No, not your style? Well trust me it will grow on you when you finally put up a cubical quad on a tower and you make some noise on the bands, and you realize you are able to hear a pindrop in Mongolia on your reciever.
Ok so what's the big deal? I would rather let some of the true experts tell you what the story is rather then open myself up to the long barrage of devoted Yagi afictionado's who will undoubtedly blitz me with nonsense. So first a short often repeated history lesson :
1. What is a cubical quad antenna?
2. Compared to a dipole antenna, what are the directional radiation characteristics of a cubical quad antenna?
3. Approximately how long is each side of a cubical quad antenna driven element on 14 mhz?
4. What about cubical quad spreaders and crossarms and how many inches do I need make them? Do I need more coax?
5. What are cubical quad antenna hubs?
6. Cubical Quad vs Yagi
7. Should I use dielectric grease?
8. Can a cubical quad use traps?
OKAY Slow down, first lets go into the way back machine a bit:
Back in 1951 Clarence Moore a Christian Missionary and engineer at a radio station high in the Andean mountains of Ecuador, developed a two loop antenna that he called a Cubical Quad. He developed this antenna to resolve issues caused by large coronal discharges while using a yagi beam antenna in the thin air of higher altitudes. These coronal discharges were periodically litterally Melting the Yagi antennas. His patent does include a mention and illustration of a two element unidirectional "quad", and describes the full wave loop concept.
So why do many people say the Cubical Quad is the better antenna? Well for one thing you have twice the amount of element material in the air. A yagi antenna is 1/2 wave length per element. A one element 1/2 wave dipole is the same as the driven element of a yagi antenna. With some small size changes. Every element of a Cubical Quad antenna is a full wavelength long. More antenna material means more "capture area" is in the air. Meaning you'll have a better chance of hearing someone on a quad antenna versus a yagi antenna, and this isn't considering the noise advantage of the Cubical Quad which I will speak about a bit later. More on capture area later as well.
Ok, so more capture area on a cubical quad "So What?" you say? When a dipole has parasitic elements added to it, to become a Yagi Antenna, the Impedance changes, in fact it goes down ALOT. From 50 ohms down to 16 ohms or even 12 ohms depending upon the antenna. I am not going to get into alot of techno jargon, but the impedance relates directly to the current and voltage at the antenna that develops RF. In a nutshell...if the impedance is not close to the coaxial impedance (50 ohms) not as much power will be radiated by the antenna. Here's what the techno jargon boils down to: We now know that for an antenna to work properly, its impedance must not be too large or too small. It turns out that this is one of the fundamental design parameters for any antenna, and it isn't always easy to design an antenna with the right impedance - particularly over a wide frequency range demanded by most amateur radio operators. This is why almost all commercial made yagi antennas have some sort of matching device, like a gamma match or similar. All matching devices have some loss ( no exceptions ). The Quad antenna is built now a days, that it can be spaced so that it can be fed with 50 Ohm cable. A very good match! No matching devices! Less loss. All this besides the fact that the full wave length loop in a cubical quad antenna has more gain then a comparable yagi antenna. I know, but you heard that W blah, blah, blah says no. Have you ever seen pictures of any cubical quads from him or any other online expert naysayer? Me Neither.
So before I get into what the real experts say.......you know guys that have actually built Cubical Quad Antennas versus the Yagi antenna, and used them. Lets do a simple Eznec Pro4 demonstration of a simple 2 element Cubical Quad versus a Yagi antenna. Same boom length, same height 35 feet above ground. This the latest expensive version ($1500 now) of the software, which only very few guys use, because the 35 year old version is now free. Its results are vastly different.... its 35 year old technology versus todays.........Anyway:
12.4 dbi gain at 12 degrees of elevation (the takeoff angle) F/B ratio -24 db
So there's a simple 2 element cubical quad antenna. At 35 feet of height.
Now lets look at a optimized element spaced 2 element yagi, and on the same boom length
11.1 dbi gain at 14 degrees of elevation F/B ratio of -8 db
Ok so whats the gain difference?? 1.3 db gain. And thats with the Yagi spaced so that its at maximum gain, so thats the LOWEST db gain differential there is. Period. Admittedly you could space the Yagi Antenna elements longer, or the same as the quad for better front to back ratio, but then the gain drops to below 11 dbi! I actually gave the Yagi some optimization because on the same 6.5 boom length of the cubical quad the results are just terrible for the Yagi, like 2 db down versus the quad! "Online Experts" always have simple reasons for explaining how antennas work. When they try to explain the Quad antenna gain versus the Yagi, thats when you start to hear all kinds of techno nonsense as to why they don't work any better. Don't believe any of it. Quads are better performance wise then Yagi's PERIOD. Thats does not mean you should own one immediately as I will point out in a bit.
