Other SOTA sites: SOTAwatch | SOTA Home | Database | Summits | Video | Photos | Shop | Mapping | FAQs | Facebook | Contact SOTA

Inverted Vee Linked Dipole vs. Endfed Antenna

Hello Sota community, I use an Inverted V Linked Dipole for 20m and 40m to activate Sota. However, at some Summits there is no possibility to set up an inverted V with 10m leg length and central suspension. (just in the forest). That’s why I’m currently thinking about end-fed antennas for Sota. I am interested in your experience in comparing an inverted V dipole and an end-fed antenna. I am assuming that the gain and the beam angle would be better for Sota operation with an inverted V than with an end-fed antenna? How much is the difference approximately.

Thank you for your answers Michael, DC8YZ

Hallo Sota Gemeinde,

ich verwende zum Sota Aktivieren einen Inverted V Linked Dipol for 20m und 40m.

Allerginds gibt es bei einigen Summits nicht die Möglichkeit einen Inverted V mit jeweils 10m Schenkellänge und Mittenaufhängung aufzubauen. (gerade im Wald).

Deswegen mache ich mir aktuell Gedanken über endgespeiste Antennen für Sota. Mich interessieren eure Erfahrungswerte im Vergleich zwischen einem Inverted V Dipole und einer endgespeisten Antenne.

Ich gehe davon aus, dass der Gewinn und der Abstrahlwinkel gerade für Sota Betrieb bei einem Inverted V besser wäre wie bei einer endgespeisten Antenne?

Wie hoch ist ungefähr der Unterschied.

Vielen Dank für eure Antworten

Michael, DC8YZ


Depends on too many variables.

I never used a dipole for SOTA activating and I’ve used verticals, endfed sloper, endfed inverted vee and endfed inverted L.
Most of the times I use endfed sloper because it’s much simpler and easy to setup. The results I’ve got with that are fantastic and I really doubt I’d get any better with a dipole. What I’m sure is that carrying a dipole would be heavier and setting up a dipole would be a bit more complex and time consuming than the endfed sloper.
My preference is very clear: endfed sloper.



Phew! This question has come a lot [on this reflector and elsewhere]. I have both but more often take a EFHW for convenience despite slightly less performance. I’ve written in more detail on EFHW vs linked dipoles here …

Just to complicate the story nowadays I mainly take my Chameleon MPAS Lite vertical which performs well on 10MHz-50MHz compared to my EFHWs or linked dipoles [and in A vs B tests, sometimes better - vertical vs horizontal polarization better for a particular radio path?] and has a smaller footprint (good for busy summits) and is quicker to erect and pack away (good for winter weather).

Regarding comparison of weight:

There’s not much difference in rucksack volume between EFHW and linked dipole assuming same length of coax feeder same fibreglass pole (though I often use shorter pole with the EFHW). The vertical takes more rucksack space.

73 Andy


But you aware of its limitations and don’t expect that antenna to perform miracles or to outperform full size antennas. You do expect it to enable you to have plenty of radio fun from a summit. It does that well and has many operational benefits too such as quick deployment etc.

The antenna you have is better than the antenna you don’t have. The corollary of that is the antenna you can deploy on a summit is better than the antenna you cannot deploy.


Too true. It’s funny, until recently I was a dyed-in-the-wool horizontal wire antenna kind of guy (You can recognize them!). But reading activation reports where others wrote about the pros and cons of HF verticals, convinced me to hint to my wife about one as a birthday present.

But it’s nice to have choices. Although, more often than not, I take the ‘new toy’ [the MPAS], for a change last month, I took the 60/40/30/20 linked dipole up Nine Standards Rigg [where as I’m sure you know Andy there’s plenty of space and no one else around] and that was good fun.

1 Like

I’ll just amplify what was said.

I use both an EFHW cut for 40m (works well also on 20m and 15m without a tuner) or a linked 20/40/60 dipole depending on the summit. Like Guru says, the EFHW is much easier to use and lighter. It is my go-to for longer approaches. That said, the SOTAbeams linked dipole does get better results, mainly because the design gets the ends higher off the ground better than my self-created EFHW implementation.

You can’t go wrong with either, but the EFHW wins out on weight and simplicity.


HAllo Michael

Antenna topics always makes an entertaining thread… :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

I understand your question more as: which antenna for which conditions.

In general, the question is first to clarify whether an adapted antenna is necessary, or there is an antenna tuner that also adapts a lightning rod as with HB9BIN.

In dense forests (of which some summits consist) I simply push a wire up the telescopic mast and lay it at a branch. A counterweight on the ground is quickly laid out.

In light forests you can also pull up a horizontal wire with a cord that you throw over a branch.

In open areas you can set up antenna areas with your telescopic mast. (As you did at your foto.)

In rocky alpine areas where you don’t like to carry so much, you can also simply hold the wire with your hiking poles.

Think about which antenna(s) to take with you up the mountain when you’re preparing. I recommend just trying it out beforehand.

73 Armin


I’m a huge fan of link dipoles, I have one that often comes up the easy hills. Portable link dipole | VK3ZPF Ham Radio Blog

For more difficult or longer walks I have recently added a VK3YE inverted L and L match tuner to my kit. https://youtu.be/JwVuvu-C30c

I think the inverted vee link dipole works best however the inverted L is smaller and lighter to carry, easier to set up and much easier to change bands.

The inverted L is for QRP while the link dipole is happy at 100 Watts on those hills where travel distance allows the bigger rigs and batteries to be carried.


I didn’t see a mention of my most recent favorite antenna, and that is a linked EFHW. My current version is a 20/30 but I’ll probably end up adding a section for 40 meters at some point. I have a 92:1 unun (that’s what it turned out to be after I did real world adjustments to the turns on the toroid) at the radio end and it attaches to the radio with a 6" piece of coax. I get about 1:1 SWR on 20 and 30 and I can easily tune in the harmonics of those, but my main goal was to have an antenna for my MTR-3b that didn’t need a tuner.