imax 2000 vs antron 99

canecudder · #101811

how much better is the solarcon imax 2000 than the antron 99? i've heard that you will be able to pick people up a lot better and get out better with the imax 2000, and is it worth the extra money.

#101813

Remember the more wire in the air the more signal in the air. The Imax is 24 feet long and I think the 99 is 17-1/2. That's a big difference. Now I can't quote you rock solid specs but if you follow the rule in the first sentence the Imax is the better antenna. IMHO spend the extra 15 bucks and go with the Imax and get the ground plain kit if you can swing the dough. I have one with out the ground plain and it works great. 40 mile contacts no problem. I should note that the tip of the Imax is at 702 feet above sea level. I have a good spot for radio here 650 feet above sea level. I found some specs the Imax 2000 is rated at 5.1db gain over isotropic and the A99 is 3db over isotropic and the Imax will take 5000 watts to the A99's 2000. That's a lot of +++'s for the Imax!

BtyMONSTER · #101818

[Please login or register to view this link]

#101832

i think the longer the element, the lower the angle of radiation. thats why the imax is supposed to outperform the antron99. i have a 99, its much better than a groundplane. im sure there is an improvement, i hear they work well. 209

Sheriff Bart · #101836

the A-99 is a 1/2 wave antenna and the Imax 2000 is a 3/4 wave. It is also better constructed than the A-99. It is worth the extra $$$ to have it over the A-99.

73's

#101848

Sheriff Bart wrote:the A-99 is a 1/2 wave antenna and the Imax 2000 is a 3/4 wave. It is also better constructed than the A-99. It is worth the extra $$$ to have it over the A-99.

73's

I understand that the Imax 2000 (now known as the Max 2000) is actually a .64 wave antenna

I have mine mounted a little low at the moment with the bottom of the antenna about 40 feet above ground and I still regularly talk over 40 miles on mine on both AM and SSB and it definitely has good ears!

#101855

i had a a-99 and switched to a imax 2000 and i could tell a noticeable difference. the mounting bracket is ALOT better than the a-99.

#101859

For the difference in 1/4 wave vs 5/8 wave vs .64 wave antennas check the bottom of [Please login or register to view this link] for a graphical representation

rev ike · #101862

thats preety convincing, i have an a-99 now no complaints but if something happens ill try the 2000 and see for my self

crazytruker · #101870

It's my understanding that they are both fiberglass antennas. I know the a99 is. They say it's not the fiberglass that makes the antenna work but the wire inside it and that's true. But I can't help believe that an all aluminum antenna would be way better on TX and RX than any fiberglass antenna around. You'll see statements made about "the more metal in the air the better" is completely true. Therefore it only stands to reason an all metal antenna would be better than fiberglass. My humble opinion is that fiberglass is an insulator and fiberglass antennas have wire inside surrounded by an insulator so why even consider using something that works against itself by its own construction? Price, I am sure, is a major factor but if you can afford aluminum like a Maco v58, go for it over the fiberglass. Leave that stuff for ladder making. Remember too that sunlight destroys fiberglass. I imagine fiberglass antennas don't last for a long long time. There are aluminum antennas that have been up for decades.

#101872

crazytruker wrote:It's my understanding that they are both fiberglass antennas. I know the a99 is. They say it's not the fiberglass that makes the antenna work but the wire inside it and that's true. But I can't help believe that an all aluminum antenna would be way better on TX and RX than any fiberglass antenna around. You'll see statements made about "the more metal in the air the better" is completely true. Therefore it only stands to reason an all metal antenna would be better than fiberglass. My humble opinion is that fiberglass is an insulator and fiberglass antennas have wire inside surrounded by an insulator so why even consider using something that works against itself by its own construction? Price, I am sure, is a major factor but if you can afford aluminum like a Maco v58, go for it over the fiberglass. Leave that stuff for ladder making. Remember too that sunlight destroys fiberglass. I imagine fiberglass antennas don't last for a long long time. There are aluminum antennas that have been up for decades.

Actually fiberglass or plastic has ~0~ effect on RF transmission/reception. You can even coat them with spar urethane or just car wax if you want to for additional protection.

Metal will last longer for sure, but some fiberglass antennas I know of have lasted a decade or more with no maintenance. They are a good cost effective starting point and cheap to replace if ever necessary.

BtyMONSTER · #101934

id choose either of these...
[Please login or register to view this link]
over the 99 or 2000 by a wide margin with the alpha at the top of my list .

#101945

BOOTYMONSTER wrote:id choose either of these...
[Please login or register to view this link]
over the 99 or 2000 by a wide margin with the alpha at the top of my list .

That's why there's chocolate and vanilla. To each his own

BtyMONSTER · #102070

i couldn't agree more redneck .

#102075

Please read this link . About the A99 and the imax

[Please login or register to view this link]

#102081

yes the 'more metal in the air' is partly true. the thicker the antenna element, the wider its bandwidth. (the span in which you get low swr's) but it does not mean it will put out more power/gain. a 5 wavelength horizontal longwire antenna, 180 feet long (arrl antenna book) will not beat a beam antenna.(they even say that in the book). 209

#102084

How can you compare an omnidirectional long wire with a beam? Apples and oranges. Of course the beam will do better. In one direction. If I wanted to rag-chew with several stations all over the state I would go with the wire. These two antennas have nothing in common other that the fact they both radiate and are made from metal.

#102087

Is this a technical question, ??
only answerable to a rocket scientist ??

simple answer..