Okay what do the real experts say about the differences between the Cubical Quad antenna and the Yagi antenna :
"Clarence Moore's design eliminated interference from coronal discharge. "End effect", which is inherent with the Yagi, is absent in a quad because its elements have no ends. But other advantages appeared. The higher impedance mentioned in the quote above translates to lower current and thus lower loss on the transmission lines, and gain is higher than that of a Yagi." Hey this is straight from Wikipedia...go look it up. Lets see what others including the ARRL has said about the Cubical Quad vs the Yagi Antenna
Here we go Cubical Quad vs Yagi..........Advantages over a Yagi-Uda:
Rigorous testing of the quad antenna show the following advantages over a Yagi-Uda antenna.
Polarization
It is easy to change polarization from vertical to horizontal.
Multiband antenna
It is easier to build a multiband cubical quad antenna, than a multiband Yagi antenna.
Higher gain
The 2-element quad has almost the same gain as a 3-element Yagi: about 7-7.5 dBi. A 3-element cubical quad has more gain than a 3-element Yagi. However, adding quad elements produces diminishing returns. Quoting from William Orr, "Whereas parasitic beams having twenty or thirty parasitic directors are efficient, high gain antennas, it would seem ... that maximum practical number of parasitic loop elements for the quad array is limited to five or six." (Orr, p. 48)
Radiation resistance
Radiation resistance is affected by antenna height above ground, element spacing, and environmental conditions. However, values will be higher than for a Yagi and more closely matched to a 50 Ohm coaxial feed.
Lower boom height
"A two-element, three-band cubical quad, with elements mounted only 35 feet above ground, will give good performance in situations where a triband Yagi will not."[10]
Shorter boom
William Orr's book[11] shows a 10-15-20 meter, 2-element Cubical Quad with boom length of 6′10″.
Internally stackable
Interaction between antennas of a multiband quad are quite low, even when fed with a single feed line. (Orr, 1959, pg. 63)
Lower radiation angle
According to K0SR[12] the claim that cubical quads "open the band earlier", which suggests that they exhibit a lower angle of radiation than Yagis, has persisted for 50 years in spite of the fact that computer models disagree. He posits that the vertical sides of each element actually radiate the low angle component.
Disadvantages compared to other antennas
Bandwidth
If tuned for maximum gain, the bandwidth for a 3-element cubical quad antenna is limited: Deviation from the design frequency will unbalance the near-resonance condition of the parasitic elements. However, lengthening the director elements, thereby sacrificing approximately 1 dB gain, allows for much broader bandwidth.
Maintenance
A quad is a 3 dimensional antenna so maintenance can be difficult. Even with a tilt over tower, tall ladders or a bucket truck may be needed. There are devices that will allow the tilting of the tower to the ground to work on a cubical quad antenna, rotator, or tower. It works by letting the quad loops swivel out of the way. When the tower is in the operational position the elements are locked into position (the locking mechanism is powered by gravity).
This is no longer mentioned about the Cubical Quad in the ARRL, but deserves mentioning. "Cubical Quads are quieter then Yagi's". Why? Unfortunately Yagi Antennas especially ones high on towers are susceptible to precipitation static. This is because the Yagi's all have pointed sharp element ends, these protruding elements create a large voltage differential between the ends of the antenna and the charged atmosphere during storms even if they are far away. This creates a discharge by the antenna into the atmosphere and this shows up as noise in the reciever. The higher the antenna the worse the problem. If anyone disputes this, they have never been to a contesting station where all of the higher Yagi antennas are of limited or no use due to static. Cubical Quads do not have this problem. The Cubical Quad has no ends! It is a loop with no protruding ends, and therefore no precipitation static. The voltage differential is still there but on a Quad it is down the middle of the loop. After all this is why the Cubical Quad was designed in the first place! To get rid of Atmospheric static, and in case you had a Yagi antenna at a high elevation, to stop it from melting! And it worked. So to say that a Cubical Quad cannot be quieter then a Yagi is just wrong. It is quieter at times. Period. This goes for any Loop antenna versus any Dipole , Vertical or Yagi. Those can suffer from precipitation static at times. Even the construction the driven elements in cubical quad are very close together. So the coupling of the elements is in the magnetic field component instead in the electrical like for a yagi. This makes this antenna very quiet. Now this does not mean at all times a Cubical Quad will be quieter then a Dipole. The noise at your antenna or any antenna depends greatly upon many other noise factors, like where it is placed, how close to you house it is mounted, how high it is, whether it is hearing signals from all directions (verticals) or just one direction (beams). Local noise from your neighborhood, In addition to precipation static that affect dipoles and yagi's at high heights. However is a Cubical Quad or a Loop ever noisier then a Yagi or a Dipole at the same operating position. NO. They can only be quieter, and sometimes they are.
