As time has passed over the last 2 years, I have felt my previous antenna testing page cannot handle all the needed information, plus I was getting numbers that differed greatly from previous tests. Due to the nature and potential differences in signals over time, plus the addition of new radios (NSTIG-8R and UV-5X3), I am working on this new testing procedure which I hope will provide more comparable results with less potential interference and signal bounce. Part of this means moving the testing to my back yard where I built a simple testing station with 2 dipoles, one out of 19 inch solid copper wire (for each end of the dipole) for 2m and 70cm, and a 12 inch version for 1.25m (222MHz). This allows me to have a specific dedicated testing setup and less chance of other electronics or items interfering or bouncing off walls.
I plan to keep the older page available so at least that information is still available, and most of those tests can still be compared to each other, but the numbers from that old page cannot be compared to the numbers on this page as they are different antennas and testing methods. On this page I will try to keep it a bit more condensed into numbers typically in use on more commonly used frequencies (in North America), which means primarily around 146MHz, 444MHz, and 223MHz. This should help continue the comparative qualities for the various antennas and radios.

Mobile Antennas - Some time ago I separated the mobile antennas onto their own page viewed here.

27 Sept 2016 - This page still has some of the older information which will be slowly replaced as I do the tests with the updated antenna setup, but for now I have titled each section by (NEW) or (OLD) to help differentiate between the two. Once the majority has been updated, I will remove these tags.

Table of Contents

(NEW) Transmit Signal Strength results


(OLD) Receive Signal strength results

- Brought over from the old antenna testing page

(NEW) SWR Tables

I setup a station that allowed me to put testing to use with my VHF/UHF SWR meter that is good for 100-500MHz.

(OLD) SWR Tables

I have plans to update the SWR tables as I have a new PL259 to SMA adapter for much easier testing on my SWR meter.

A. Radio specific


DETAILS

Transmit test methods

- All tests done with:

  1. Yaege FC-1 frequency tester
  2. connected to a custom built testing station out of a 19 inch solid copper wire dipole for 2m (and 70cm), and a 12 inch version for 1.25m (222MHz)
  3. 11 feet (3.35m) between radio and dipole antenna
  4. 25ft of RG8X
  5. SWR was tested, showed 1.1:1 @ 146MHz, 1.2:1 @ 444MHz, and the other was at 2:1 @ 223MHz

Each test was run minimum 3 times to ensure there was no errant signal interfering, and run at the shown frequencies (146.0 MHz for 2m VHF, 223.5 MHz for 1.25m VHF, and 444.0 MHz for 70cm UHF). If anything seemed off, I reset, checked my connections, checked for other signal use by hams in the area, and then restarted. Numbers given in the table are dBm (with 0.5dBm steps) as that is what my frequency counter shows. These numbers cannot be directly compared to other dBm numbers previously posted by me, nor given by other people as every test, location and setup has a different set of variables. What I show as 0.5dBm, someone else may show as 3dBm with their layout. I offer these as a comparison within my own testing environment where I could control as many of the variables as possible (which as time went on, I found wasn't good enough, thus why I built the new dipole antenna station and this new page).

- I do have plans for further antenna testing, so this is not the final edit to these tables.

- I did not test the radios on frequencies they (or I) are not legal to transmit on. I only tested within the ham radio bands available to the US (144-148MHz, 222-225MHz, and 420-450MHz). I have not and will not test them on other frequencies they are not legal to use (such as FRS, MURS, GMRS, nor Marine). Each of these require radio certification, and these Baofeng/Anytone radios are not FCC certified for these frequencies. To read more about this, check out my other page which covers this in depth.

- The antennas tested:

  • the stock UV-5R antenna (also known as "5R"),
  • the Baofeng V85 antenna which is included with their 8W and the UV-82 models, but can be bought separately for use with the UV-5R series
  • the Nagoya NA-701,
  • a genuine Nagoya NA-771,
  • a fake NA-771 from ebay,
  • a real NA-773 - links to amazon, but I got mine from ebay
  • a real Pryme AL-800 - links to its own page
  • genuine tri-band Nagoya NA-320A
  • the BTECH 220 only antenna that comes with the UV-5X3, which I will call "V85-220" (for lack of a better name)
  • dual band antenna that comes with UV-82X which I will call "5R-240" (for lack of a better name)
  • and for the Anytone OBLTR-8R I tested its stock antenna versus the NA-701 and 771s, as well as the AL-800.

