Wow a video with actual DATA! Love it!!! Was interesting to see how much of an improvement the radial caused. We often hear it helps, but often do not see empirical data to support it!

I love your empirical testing methods. The field strength measurements were especially interesting. The tiger tail definitely gives the most bang for the buck.

Your information is invaluable and your testing is unapologetic. I hope to see more antennas tested like this in the future. Smiley makes a good product.

Hi Brett. Thankf for all the hard work in producuing this one. Stay safe ATB. Nigel

that tiger tail really makes a difference... thanks for the video sir

Fantastic experiments and well thought out. Id bet the manufacturers of some of those haven’t done the depth on their own product you’ve provided here for us.

Great video. It's hard enough to find content on this topic that includes real world testing, but you went the extra mile with your procedures and data collection. This is anecdotal but I find that smiley's "stubby" antennas for VHF perform almost as well as one of their full size antennas, especially on the receive side of things.

If I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes I wouldn’t believe the tiger tail would work as well as it does. This is old school ham radio, experiment and see what you get. Thanks for sharing, I bet this was a lot of work. 73 bud!

Excellent video brett!

Recently came across your channel, love the content.

Very detailed. Thanks.

You've got me sold! Where can I buy a chassy simulator?

You should run all the same tests on UHF if you can. Many of the aftermarket antennas are optimized for VHF so the UHF performance can vary widely vs stock.

greetings! you mention the use of a radio chassis simulator. How can one make one? using my nanoVNA to portable antennas is a real hassle, getting much different results touching or not the device. Regards...

Interesting tests. Sorry, but I have to add a however ... As I think you mentioned, as an important function that I rarely hear any credence given to is that the human body is a factor in the design of portable radios, i.e., the body is part of the antenna system, providing the “other half” of the 1/4-wave antenna. At about 12:35, you discuss the data on your chart. I question the real world application of this data as for each measurement - including using your Nano VNA chassis simulator - the in-circuit human body element is missing. I would expect an objective measurements to be made with a human holding the min-spectrum analyzer. To me, using anything else to collect data yields results of limited value. Also, a critical piece missing: I would like to see your test range. I see potential interference/influence from the wire fencing and vegetation behind you. You probably know that in the electronics world where antennas are manufactured, testing is done with signal source and receiver in either RF anechoic chambers or free space. In your situation, an open field with a helper holding the signal source under test would have served the purpose.