As for me, I have a few issues with some of these statements mentioned above, mentioned in books and by the ARRL:
Under Higher Gain, the part about diminshing returns with more elements. So as you get past 5 or 6 elements, each element does not contribute any extra gain. So what?? How many people of HF have more then a 6 element monoband beam antenna? Me ... I'll take any extra gain I can get. First off for both Yagis & Quads the gain increase diminishes after about 5 elements, this is true of both antennas, however the Quad will always have more gain then the Yagi with same # of elements at the same boom lenght.
Under Disadvantages: The bandwidth of the antenna ; with computer software today can be made as wide or a sharp as you want, yes it does effect gain somewhat, but Eznec models have shown this to be minimal on the order of tenths of a DB, not anywhere near 1 DB gain.
Under Advantages: Its easier to Build a Multiband Cubical Quad then a Multiband Yagi.........NO it isn't...this is just wrong. its more difficult for sure.
Under Disadvantages: The maintenance issue here on Wikipedia & the ARRL has been glossed over. The Cubical Quad does have maintenance issues. The wires get lots of attention from birds ( like birds sometimes hitting them at 30 mph ) goodbye wire. But more importantly for decades ICE and ICE Storms was the downfall of the Cubical Quad. This is still true, this combined with high winds ( a northeaster ) can make a Cubical Quad resemble a ball of Christmas lights that you used from last year pretty quickly. This has been addressed by Cubex and other Cubical Quad manufacturers, but mother nature is never completely tamed. Years ago the quad spreaders were made from Bamboo, if you can believe that, now much stronger fiberglass spreaders, will get you through most winters.
I also think, whats not mentioned is the cubical quad antenna dimensions .....the Cubical Quad is a BIG ANTENNA. As mentioned 3 dimensional but more importantly BIG. After all you are using double the size elements as a full size Yagi! And it will be a struggle to get it up and down cleanly every time you need to do maintenance. Although there is a product on the market now called "Quad Lock" which can help greatly with bringing the antenna up and down. I have the standard in the ball park cubical quad antenna formula link below
Ok Yagi owners, see I bashed it a little. You guys happy? No. Okay Well then your not gonna like this either:
I am a packrat, meaning I collect things I'm interested in to a fault. Its a personality trait I litterally have a tough time managing. So one of the things I have collected over the years as relates to this hobby is magazines and magazine articles and books. So as you are already thinking, I have collected virtually ever piece of written information I have ever seen on the Cubical Quad, starting with the QuadFather of Authors. The extremely brilliant Bill Orr. More on him in a minute
Ok back to Clarence Moore for a bit, after his invention:
Well Clarence Moore went on to found International Radio and Electronics Corporation (IREC) in Elkhart, Indiana which was renamed Crown International in the 1960s at the suggestion of his wife Ruby. Crown International manufactured electronic devices including power amplifiers. Clarence armed with his new quad antenna invention started entering dx contests. Clarence quickly got the attention of Lew McCoy a very Big Gun back in the 1960's. Lew was a "wide spaced" Yagi guy (typical of the times). Well Clarence and his new antenna toy, the Cubical Quad, was stealing all of the dx from Lew McCoy and his dx buddies, even though they were using 4 element Yagi's while Clarence was only using a 2 element Quad. Since Lew only lived 100 miles away from Clarence he and his buddies drove up there to see what was going on. It was then he then realized the superiority of the Quad after seeing is believing and using Clarence's radio equipment and talking with him. Lew McCoy then went to work as a technical advisor to the ARRL. Although he reported that the ARRL wasn't as enthusiastic about the Quad as he was (Somethings never change). Even though Lew stated to them emphatically that the Quad had 1.8 Db gain over a 1/2 wave dipole, and they should consider doing more articles about it. As he was employed by the ARRL occasionally his job was to monitor foreign broadcasts, he did this with another amateur operator there who used a comparably sized boom length Yagi. Over a two year period and Thousands of stations monitored, 100% of the time the Quad heard the stations louder and first and later then the Yagi. If you would like to see this for your own eyes, pick up Lew McCoys excellent antenna book "Lew McCoy on Antennas" it was written not too long ago, and has great real world info and stories in it.