Announcements

I am keeping some of these older dated announcements here more as a reminder to me to test those antennas as well with my new setup, to be added to this new page in the near future.

16 OCT 2015 - SWR IMPORTANT NOTE: I only tested the SWR with the BF-F8HP and the OBLTR-8R. There are future plans to test the various antennas to see if any are truly out of spec.
SWR meter frequency range: 120-500MHz. Expected impedance: 52ohm. Max Power: 150W. Also I have an older MFJ-259 that I had borrowed from a local club since I had a few antennas to check (HF and VHF). I am adding the SWR info to the existing tables so if you see anything missing, please contact me. Also a few additional tests are listed at the bottom below the rest of the testing.

- 29 Oct 2015 - Received my official Nagoya NA-771 today from BaofengTech and got to testing immediately. I also re-tested the NA-701 after seeing some anomolies with the NA-701 antenna so the tables below have been updated to reflect this. One side note is I did not test the problematic UV-5R with N5R-20 firmware since I have it programmed specifically for working SO-50 and Fox-1A satellites.

- 3 Nov 2015 - Today I received a fake NA-771 antenna. Although many of them perform almost the same as the official versions, buying the fakes helps fund these companies making the fakes and takes money from the legitimate manufacturers and sellers. Buying it second hand from ebay lessens the chance of funding these fake-makers.

- 21 March 2016 - Today I started testing on a NA-773 antenna. Originally I thought it was another fake but after some checking, both the bag and the antenna base match that of older stock antennas made a few years ago before Nagoya changed their colors. I suspect this is simply an older 2012-2013 model that some Chinese seller has had sitting on their shelves for the past few years, so they're selling them for $3-5 each (I picked it up from ebay for under $5 and free shipping from Hong Kong, and it arrived in just 9 days). I knew it would be a crap shoot on whether I would get a newer real, older real, or a fake one.


Links to antennas tested

Side note, these are just the handheld antennas, for mobile based antennas, please see the mobile antenna testing page which has its own results.

So lets get on with the numbers!

Transmit antenna testing

UV-5R

Firmware: BFS313

Tested at full power (4W).

Ant

146.0

444.0

Accuracy

320A

-0.5

-14.0

V 0.0002

real 771

-2.0

-10.5

U 0.0006

V85

-1.0

-3.0

back to top


BF-F8HP

Firmware: N5R-319

Note: Stock antenna for F8HP is the V85

Ant

Power

146.0

444.0

Accuracy

320A

5W

+1.5

-9.0

V 0.0002

320A

8W

+2.5

-7.5

U 0.0006

real 771

5W

+1.5

-8.5

real 771

8W

+3.0

-8.0

V85

5W

+2.0

-3.0

V85

8W

+2.5

-2.0

back to top

UV-82HP

Firmware: N82-33

Note: Stock antenna for 82HP is the V85

Ant

Power

146.0

444.0

Accuracy

320A

5W

+3.0

-10.0

V 0.0002

320A

8W

+3.5

-9.5

U 0.0006

real 771

5W

+2.0

-9.5

real 771

8W

+3.5

-8.0

V85

5W

+1.5

-3.5

V85

8W

+2.0

-2.5

back to top

OBLTR-8R

Note: Stock antenna for OBLTR-8R is similar in looks to the Baofeng V85, but as we see, the combination of quality radio with a better antenna makes a big difference. I tested using all 3 available power levels in VFO mode, 1, 2 and 5W.

