Activation Report: Radioddity HF-010 Antenna Field Test

 

Generic Vertical vs. Radioddity HF-010 at Sawgrass Lake Park (US-6700)

 

Mode: FT8 · Band: 20m · Radio: Xiegu X6200 · Power: 5W · Park: US-6700 · 4 Activations

I spent the better part of two weeks running the same park, same radio, same band, and same mode with two different antenna setups to see what the numbers actually say. Four activations at Sawgrass Lake Park (US-6700) in St. Petersburg. Two with my existing generic vertical. Two with the new Radioddity HF-010. Here's everything.

 

The Setup

 

Everything except the antenna was identical across all four activations — Xiegu X6200 at 5 watts, DigiPi running WSJT-X, 20 meters FT8, same park, same operator.

Generic 18.3ft Vertical — telescoping vertical, ¼ wave on 20m, JPC-12 ground plate with 8×17ft radials, RG-8X coax with ferrite beads on each end, auto-tuned. Setup takes about 10–15 minutes once all the radials are laid out.

Radioddity HF-010 — 10-band portable HF antenna, ground spike and tripod mount, 3 supplied radials on individual spools, RG-58A/U coax with built-in 5-turn choke straight to the radio. Setup takes 2–3 minutes.

Two different approaches to a field antenna. Let's look at what happened on the air.

 

The Four Activations

 

A few things jump out immediately. The April 19 activation looks like an outlier at 18.2 QSOs per hour — and it is, but not because of the antenna. That session ran from 18:52–20:11Z, which is late afternoon Eastern time — historically the best 20m propagation window from Florida. Every other activation ran midday UTC. Rate comparisons between sessions need that context.

The May 5 activation with the generic vertical had genuinely rough band conditions. Zero contacts came back with a positive RST received report. That's not the antenna's fault — it was just a tough day on 20m.

 

Signal Reports — How Well Did Each Antenna Get Out?

 

RST received is the number that matters for outgoing signal performance — it's what the other station reports hearing from you.

Generic Vertical (combined both days):

• Average RST Received: -7.7 dB
• Positive reports (≥ 0 dB): 5 out of 37 contacts (14%)
• Best received report: +24 dB (KC9FOC on Apr 19)
• Worst: -24 dB

Radioddity HF-010 (combined both days):

• Average RST Received: -7.4 dB
• Positive reports (≥ 0 dB): 10 out of 53 contacts (19%)
• Best received report: +8 dB (WA4VOC on May 7)
• Worst: -21 dB

The averages are nearly identical — -7.7 vs. -7.4 dB. On positive report rate the HF-010 edges out the generic vertical at 19% vs. 14%. For an antenna with fewer radials, no separate ferrite beads, and a lighter coax, matching the old setup on signal reports is a result worth noting.

RST sent averages were also similar: generic vertical -12.0 dB avg, HF-010 -11.7 dB avg. No meaningful difference in how well I heard the other stations.

 

A Note on HF-010 Assembly

 

Day 1 of the HF-010 test (May 6) I assembled the antenna incorrectly — loading coil at the base, then extensions on top, then the whip. That is backwards. The correct order is: antenna base → both extensions → loading coil → telescoping whip.

The difference in results was significant. Day 1 with wrong assembly: 21 QSOs, 15 unique grids, SWR 1.23. Day 2 with correct assembly and radials fine-tuned to the third white marker plus approximately 5 inches per radial: 32 QSOs, 23 unique grids, SWR 1.053. A 52% jump in contacts and 53% jump in unique grids just from assembling it correctly and dialing in the radial length.

The manual's quick-setup target for 20m is the third white marker (3m) on each radial with a rated VSWR of 1.1. Fine-tuning past that mark by about 5 extra inches per wire brought the SWR down to 1.053 — better than the factory spec. Use a NanoVNA if you have one and take the extra minute to dial it in.

Geographic Reach — The Biggest Difference

 

This is where the HF-010 stood out clearly.

The HF-010 reached 32 unique grid squares across its two activations versus 16 for the generic vertical — a 100% improvement. Day 2 alone hit 23 unique grids, more than either generic vertical activation individually.

The furthest contacts were comparable: generic vertical reached W9AV in EN43 (Indiana) at 1,919 km; HF-010 reached W9AV again in EN53 (Indiana) at 1,859 km on May 7. Maximum distances were similar. The difference wasn't in how far the signal went — it was in how consistently it spread across more directions and grid squares.

Variables Worth Knowing

This is a field test, not a lab test. The following affected the results:

Time of day — April 19 ran in the late-afternoon UTC window (18:52–20:11Z), which is generally the best 20m slot from Florida. The HF-010 activations ran midday (12–17Z). The Apr 19 rate advantage is at least partially about when it ran, not just the antenna.

Band conditions — May 5 was rough. That's not the generic vertical underperforming — it's just what 20m looked like that day.

Assembly error — Day 1 HF-010 data reflects incorrect assembly and should be read as a floor, not the antenna's true capability. Day 2 is the number to compare against.

Same antenna for both old sessions — Both April 19 and May 5 used the identical generic vertical setup: same 18.3ft telescoping element, same JPC-12 ground plate, same 8×17ft radials, same RG-8X coax with ferrites, auto-tuned. This makes the old antenna baseline a reliable control group.

Coax and radials — The old vertical ran RG-8X with ferrite beads and 8 radials. The HF-010 ran RG-58A/U with a built-in choke and only 3 radials. The HF-010 held its own despite a theoretically simpler ground system.

What the Numbers Say

The generic vertical and HF-010 produced nearly identical signal reports over 37 and 53 contacts respectively. On pure signal performance they're in the same neighborhood on 20m FT8 at 5 watts.

Where they differ: geographic reach and operational efficiency.

The HF-010 worked twice as many unique grid squares across its two activations. That's a real antenna characteristic, not band condition noise. It also sets up in 2–3 minutes versus 10–15 for the generic vertical with radials — a meaningful difference when you're activating parks on a schedule or have limited time at the site.

On Day 2 with correct assembly and fine-tuned radials the HF-010 hit an SWR of 1.053 — better than the manual's rated 1.1 spec — with only 3 radials and no separate ferrite management.

The full raw data, contact logs, and charts for all four activations are in the PDF report linked below.

Full log for each activation uploaded to pota.app. 73 de W4GGJ

Reprinted From:
https://tavaone.com/blogs/gear-reviews/activation-report-antenna-field-test-generic-vertical-vs-radioddity-hf-010-at-sawgrass-lake-park-us-6700