New commercial antennas focused on the 14-51 range? - Page 5 - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums

be236 · 2011-10-14, 01:58 AM

Wow, this:

**
Fracarro BLU920F uses simple, Triangular Outline Bowties in a plastic carrier:
http://www.fracarro.com/internationa...logo/25-26.pdf
BLU920F is slighty longer (95-in vs 90-in) and slightly higher Gain than 91XG,
and is now available via Amazon from AbilityHDTV (Maine, USA):
http://****************/BLU920F-CH14.../dp/B001BAWALK
**

Looked at its spec sheet and it does have like 1-2 dB gain across UHF over the 91XG. Has anyone got one to compare or do a shoot-out with 91XG yet?

300ohm · 2011-10-14, 06:13 AM

Depending on how you count elements, looks like about the same element count. It also needs rescaling.

Gain chart in dBi:

be236 · 2011-10-14, 12:09 PM

What do you mean "needs rescaling?"

That chart, I wonder if that is NET or RAW gain? Guessing since it's marketing literature, probably raw gain.

That chart shows at about channel 17, gain of 14 dBi.

While for 91XG raw gain on ch 17, is gain of about 12.5dBi? So this antenna is about 1.5dB better than 91XG across UHF gain?!

holl_ands · 2011-10-14, 12:56 PM

Fracarro BLU920F isn't optimized for OUR New UHF Band....it would
need to be LARGER by a Rescale Factor = 810/698 = 1.6.

Probably Raw Gain....same as every other antenna manu. specs....
Yes, it has a longer Boom and hence higher Gain specs than 91XG.

Fracarro specs also indicate Return Loss of 18 dB....which is 1.3 SWR.
But again we don't know if this is a Minimum....or a Maximum....or "Typical"....

Mark_OB1 · 2011-10-24, 08:52 AM

holl_ands wrote:

> Fracarro BLU920F isn't optimized for OUR New UHF Band....it would need to be LARGER by a Rescale Factor = 810/698 = 1.6. <

I think you dropped a 1 there. I.e., scaling = 1.16...

2011-10-14, 06:13 AM	#62
300ohm Veteran Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Somewhere in Delaware on the flat side Posts: 7,006	Depending on how you count elements, looks like about the same element count. It also needs rescaling. Gain chart in dBi: __________________ My builds/plans (not the latest models) are located here.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

2011-10-14, 01:58 AM	#61
be236 Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Everett, WA Posts: 406	Wow, this: Fracarro BLU920F uses simple, Triangular Outline Bowties in a plastic carrier: http://www.fracarro.com/internationa...logo/25-26.pdf BLU920F is slighty longer (95-in vs 90-in) and slightly higher Gain than 91XG, and is now available via Amazon from AbilityHDTV (Maine, USA): http://************/BLU920F-CH14.../dp/B001BAWALK Looked at its spec sheet and it does have like 1-2 dB gain across UHF over the 91XG. Has anyone got one to compare or do a shoot-out with 91XG yet?

2011-10-14, 12:09 PM	#63
be236 Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Everett, WA Posts: 406	What do you mean "needs rescaling?" That chart, I wonder if that is NET or RAW gain? Guessing since it's marketing literature, probably raw gain. That chart shows at about channel 17, gain of 14 dBi. While for 91XG raw gain on ch 17, is gain of about 12.5dBi? So this antenna is about 1.5dB better than 91XG across UHF gain?!

2011-10-14, 12:56 PM	#64
holl_ands Veteran Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 1,593	Fracarro BLU920F isn't optimized for OUR New UHF Band....it would need to be LARGER by a Rescale Factor = 810/698 = 1.6. Probably Raw Gain....same as every other antenna manu. specs.... Yes, it has a longer Boom and hence higher Gain specs than 91XG. Fracarro specs also indicate Return Loss of 18 dB....which is 1.3 SWR. But again we don't know if this is a Minimum....or a Maximum....or "Typical"....

2011-10-24, 08:52 AM	#65
Mark_OB1 Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: SW Michigan, http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d1dda0093f11cf4 Posts: 31	holl_ands wrote: > Fracarro BLU920F isn't optimized for OUR New UHF Band....it would need to be LARGER by a Rescale Factor = 810/698 = 1.6. < I think you dropped a 1 there. I.e., scaling = 1.16...