Not tested yet

back to top

BTECH UV-5X3

The new BTECH UV-5X3 may look like the standard UV-5R/BF-F8 series on the outside, but inside it has new electronics and IF filtering, plus the third band (1.25m/222MHz). It comes with 2 antennas, the standard V85, as well as a 220-230MHz specific antenna that (unfortunately looks just like the V85, but is a touch longer). Current test only shows it in use with the Nagoya NA-320A as I am still trying to setup a new antenna testing process that includes 220MHz.

Note: I have not tested the 5R-240 on 146MHz yet, and the 771 is not 220 compatible so it was not tested.

Ant

146.0

224.0

449.9

NA-320A

+2.0

+3.0

-12.5

V85

-1.0

N/A

-3.0

V85-220

N/A

+2.5

N/A

5R-240

-3.5

N/A

real 771

+1.5

N/A

-11.0


Baofeng UV-82X

This has been one of the few available Baofeng models capable of 220 for some time. A few years ago there used to be some like the UV-5RAX which were 144/240 as well but sales were so low, they had been discontinued sometime in early 2014. I had received my 82X probably close to a year ago but had not really mentioned much on here as 220 is not used much in my area and had not really done any testing with it. Now with the newer antennas, the NA-320A, the V85-220, and the 82X stock antenna (which I call the 5R-240), I am able to do some further testing. Looking at the base of the 5R-240 antenna, you can see it states "136-174/240-250MHz". That 240-250 is used in many Asian countries for "Band III" TV stations (listen to the TV audio via this radio). This also means this radio is likely setup for full power in the 240MHz range, which is partially verified by the default frequencies of 210-260MHz. Here are some numbers for comparison anyways, testing was done ONLY at 224MHz.

Ant

224.0

NA-320A

+0.5

V85-220

-2.0

5R-240

-3.5

Tri-band/220 Final notes

Looking solely at the 220 aspect, there is little difference between the NA-320A and the V85-220, but the fact that the 320A is a tri-band antenna really helps the 5X3. Of course then the downside is the 320A is freakishly long (longer than the NA-771) at 18.5 inches. So you would need to figure out if you would rather swap antennas or not to use 220. I do hope in the near future to pick up an Anytone 3318 tri-band antenna which is closer to the V85 in length. As I expected, the "5R-240" (dual band 144/240 that comes with the UV-82X) performed horribly. Also we see that the 82X really is setup for use in the 240MHz range as its numbers at 224MHz were consistently worse, although usable with the V85-220 (as I plan to use mine).
For 146 and 440, the 320A performs on par with the NA-771.

back to top

Full table

Here I will put the 4/5W results from each radio and antenna mentioned above. I am ignoring the 8W readings from the 8W models to show the different radios on a fairly level "playing field".

band >

146

146

146

146

224

224

224

444

444

444

444

Radio

NA-320A

NA-771

NA-701

V85

NA-320A

V85-220

5R-240

NA-320A

NA-771

NA-701

V85

UV-5R

+0.5

-2.0

-1.0

-14.0

-10.5

-3.0

BF-F8HP

+1.5

+1.5

+2.0

-7.0

-8.5

-3.0

UV-82HP

+3.0

+2.0

+1.5

-10.0

-9.5

-3.5

UV-5X3

+2.0

+1.5

-1.0

+3.0

+2.5

-3.5

-12.5

-11.0

-3.0

UV-82X

+3.0

+3.0

-3.5

NSTIG-8R

OBLTR-8R


Tx Final Notes

As testing is still underway with the new setup, I still need to get that done before providing more detailed final notes.

back to top

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Receive antenna testing - Older data

Receive test methods

All tests done with Yaege FC-1 frequency tester, connected to mentioned antenna. For the transmitter, I connect the specific radio to the resonant antenna (aka Tram 1185 for 2m and 70cm), with 11 feet (3.35m) between radio and antenna. Each test was run minimum 3 times to ensure there was no errant signal interfering, and run at the shown frequencies (144.1, 146.0, and 147.9 for 2m, and 420.1, 435.0, and 449.9 for UHF). If anything seemed off, I reset, checked my connections, checked for other signal use by hams in the area, and then restarted. Numbers given in the table are dBm (with 0.5dBm steps) as that is what my frequency counter shows. These numbers cannot be directly compared to other dBm numbers given by other people as every test, location and radio has a different set of variables. What I show as 0.5dBm, someone else may show as 3dBm with their layout. I offer these as a comparison within my own testing environment where I could control as many of the variables as possible.
Power did not affect the accuracy of this counter much due to low power radios and distance between transmitter and receive antenna.