The story about Bill Orr "All about Cubical Quads" and the Cubical Quad basically repeats a similar story of that of Lew McCoy as he was also Big Gun and a ARRL technical contributor. If you have never heard of Bill Orr or read any of his books you are really missing alot of good information. You need to buy any one of his antenna books now, he's a very good writer, everything is made very simple and he's quite funny, even funnier then me. He has written a very famous book about cubical quads that helped popularize them throughout the U.S. Other Big Guns such as George McCarthy W6SUN "More about Cubical Quads"and John Koszeghy K2OB "The High performance Cubical Quad Antenna", and Big Big Gun Bob Haviland W4MB "The Quad Antenna" have also written good books about Cubical Quads and their advantages and construction.
If you think this is older irrelevant information then I think you should listen to L.B. Cebik W4RNL (sk) he is the father of Eznec modeling and wrote 3 books about the Cubical Quad as well as thousands of online articles about other antennas. But his actual physical books were about Quads. Having spoken to Larry Cebik many times before he passed, he is most responsible for the widespread use of Eznec (I learned from him). rest in peace L.B. Lets look at some of his discoveries regarding the age old question of Cubical Quads versus Yagi. Here is the short version of his fantastic antenna software work , with some gain graphs.
You tell me, 3 element quad versus 3 element yagi same boom length! This is from L.B. Cebik the master of EZnec software and design.
From L.B. Cebik...2 element Quad versus 2 & 3 element Yagi's with longer boom lengths then the Quad.
5 element 45 foot boom length Hi Gain Yagi (blue) versus 40 ft & 60 ft boom length UNOPTIMIZED Cubical Quads 20 meters.
Want more? Well there have been over 50 articles written about Quads in CQ, 73, QST, Amateur Radio magazines over the years (I know I'm a packrat and have them all). Out of all the articles comparing a Cubical Quad to a Yagi in performance there is only ONE Article where the author choose to pick having a Yagi over the Quad. ONE. Whats not highlighted is the fact that in that article the Yagi had a 83% longer boom length then the Quad. 83% !!!! and it was a 5 element Yagi versus a 4 element Quad.
So if you need more punishment, you can check out a couple of these articles. There are dozens more just like them. All with the same conclusion. Cubical Quads beat Yagi's with the same boom length rather easily.
http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/qsl-antenna-comparison.htm
https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/antennas-propagation/cubical-quad-antenna/quad-beam-antenna-reflector-director.php
http://ncjweb.com/features/janfeb08feat.pdf
http://www.nn4zz.com/quadlock.htm#Quad_antennas_--_Pros_and_Cons
https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/antennas-propagation/cubical-quad-antenna/quad-basics.php
http://www.rfcafe.com/references/qst/yagi-vs-quad-october-1966-qst.htm
(this is the one article where the author wasn't sure what to pick, but picked the Yagi, you decide looking at his own results if he made the right decision.)
For a very good detailed technical description of how a Cubical Quad actually works please go here: https://vu2nsb.com/antenna/cubical-quads-delta-loops/
Sorry, I'm too lazy to rewrite the above article here. Its a very good accurate description, I suggest you read it at some time.
BTW, as a side note Cubical Quad antennas were used during operation Desert Storm, because the Yagi's could not hear anything due to charged sand particles during sand storms. The quads were quiet.