Antron A-99 1/2 wave co-lineared (simple J-pole design)

Imax 2000 5/8 wave co-lineared ( as above )

Hmm, now it's not obvious is it..

a 5/8th will beat a 1/2 wave hands down..

but use a simple 'silver rod' type antenna or same wave length and there's not much in it..

i have used a 1/2 wave next to a A-99 and the 1/2 wave beat it..

i currently use a sirio 827 and it pees's all over an Imax, but my sigma 4 beats the sirio on distance..

it's a case of what do you want to acheive ???

#102089

Ok.. this is getting WAY off topic.

The question was is the Imax 2000 better that the A-99 and is it worth the extra couple $ to buy the Imax 2000 as opposed to the A-99 (not beams or metal base planes)

Answer -- Yes on all questions

Reason -- Better Performance! (again it's actually a .64 antenna and NOT a 5/8 wave)

#102094

interesting links.. booty, do you have an alpha sigma as in the link you posted ? i like the full size radials, you dont see that too often. antennas are a crazy subject. that link with the plot of the angles of radiation is cool, but misleading because those plots are over theoretically perfect grounds. in the real world they look much worse ! not everyone will get the same results testing the same 2 antennas in different locations.,too many variables. like most of these antennas radiate just above the feedpoint (dudes brag thier antron is at 50 feet, but actually its radiating around 33 feet ect) and the height affecting the angle of radiation,ground losses and soil conductivity, rf and electrical grounding ect. my 3 element beam is nice to use, the noticable improvement over my antron was very satisfying. but, sometimes once in a while i can hear people on the antron leaning against the house on the ground that i can not hear on the beam, so i left it there. not everything can be the best all the time. 209

#102109

Bigpimp347 [UK] wrote:
Imax 2000 5/8 wave co-lineared ( as above )

Nope.. a .64 wave not a 5/8

Bigpimp347 [UK] wrote:
i currently use a sirio 827 and it pees's all over an Imax, but my sigma 4 beats the sirio on distance..

In another post you say you can't get American antennas over there so you use sirio--in this post you say you directly compared one antenna to an A-99 and that your sirio pees on an Imax (ya right)--- I'd bet you've never even seen an Imax in person let alone used one or did an actual comparison.

This ain't a **Censored**' contest. It's a forum to share information.

I'm off the key and 10-7 on this thread

.

lonewolf · #102116

The antron is a nice antenna however the imaxx 2000 is a better antenna over all for my money anyway.

#102120

crazytruker wrote:It's my understanding that they are both fiberglass antennas. I know the a99 is. They say it's not the fiberglass that makes the antenna work but the wire inside it and that's true. But I can't help believe that an all aluminum antenna would be way better on TX and RX than any fiberglass antenna around. You'll see statements made about "the more metal in the air the better" is completely true. Therefore it only stands to reason an all metal antenna would be better than fiberglass. My humble opinion is that fiberglass is an insulator and fiberglass antennas have wire inside surrounded by an insulator so why even consider using something that works against itself by its own construction? Price, I am sure, is a major factor but if you can afford aluminum like a Maco v58, go for it over the fiberglass. Leave that stuff for ladder making. Remember too that sunlight destroys fiberglass. I imagine fiberglass antennas don't last for a long long time. There are aluminum antennas that have been up for decades.

Imax 2000 is a Super great antenna for sure. I hear them blowing smoke on the air every day from miles away! You hear of them a lot because "everyone has one"! Most CB'ers have them because everyone else has one or because they are very affordable under $90. Now, if a couple CBRT members were to spend the extra $$ and try out the Wolf .64 wave aluminum antenna, I believe those guys would be starting a whole new antenna "CRAZE!.. Your talking about the "same" wave length (.64) as the Imax 2000 but the Wolf .64 or even a maco type has a thick aluminum element, meaning you have more surface area to transmit with and more surface area to RECEIVE those weaker signals with. It's that simple! I'm not a Omni fan at all but if I were, I'd rather have that thicker aluminum element in the air rather then that single strand of #14ga c-o-p-p-e-r wire that Imax uses for its element. We all know how well that thin c-o-p-p-e-r wire works so that means the thick aluminum element will work even better:-) IMO

#102125

Bump! Imax 2000 vs A99?....... For the few $ more go with the Imax 2000 for better performance for the dollar.

BtyMONSTER · #102132

209 i don't currently have a base at all but i have had a few . I'm looking to set up another though and have been reading many forums and articles about modern base antennas . my penetrator use to kick major azz against my neighbors shakespear big stick . he had a much bigger amp but barefoot our radios were very similar and the antennas were at similar heights . with amps we were about equal , i had a 4 tube D&A and he had a 8 tube elkin if i recall correctly . sadly the penetrator isn't made anymore . the i10 is suppose to be an improved version but i cant see spending the same ammount for a omni when i could get a small beam and rotor for the same price . based (pun intented) on my previous experiences and current available info i definitely want real metal in the air not a lil coppper wire . the lil coppper wire is supposed to be in the center of the coax

.

HOUND DOG the wolfs look really really nice and they were my first choice but i thought they wernt made/available anymore . do you know where to get them ??

p.s. the wolf site says "Aluminum antennas do not attract lightning like the fiberglass types, due to there ability to dissipate static out of the air." . anyone know how much truth there is to that statement of is it just advertising ?

sorry for the thread hijack but i wanted to answer one question and ask another .

CB Radio Talk

CB Radio Talk

imax 2000 vs antron 99

imax 2000 vs antron 99

Imax vs Aluminum .64