watched you put your antennas up in the past, but can't relocate one. if you or someone can send a link to one of you getting your Dipole etc. in the trees I would appreciate it.
Would you do a performance comparison of your 40, 80 m linked dipole to this antenna? (Setting up your linked dipole as presented on your previous 40,80 m dipole video vs this antenna on the manufacture’s recommend NVIS configuration) Would you expect about 12 db difference on those bands also? Thank you
I don’t think the performance is as bad on 40m as compared to 20. When I did the on air test for the review, conditions were not good at all on 40m, but I did have the antenna out at Field Day for a bit and had better luck with it on 40m than 20m. There is a sample transmission with it in my field day video if you scroll back. As for 80m, I’ve found that in the single leg slope configuration it’s pretty much ground wave. I have not tried it as a dipole on 80m. The problem in testing this antenna is the space it requires and when I’m out camping, I may not have the space to put it up. I also like to do my 80m tests on a statewide 80m ares/races net that happens on Sunday mornings because I have experience on how stations should sound due to my regular participation in that net. I’ll follow up on it with the lower bands.
Make or buy a linked Dipole and EFHW. Use a fiberglass pole and make a vertical with a piece of wire and some wire radials. Light weight and it will perform great. You don't have to spend a lot of money to get great performance in the field. Check out the video's that Michael makes when he's not reviewing an antenna. You'll find more often than not he's using the simple antennas (like I mentioned) that actually perform.
Very good real world use review. From the looks of it, the transformer and the resistors would be too heavy for a telescoping fiberglass mast, is that correct?
I tried using my Chameleon EMCOMM III on a Spiderbeam mast and it was too heavy without using the mast clamps. I'm sure it would work fine with something like a Max Gains System heavy duty mast.
I did a review of the Heil BM-17 a couple months ago. I talk about the connector in that video. I also have a follow up on the headset coming this Sunday. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qB1z2g8m090.html
Ham radio operators should realize that since an S-unit is typically about 6dB, and since every single contact they've ever made has been "59" in both directions (LOL), there's always about 36dB of signal margin. ;-) It can be a worthwhile trade-off to have some loss in the antenna to achieve a wider apparent matching bandwidth. The xmit loss is one-way, but return loss (VSWR) is two-way.
What operators should realize about the CHA TD 2.0 is that it's an antenna that can be used to establish unidirectional communication with another station where the operator is actually obtaining gains which is the main design reason why this antenna exist! It's like having a HF directional beam that you can fold into your backpack! This is something that this video doesn't show at all and why people don't understand the concept! It is all indicated into our user guide!
@@Chameleon_Antenna "...unidirectional communication..." By the Reciprocity Theorem, the total end-to-end pathloss is the same in either direction (right to the radios' antenna sockets). If the portable radio with the 'dummy dipole' has 50 watts, and the distant base station has a beam and a kilowatt, then there should still only be about 13 dB (or ~2 S-units) between them, all other things being equal. In other words, the beam at the far end works equally well for Xmit or Receive. So "unidirectional communications' may be caused by QRM (or QRN) heard at one end, not the other. Antennas in themselves are not unidirectional. But they might effectively be so if installed next to a local noise source.
If you've been following the current status of the world economy, you will find that the US inflation is about 10%, chain of supply issues all over the world, raw materials price increases of the magnitude of 2 to 5 times what they used to be 3 years ago, gas price increases and materials availabilities and shortages. Everything is now 25% to 100%+ more expansive to manufacture than it was 3 years ago.
@@Chameleon_Antenna I get that and I generally like your products but this one is just too steep for me. It's well done but it's not really revolutionary nor is it an intricate design, that price point will never make sense to me
The Chameleon is not a clone of the Harris RF-1944, the Chameleon uses a 5:1 transformer and the Harris is a 9:1, which will greatly affect the matching and termination resistors. Has anyone measured the termination resistors or length of wire on the Chameleon to see if that even matches the Harris?
hi, thanks for another very interesting video on a interesting ant, i wonder if the ant could be arranged into a more vertical radiation type style, that way, maybe giving better results in all directions. thanks for your time, 73.
Much of the directivity is due to the resistors. If you remove them, the antenna acts more like a broadband omnidirectional antenna, similar to Chaneleons other products.
I use an 80 meter windom fed with balanced line and have all bands covered from 80-10 costs less than $50 that includes the wire and transmission line and I use it for portable also with good results. Antennas are a great space to learn and build your own. I'm sure the Chameleon is built well but for $450.00 for a dipole... No.. I'm sure this antenna would work for one that dosent want to learn and build or wants a ready made antenna. 73s KG5IF
Contrarily to what 99% of the people think - the CHA TD 2.0 is NOT a regular dipole! It's a unidirectional dipole which can be used as a HF BEAM or as a REGULAR dipole! It's ALL indicated in the user guide which is provided on our website! When used as an unidirectional dipole, the operator with obtain GAINS with the antenna oriented toward a desired station. If the resistors are removed, the antenna become like a regular dipole.
Good question. I’m guessing that if you remove the resistors and run it as broadband antenna with your tuner, it will probably perform quite similarly. The resistors and counterpoise help enhance the multiband effect so no tuner is required
@@KB9VBRAntennas The resistors and the counterpoises also allow directivity and unidirectionality of the signal while creating NULLS on the sides and the back end of the unit. So if the antenna of the other station isn’t oriented within the V axis the other station will appear to be attenuated and few S units lower than a none directional antenna which is absolutely expected!
Nice presentation, but a bit too complicated to reply. Perhaps in the very near future HAM radio antennas will become a more practical, portable and easier to operate in the field.
See this antenna it’s just like the rest of ham radio equipment it is so expensive that the regular every day ham radio operator can’t afford to buy it. $450 for this seriously?
I'm not sure this antenna is geared towards the 'every day' ham radio operator. It has a bit of a specialized function. There are plenty of options available to get on the air- like the link dipole I use that can be built for less than $20: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zvtKlqQ6DSo.html
I agree that it appears ill-suited for amateur use, as amateurs are lazy beasts who want one antenna to do all. But as a tactical antenna (gee, look at the name -and look up “tactical”), it appears to be the right tool for that application.
If you remove the resistors and the counterpoises that are attached to it, the unit will behave like a normal broadband dipole. The added terminated system allows the operator to convert that broadband antenna into a unidirectional antenna system where gain will be obtained if installed properly toward a specific station in the V axis.
I don’t think it’s Ill suited for amateur use, but I think a lot of amateurs are Ill suited to put it to use. It took me a bit of time to really wrap my head around the concept and understand the capabilities of this antenna. If you are interested in Emcomm, especially Winlink communication, you’ll find it to be a good tool in your belt.