There is one other measure of Antenna Gain that nobody ever really talks about, especially if your a Never-Quad ...Yagi Antenna guy. That's capture area or effective area of the antenna. This is NOT the size of the antenna. Since a cubical quad loop is twice the size of a yagi dipole, you would think it has twice the capture area. That is incorrect. The capture area is actually the radiation pattern of the antenna due to its configuration, size AND Directivity. Where am I going with this? Well it turns out a full wavelength quad loop has 30% more capture area then a 1/2 wave yagi dipole. 30% !! This is just Hertz law (yes that Mr. Hertz) and has nothing to do with any DB gain manufacturer hype or someone being partial to a quad antenna instead of a yagi. The Cubical Quad has 30% more capture area! Period. It's Not disputable. So can a Quad antenna really hear those signals better then a Yagi? Well according to the the mathematical laws of electromagnetic radiation...about 30% better. Again why? because it has 30% more capture area. So imagine if you could hear those weak just above the noise signals 30% better! Do you think that would make a difference? Of Course it would. This also applies to transmitting gain. Would you like your Yagi to have 30% more transmitting db gain? Switch to a Cubical Quad and you will. If you kept the same antenna you have now and you bought a ham radio in 2005 lets say for $900 and now you swapped it for a $15,000....2019 or 2020 model, do you think you would hear the signals 30% better then before?? You wouldn't. Would it be better yes, 30% better NO. The switch from a Yagi to a Cubical Quad..... 30% better. You decide.
To put this into better perspective: If you have a 4 element cubical quad on 10 meters with a boom length of 15 feet. You would need a yagi with a boom length of just over 20 feet to roughly equal the performance of the cubical quad. I personally have made two optimized antennas these exact sizes on 10 meters and compared them. And the Quad was still slightly higher in gain then the yagi and heard signals much better. The only difference was the Yagi was a 5 element low noise commercially made optimized antenna, and the Quad was a 4 element home made antenna. Both at the same height above ground, at the same location using the same coax.
Now imagine this on 20 meters where you could put up either a 4 element commercially made cubical quad with a boom length of 24 feet, or to make a yagi with the same performance you'd have to have a yagi with over a 40 FOOT BOOM LENGTH !! See the difference now?? What would you rather put up?
Ok so why doesn't everybody use them? :
Well as I said earlier there are times you would not use a Cubical Quad. Almost all of these reasons relate to mechanical reasons.
#1. You live in a zone where there are Big Ice storms during the winter or similar bad weather events ( Tornadoes, Hurricanes ) are frequent at your particular location.
#2. You abhor maintenance, which you may need one day on your Quad. If you want low maintenance buy a simple trapped tri-bander . Any of them, they'll last for 20 years +.
#3.You are a Super Station and stackin' antennas , the stacking distance frankly between 10-20 meter Cubical Quads is just too large. This is certainly very true, that and the maintenance and no more tower room for any other antennas kill the Cubical Quad for any Super Stations.
#4. You are afraid of what your wife and or neighbors would think. (how dare you try to fly a wire box kite in your backyard)
#5. Cubical quad antenna construction you have to build it yourself, even though it comes as a complete color coded kit, thats just too difficult for you. (very true in these days of disposable everything). Congratulations your either a millennial or an old couch potato.
#6. You had a Quad and loved it, but now you are just too old to maintain it. ( I have talked to 100's of people and this is their response). In fact no one I have ever talked to who actually had a Cubical Quad, ever said a bad word about the performance, in fact they all loved the performance. I'm glad you at least had one. Clarence Moore thanks you.
#7. You would have to have real Friends at your house to help you get it up. ( sorry I can't help you with that ).
A word about Forums and the Cubical Quad Antenna in particular: Forums remind me alot of CB radio back in the day when I was a kid. You could litterally say anything on CB radio and nobody could really verify your existance. You could be the toughest kid in the town, the smartest kid in the town, the richest kid, etc, etc. Whatever you wanted to say no one could challenge you. You could with a few speech lessons come off as an expert of knowledge. Sound familiar?