- I do have plans for further antenna testing, so this is not the final edit to these tables.

- I did not test the radios on frequencies they are not legal to transmit on. The only radio I tested that is legal for use on MURS and GMRS is the OBLTR-8R, so therefore I will not be testing the other radios in these frequencies. I only tested within the ham radio bands available to the US (144-148MHz, 222-225MHz, and 420-450MHz).

- The antennas tested:

  • the stock UV-5R antenna (also known as "5R"),
  • the Baofeng V85 antenna which is included with their 8W and the UV-82 models,
  • the Nagoya NA-701,
  • a genuine Nagoya NA-771,
  • a fake NA-771 from ebay,
  • a real NA-773 also from ebay
  • and for the Anytone OBLTR-8R I tested its stock antenna versus the NA-701, 773, and 771's.

I decided to do this testing as I have found that some antennas work well on transmit, but seem to suck on receiving (perfect example is the stock UV-5R antenna on UHF, great for transmitting as we saw above but not that great on receiving). Another aspect I've found that is common on social media pages is people want the longer NA-771 thinking it will be better all around, without thinking of how radio waves move or resonance. Realistically you can have a 100 foot long wire and pick up (receive) everything from 1.8MHz to 1300MHz. You can have a wideband discone that is 24-36 inches tall and get the same results. So while transmitting relies heavily on resonance to have the most efficiency getting the signal out, receiving tends to work better with slightly different methods. This is why one antenna at 6" long may seem to receive better than the 16" antenna does at the same frequency. So to put these antennas to the test, I setup the same process I used above for transmitting, EXCEPT I reversed the roles. The Yaege frequency counter will hold the antenna (which works out since it already has the SMA-F threads on it so all these antennas screw right in), and then will use the radio to transmit through either the Tram 1185 or other resonant antenna (I say other resonant antenna since my options are limited for 220MHz transmit and receive at the time of writing this). For reference, some tables below have both transmit and receive results in order to have a direct comparison. This should show if an antenna is good on transmit but not receive, or vice-versa.

Stock and Nagoya antennas

Originally I was going to separate them into their own tables but since it is just some base info for comparison, I put them into a single table below. I also separated the NA-773 into a more detailed process in the next section below this since it has so many extra links and possible combinations. I did include some extra info with the 773 here as well for comparison. I also decided to show a direct receive versus transmit comparison of these same antennas.

Antenna

Rx
146.520 MHz

Rx
446.000MHz

Rx 223.500MHz
NA-773 only

Tx
146.520 MHz

Tx
446.000MHz

5R

-18.5

-17.0

-14.0

-19.5

V85

-16.5

-14.5

-8.5

-15.0

NA-701

-13.5

-15.5

-8.0

-17.0

NA-771

-9.0

-13.5

-8.5

-13.5

771 fake

-10.5

-10.0

-9.5

-10.0

NA-773

-13.0

-16.0

-6.0
3 links down

-10.5

-9.5

So you can look at the transmit versus the receive side of things and see that certain antennas work better than others for receiving.


back to top

4-5W Power tests

The above table shows the signal strengths at 1W power, here I decided to kick up the power to 4W on the UV-5R and 5W on the OBLTR-8R to see if the increase in power makes use of the extra antenna lengths. As I do not and have not used the 5R antenna on the OBLTR-8R, I left that aspect out of this table.
NOTE: The 773 was only tested at fully extended length. For more in depth overview of the different signal strengths at different collapsed lengths, go down to the NA-773 specific testing below.
I use Tx to mean "transmitted with the mentioned antenna", and Rx to mean "received with the mentioned antenna". Under the "Tx" tests, this means the mentioned antenna was placed on the radio itself (like the above tests on this page) and the frequency counter is connected to the Tram 1185 (11 feet away). For the "Rx" tests, the roles were reversed with the antennas placed on the frequency counter, and the radio transmitting through the Tram 1185.

UV-5R 4W Tx

OBLTR-8R 5W Tx

UV-5R 4W Rx

OBLTR-8R 5W Rx

Antenna
|
\/

146.520

446.000

146.520

446.000

146.520

446.000

146.520

446.000

V85

-6.5

-13.5

-7.0

-13.5

-3.5

-7.0

-2.0

-7.0

NA-701

-2.0

-13.0

-2.0

-13.5

-2.0

-7.5

-0.5

-7.0

NA-771

-2.5

-12.5

+1.0

-11.5

-3.0

-8.0

-3.5

-7.5

771 fake

-3.5

-9.0

+0.0

-8.0

-6.0

-7.0

-5.0

-6.0

NA-773

-5.0

-8.0

-1.0

-7.5

-6.5

-7.5

-5.0

-4.0

Above you can compare transmit with transmit, and receive with receive, but not Tx versus Rx EXCEPT to show frequency stability with that specific antenna. Once again I find that the NA-701 is very well rounded, especially when used with a quality radio like the OBLTR-8R. The difference in results between the 701 and 771 on the cheaper Baofengs is negligible on both transmit AND receive, with typically 0.5-1.0dBm difference between the 701 and 771. Surprisingly, the fake 771 and the 773 actually do better in UHF than the other antennas. Something else worth mentioning is the filtering and better quality of the OBLTR-8R shows that the 5R is sporadic. Instead of the 5R consistently being 1.0 dBm lower (4W output is approx. 36dBm and 5W output is approx. 37dBm), the 5R numbers are all over the place ranging from matching the OBLTR-8R with the shorter antennas, to being 3.5 dBm or weaker with the longer antennas. This sporadic output even continues in testing with the F8HP and 82HP.
When it comes to Baofengs, based on the numbers above (at least for close range), I do not see any benefit of the 771 over the 701. Once you move up to better quality radios do the numbers start to change and show the benefits (and shortcomings) of specific antennas. Looking purely at the numbers with the Anytone and comparing the 771 vs 701, the 771 is quite a bit better in VHF at +3.0dBm, while the 701 has the upper hand in UHF with the same +3.0dBm increase in received signal, although in my case, it actually makes more sense for me to use the fake 771 as it nearly matches the official 771 in VHF and better than both the 701 and real 771 in UHF.
When it comes to these antennas receiving signals, the NA-701 still has the upper hand, with the best VHF reception (-0.5dBm), and only a 3.0dBm difference in UHF versus the better receiving 773. I was expecting the 771 and 773 to run away with the reception side of things, but this goes to show that longer antenna does not always mean better reception, at least in close range.

At some point in the future, I do plan to do tests at 100 feet (30.5m) distance between transmitter and receiver, so I can determine if at greater distances, the longer antennas actually receives more and transmits stronger signals just due to sheer length.


back to top

NA-773

Length (extended): 15.5 inches/39cm

Due to the versatility of a collapsible antenna, I put this one through a little more extensive testing, with it fully extended, and then test collapsing one length at a time. Also as a side note that I thought of after doing the first round of testing is I believe they made this antenna specifically to cover the wide range of frequencies available for most Chinese handhelds (136-174MHz, and 400-520MHz, or some approximation to these frequencies). As such I found out that fully extended very likely works best at the lowest end (136MHz), and for the ham band (144-148MHz) it worked best with one section collapsed. Still, as I have a hamateur radio license, I am ONLY testing within the legal ham radio bands. So lets get to some numbers.

UV-5R, 1W, Tx from Tram 1185, 11 ft. separation

Links down

146.520 MHz

446.000MHz

---

Signal (dBm)

Signal (dBm)

0 (extended)

-13.0

-16.0

1

-13.5

-17.0

2

-15.0

-21.5

3

-16.5

-26.0

4

-18.0

-29.5

5

-20.5

-30.5

6

-24.0

-27.5

7 (all down)

-28.0

-24.5

While I expected these results for VHF, I was a bit surprised to see that for receiving UHF, it actually closely matched the VHF side, with a small drop again from one link to fully collapsed. In order to verify (or debunk) this, I decided to run a different test as shown below. This time I used my BF-F8HP, with a tiger tail (counterpoise), using the stock V85 antenna, at the same 1W power setting.


back to top

BF-F8HP, 1W, Tx from stock V85 antenna, 11 ft. separation

Links down

146.520 MHz

446.000MHz

---

Signal (dBm)

Signal (dBm)

0 (extended)

-23.5

-11.5

1

-24.5

-3.5

2

-24.0

-7.0

3

-28.5

-9.5

4

-32.5

-13.0

5

-34.0

-14.0

6

-35.5

-14.5

7 (all down)

DNR

-14.0

Now this one did surprise me, it goes to show that the Tram 1185 is definitely better at transmitting 2m VHF, while not as good at transmitting 70cm UHF, versus the V85 is mediocre at VHF, it is great on UHF. Again we see 2m VHF working best close to or at fully extended length, versus 70cm UHF working best with at least one section collapsed.
Next I decided to mix in some 220 MHz action, since a collapsible antenna should be resonant at a certain length, I tested it with my UV-82X. As I know the stock 82X antenna is not that great on 2m, I decided to just stick with 1.25m 220MHz testing. The Baofeng supplied antenna shows "136-174/240-250MHz". So I go into this knowing that this antenna is made for commercial or IARU region 3 (western Pacific) 250-260MHz, and is not as great as a proper 219-225MHz antenna would be.


back to top

UV-82X, 1W, Tx from stock (220) antenna, 11 ft. separation

Links down

223.500 MHz

---

Signal (dBm)

0 (extended)

-10.5

1

-9.0

2

-6.5

3

-6.0

4

-10.5

5

-15.5

6

-23.0

7 (all down)

-26.0

What I found here, at least for receiving, it works best with 3 links collapsed, and still more than acceptable with only 2 collapsed since only 0.5dBm separate the 2. This goes to show that this antenna can easily be adjusted to also be used for the 1.25m 220MHz band available within IARU region 2 (North and South America).


back to top

Rx Final Notes

While single band antennas are fine for their intended frequencies, they can absolutely be horrible outside of those bands, less so for 2m resonant, but much more so when it involves the 220 band (since it doesn't have any lower or higher "3rd level" harmonics in the ham bands, at least not until the 23cm band). Many dual band solutions end up sacrificing some signal strength in order to work well (or at least decently) on both. Then there are a few tri-band antennas for a HT, but they can be expensive, bulky, fragile, or just not work well on one or two (or none) of their expected bands. Tri band mobile antennas tend to be less prone to these issues.
Then we have the collapsible antennas which can be adjusted on the fly to accommodate whichever band you're working with. Of course then the down side rears its ugly head, while they are able to be adjusted, they are still metal, and one wrong drop, bend, or twist and that bend or break can make that antenna useless. This is the two sides of the coin, while the dual band options like NA-701 and 771 are flexible and can resist breaking, they're limited to good performance on one band and mediocre to bad on the other. The collapsible antenna can easily be adjusted for a specific band on the fly, but at the expense of fragility.
Still, for the $5 I spent on this NA-773, you may as well buy 4 and still only spent as much as an official Nagoya NA-701 or 771 antenna. Of course you may not get an official NA-773 like I did but use of the fakes should be pretty close to the real one.

(NEW) SWR Tables

Testing date: 29 Sept 2016

I decided to do some new testing with my SWR meter and several antennas. This was done with a meter that can handle 100-500MHz. Also for a secondary test, I tested it with a counterpoise (tiger tail) which I accidentally found actually affects the SWR quite a bit (see below tables). The radio was a UV-5X3, set at 5W power level. The counterpoise test was run at 220 frequencies with both the 5X3 and the 82X.

V85 and V85-220

Ant

Freq.

SWR

Ant

Freq

SWR

V85

144.1

10+

V85-220

222.1

10:1

V85

145.0

10+

V85-220

223.5

8:1

V85

146.0

10:1

V85-220

224.0

8:1

V85

147.0

10:1

V85-220

224.9

7:1

V85

147.9

10:1

V85

421.0

2:1

V85

430.0

2.1:1

V85

440.0

2.4:1

V85

445.0

2.6:1

V85

449.0

2.7:1


NA-320A

Ant

Freq.

SWR

Freq

SWR

NA320A

144.1

10+

222.1

5:1

NA320A

145.0

10+

223.5

4:1

NA320A

146.0

10+

224.0

4:1

NA320A

147.0

8:1

224.9

4:1

NA320A

147.9

9:1

NA320A

421.0

7:1

NA320A

430.0

8:1

NA320A

440.0

6:1

NA320A

445.0

6:1

NA320A

449.0

6:1

NA701, real NA771, and fake NA771

Ant

Freq.

SWR

Ant

Freq

SWR

Ant

Freq.

SWR

NA701

144.1

10+

NA771

144.1

10+

NA771F

144.1

10+

NA701

145.0

10+

NA771

145.0

10+

NA771F

145.0

10+

NA701

146.0

10+

NA771

146.0

10+

NA771F

146.0

10:1

NA701

147.0

10:1

NA771

147.0

10:1

NA771F

147.0

10+

NA701

147.9

8:1

NA771

147.9

6:1

NA771F

147.9

10+

NA701

421.0

7:1

NA771

421.0

7:1

NA771F

421.0

7:1

NA701

430.0

8:1

NA771

430.0

9:1

NA771F

430.0

6:1

NA701

440.0

8:1

NA771

440.0

9:1

NA771F

440.0

7:1

NA701

445.0

7:1

NA771

445.0

8:1

NA771F

445.0

8:1

NA701

449.0

6:1

NA771

449.0

9:1

NA771F

449.0

9:1


Counterpoise SWR test

With the 5X3, I showed both with and without the counterpoise (no cp).

Freq.

82X SWR

5X3 SWR

5X3 no cp

222.1

6:1

6:1

10:1

223.5

5:1

4.9:1

8:1

224.0

5.0:1

4.9:1

8:1

224.9

5.1:1

4.9:1

7:1

As we see, adding a counterpoise helps GREATLY with both the transmitted signal AND SWR.

(OLD) SWR Tables

Testing dates: 16 Oct. 2015, 29 Oct 2015, 4 Nov 2015, 21 Mar 2016

I will be keeping this here for the purpose of showing past testing. The numbers below cannot be compared with the numbers above.
Here I will be posting some SWR testing that I have done, including the Baofeng antennas listed above but also listing some others, primarily for the purpose of my own personal reference, but I hope someone else may be able to use this info as a "see how well it works" type of moment.


BF-F8HP

Ant

Pwr

144.1

146.0

147.9

420.1

435.0

449.9

5R SWR

8W

1.8:1

1.5:1

1.5:1

4.0:1

1.6:1

1.1:1

V85 SWR

8W

1.5:1

1.4:1

1.2:1

4.5:1

1.8:1

1.4:1

NA-701 SWR

8W

1.1:1

1.2:1

1.4:1

3.4:1

3.5:1

1.8:1


back to top

OBLTR-8R

Ant

Pwr

144.1

146.0

147.9

420.1

435.0

449.9

V85 SWR

5W

1.3:1

1.4:1

1.6:1

4.0:1

1.7:1

1.6:1

NA-701 SWR

5W

1.2:1

1.2:1

1.4:1

3.1:1

3.5:1

1.8:1


I appreciate you looking over this information, and if you have any questions or comments, feel free to join me in the Facebook Baofeng "BARN" group and let me know, or send me an email at km4fmk -at- afo -dot- net.
Thank you and 73!
Mike
K4ISR


back to top