Ham Operator Forums

In one of the early ARRL 'Antenna Compendium' series a very extensive series of tests were done on the bazooka antenna.    It wasn't 'on the air' type testing, but measurements done as on an antenna test range.  There were quite a few variations in the antennas tested covering feeding methods and I honestly don't remember what else.  My copy of that 'Compendium' (#2 I think?) has disappeared over the years so I can't cite it, rats.  The article was done by a well known author, can't remember his name though.  It would make for interesting reading...
 - Paul

I got my Nooelec R820T today.  The install instructions are garbage.  After about a half hour, I got the driver to install and the SDRsharp program working.  FM radio works great.  I have not heard much else so far.  I guess I will try listening to 2meter Ham next.  Are there any other frequencies or ranges I might want to try out?

BTW..  Nooelec has horrible customer service.  It took 14 days to get my package after I paid for the 2 day shipping.  When questioned, the woman raised her voice at me and started on the defense.

I'll have to check that out. It would be nice to view 10mhz of HF spectrum at a time.... especially when I'm looking for milcom stuff. I may just spend a bit more for a Softrock receiver. I really want a Perseus but that's a lot more than I can spend right now.

I agree with most of what you say Paul.  The Bazooka is subject to the same conditions as a dipole for height above ground and the surroundings.

But one of the main points I was making is how guys build these antennas and do not pay close attention to the measurements.  If one side of the main element or the tails are off even 1 or 2 inches from the opposite side, the antenna will not operate with the best efficiency it should give.  That is a mistake I learned the hard way the first few times I built one.

But I have to say that the Bazookas I have built did a better job than their late dipoles they replaced.  Now there has to be something to that.  For example, I helped a friend build a basic dipole for 40 meters several years ago.  He runs only the 100 watts from the radio.  We were extra careful of the measurements, and used my MFJ-269 analyzer to tune it before it went into operation.  It worked very well for my friend always with great reports.

Then I built him a 40 meter Bazooka.  Tuned it again with my MFJ analyzer, then put it to the test on the air.  The Bazooka was strung in the exact same space the dipole used to occupy, so height above ground and the surroundings were the same.  The first thing we noticed was the background static was lower which made us think the antenna was not quite as good.  But the locals noticed his signal was higher, and the receive signals were higher also.  And then the DX test.  My friend here in PA talks on a 40 meter net every afternoon.  The net controller is up in CT which is about 250 miles east with 100 watts in the daytime on 40 meters. The net controller noticed the increase in signal instantly, and the same over the next few weeks.  The same improvement was noticed by most of the operators on the net also.

For what it's worth, the analyzer said the impedance was 43 ohms at the lowest band edge and 59 ohms at the highest band edge, but it was 51 ohms in the center where we tuned it to a 1.15 SWR.  I have never found a basic dipole that could do that well.  Many can get a good 49 to 51 ohms at the band center, but drop to 30 or lower at the low band edge and to 75 at the high band edge.  The tuner was never needed on any frequency within 40 meters.

The lower noise level is probably due to the DC grounding effect by the continuous loop type connection of the center wire.  This usually helps reduce typical QRM and QRN on any DC ground antenna.  The SWR was lower on each band edge which at least helps the radio run a bit more efficiently.  But the fact is, the design of the Bazooka does create a slightly larger signal pattern than the average 1/2 wave dipole.  This actually produces a tiny amount of gain.  It's not much, but even a 0.2 dB gain is more than 0 dB gain.  It may not be a big bad increase in the ERP, but it does make the signal pattern larger which directs a bit more of the signal towards the horizon.  Again nothing to write home about, but it is noticeable.  Any increase no matter how big or small is still an increase over what it was.  This only proves that not all 1/2 wave antennas radiate the same exact way.  If you notice the actual length of the Bazooka actually measures less than a 1/2 wave.  But the design gives it a larger radiated pattern than a 1/2 wave dipole.

All I can say is that I must have made more than 50 Bazookas in my time, and those that replaced basic dipoles outperformed the dipole.  Some were made with RG-8X and some with RG-8U.  The RG-8X should be able to handle the same power it is rated to carry.  If that is the case, then RG-8X should handle full legal limit on any HF band.  The power rating drops big time for VHF and UHF so I would not use the 8X on those bands.

I am only reporting the results that I have gotten with the many Bazookas I have built.  But I know guys who have seen the same observations you have with their own built Bazookas.  I still believe from good experience that those who get less than expected results, have built the antenna with measurement errors and did not notice them or even think to check them.  As I said I found out the hard way how crucial those exact measurements are between both sides from the feedpoint.  But now I know better and I pay very close attention to the measurements of each side.  If the Bazooka is built correctly with the right measurements and materials, it will indeed outperform any basic dipole.

Welcome!