Well on the amateur radio forums there are some people who are particularily good at this. They will have a comment about anything and everything, somehow trying to boost their ego, through todays social media. There is even a couple of super forum experts, that the printed words"Cubical Quad" will get an immediate response from them, as if they have it on their saved forum word searched list. (probably do somehow). These experts who can be very asute in most other matters of antennas and radios, will quickly pounce on you if you mention the word "Quad" as if they know all about them, bringing up techno jargon and using words no one has ever seen, explaining why the Quad is no good, etc, etc. They will bring up lots of experience they have had with them, and yet can offer no pictures of any Quads they have actually built. BTW.. no one that I know of in 23 years has ever heard them on the air! Maybe they lost out to a big Quad one day on the air many years ago, who knows what the issue is?? When you’ve gone to school for years, read hundreds of books, and talked to “experts” about a subject, there’s a tendency to believe that you can learn everything you possibly need to know about something without ever doing it. Unfortunately, there are some things in life you can just never understand without personally experiencing them. So I prefer to get my information from people I know, whom I am sure have actually built lots of antennas as well as some REAL Hands-on cubical quad EXPERTS who have written actual published books about them.
But thats just me. So Forum Beware.
So I summary I would say this:
You are not afraid to build and test and make adjustments to your antenna
You don't live near the North Pole, or someplace with similar rotten weather most days
If you can only put up one antenna at your location, and you are primarily interested in 10 - 20 meter HF
You always wanted to be the Big Gun at least in your surrounding area and break pile-ups on 20 meters without using 1000+ watts
In building dozens of homebrew Cubical Quad Antennas over the years, I personally have noticed a couple of things. They do have more db gain then a comparable Yagi but its on the order of about 1.5 db gain by most recent estimates. They do seem to hear better then comparable Yagis, again probably on the order of about 1.5 db unless there is a storm nearby and then the difference can be 8 db difference or more. This is against todays computer designed Yagi's. Years ago those estimates of Cubical Quad's 2+ Higher DB Gain were probably accurate against simple wide spaced gamma matched Yagi's. Is 1.5 db gain or slightly more worth it? Again this is up to you.
There is one place on HF where I believe where the Cubical Quad has a big advantage over the Yagi. It's 10 meters. Why? First off a cubical quad antenna on 10 meters is a manageable size, its actually smaller height wise and lighter then a yagi antenna. AND almost everyone on 10 meters uses vertical polarization. For both local conversation and DX. The DX comes in just fine whether you are Vertical or Horizontally polarized, as it is constantly switching polarizations as it hits your antenna, no matter what kind of antenna you are recieving on. With a yagi antenna you would litterally have to turn the antenna from vertical to a horizontal position if you wanted to switch polarizations, and back again to get vertical polarization for local conversations (thats not happening). The Cubical Quad, you do not have to physically move it, you just feed it in a different spot in the loop, and Wala ! You now have horizontal polarization if you want it. The other characteristic usually not mentioned about Cubical Quads, is that they tend to recieve in both Horizontal and Vertical Polarizations somewhat, no matter what polarization you have fed it with to set your outgoing transmitting signal. In a DX receiving situation this means less fade between highs and lows of the incoming signal. This does not mean if you fed it for Vertical polarization that it will recieve horizontal just as well...no. But you will certainly be able to recieve a better cross-polarized signal then if you had a yagi antenna in the wrong polarization. This also helps on 10 meters, because there are also alot of guys with wire antennas, which for the most part are horizontal. They use them on the other bands, while their main antenna is a vertical. So when you have a cubical quad on 10 meters you are covering both polarities with decent recieve results without changing or moving your antenna.
If you really want to be slick, you can feed a cubical quad in both horizontal and vertical polarizations at the same time, using a switch box to change from one to another. Try that on any other antenna! Its not possible. You can even get crazy and use two driven elements spaced within 3 inches of one another, one fed vertically and one fed horizontally! Your SWR will be fine and you'll have both polarizations at the same time!! The cubical quad is quite a versatile antenna.
My opinion is if you can only put up ONE antenna at your location, for one band or for multibands, you will certainly not be disappointed in the performance of a cubical quad antenna.
Cubical Quad Parts and Assembly instructions
Basic Cubical Quad Build Steps, thanks to W3DF, with pictures
Great Cubical Quad Building Page, Make that Quad Last Forever.
Another fantastic 2 element cubical quad page comes from John EI7BA
The fantastic links above has saved me at least 20 paragraphs of droning on about quads, please read them.
The links below are if you would like to buy a ready made Cubical Quad. All good vendors, I have bought and used many of them.
My preferred Vendor is Cubex Quads right here in the U.S. It is now under new ownership.
The Ultimate test of an Ham Radio Antenna, is not whether they can hear you, but whether you can hear them.
With a Cubical Quad Antenna, you will most likely be able to hear them better then any other HF Antenna.
Last Updated: