Amateur Radio StationUSA · AF4OZ
AF4OZAmateur Radio

Antennas · October 2026 · Personal experience

DX Commander Antennas in the Tennessee Valley

A personal blog post on building the Classic and finding the right antenna for the location

Introduction

One of my first adventures in building more complicated antennas led me to the DX Commander family. What began as a learning project gradually became quite a collection: I now own the Rapide 2, Classic 2, Venture, and Expedition. Apparently, one antenna was only the opening act.

This blog post explores a lesson that keeps antenna experimentation interesting: an antenna that performs beautifully at one location may face a very different set of challenges somewhere else.

My home station in the Tennessee Valley makes a particularly interesting test site. Picture a bowl, with the Cumberland Plateau on one side and mountains on the other. Lovely scenery, certainly—but a challenging setting for the low-angle signals I would like to send toward distant stations.

Then there is the soil. In my experience, the ground conductivity here is exceptionally poor. Add residential RF noise, and my antenna experiments have plenty to keep them interesting.

The aim is to describe what has worked for me, what has not, and how the installation may help explain the difference. Published engineering references provide context; my operating observations remain observations of this particular station.

← Back to the blog

Meet the DX Commander family

Ruff drawings of four DX Commander models: Rapide, Classic, Venture, and Expedition, each shown with wire elements, a support pole, radial wires, and a Tennessee Bluetick Coonhound.
Figure 1. Ruff drawings of the different models.

The technical starting point

The DX Commander is essentially a multiband fan vertical: several wire radiating elements share a common feed point and interact electrically with one another. A telescoping support pole and spreaders hold the wires in position, with a radial system at the base. That interaction makes it important to follow the manufacturer’s dimensions, element spacing, and assembly instructions closely, then tune the antenna according to the guide for its installed configuration. [2], [3]

Soil conductivity is an electrical property, not simply a description of how difficult the ground is to dig. ITU guidance describes its dependence on factors including moisture, temperature, soil composition, and frequency. A site-specific value needs measurement or an appropriate model. [4]

Terrain can affect propagation through mechanisms including diffraction; a mountain is not simply an impenetrable wall. Determining its effect at my station would require the actual terrain profile and operating geometry. [5]

Building and operating the Classic at home

For my home station, I chose the DX Commander Classic: an antenna I could put up, take down, and set up again without turning every installation into a major expedition. During construction, I found the supplied element measurements generally satisfactory. The interesting part began when I added the 30-meter wire.

My installation uses 32 ground radials, each approximately six meters long. During setup, I repeatedly noticed that adding the 30-meter element brought a substantially higher SWR on 20 meters. Since I use 30 meters infrequently, I made a practical choice: remove that element and favor the band I use more often. My resulting configuration covers the installed bands between 40 and 10 meters, excluding 30 meters.

That was my solution for this installation. It does not establish why the interaction occurred or whether another installation would behave the same way.

A comparison with a station in Chile

For regional contacts, the Classic has performed reasonably well at my home station. My experience with DX has been less encouraging. One contact with a station in Chile brought the difference into sharp focus.

The operator was calling CQ, and my initial calls using the DX Commander received no response. When I switched to my MyAntennas 2 kW end-fed half-wave antenna for 75 through 10 meters, he heard me and reported a signal of approximately S6–S7. (Its feed point is approximately 15 feet above ground, and the wire rises nearly vertically to more than 135 feet up in a tree, curving in a bow-shaped configuration.) Switching back to the DX Commander, I was again inaudible to him.

That was an eye-opening comparison, but it was an informal A/B test during one contact. It showed a substantial practical difference between the two antenna systems on that occasion; it did not establish the cause or measure a precise gain difference. The Chilean operator was also using low power. I do not know what type of antenna he was using on his end.

Taking the antennas into the field

My experience with the Expedition and Venture has been more encouraging during portable operation. Both have performed more than adequately for the operating I have done with them. Those outings have not provided enough consistent DX comparisons for me to make a firm judgment about their long-distance performance. For now, they have served me well in the field.

Matching the antenna to the location

At my home station, getting antennas higher has consistently improved my operating results. Elevated hex beams, dipoles, and doublets have given me the best DX performance.

The ground-mounted DX Commander Classic has had a tougher time at my home station. Poor soil conductivity, the ground-level installation, surrounding mountains, nearby obstacles, and residential RF noise are all on my list of suspects. Noise makes listening harder; the other site conditions may affect how the signal gets out. I have not pinned down each suspect’s share of the mischief, but together they give this installation plenty to contend with.

A Tennessee Bluetick Coonhound beside a DX Commander vertical in a valley, looking toward the Cumberland Plateau and Appalachian Mountains as a low-angle signal bounces back.
Figure 2. Our Bluetick offers an opinion.

The moral

I am not condemning the DX Commander. Other operators report good results with these antennas, and my own portable experiences have been positive. The Classic simply has not delivered the DX performance I want at my home location.

Technical literature lends some support to my observations: research shows that terrain and soil properties can significantly influence HF vertical antenna patterns. That does not prove the cause of my results, but it gives my suspicions some engineering footing.

For readers who enjoy digging into the details—without digging another radial trench—the peer-reviewed article by J. K. Breakall and colleagues, “The Modeling and Measurement of HF Antenna Skywave Radiation Patterns in Irregular Terrain,” is worth reading. It appeared in IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, volume 42, number 7, pages 936–945, July 1994. [6]

I still find the Classic quite useful for regional contacts. One of its biggest conveniences, once properly adjusted, is being able to switch among my configured bands without retuning the antenna or using an antenna tuner within the frequency ranges where the SWR is acceptable. That makes it handy for regional contests and other regional operating activities. There is plenty of enjoyment to be had closer to home, even when distant DX is playing hard to get.

Building these antennas has also been an informative and thoroughly enjoyable experience. In fact, the pleasure of assembling and testing them is one reason I bought several models in the DX Commander family. Each build gave me something to learn and something to try. They are educational, certainly—but they are also fun.

Find an antenna system that works for you, your terrain, and your operating conditions. Experiment, compare, and let your results guide the choice. There is no magic antenna—even if the dog keeps looking for one.

Technical references

Manufacturer documents support construction details. ITU recommendations provide engineering context, and the historical research paper below provides further reading on ground systems. None establishes the cause of the performance difference at this station.

  1. ARRL — RF Exposure guidance; ARRL RF Exposure Calculator.
  2. DX Commander — Unified Antenna Kit User Guide, May 2024, version 1.31
  3. DX Commander — POTA Venture Antenna Kit User Guide, April 2025
  4. ITU-R P.527-6 — Electrical characteristics of the surface of the Earth
  5. ITU-R P.526 — Propagation by diffraction
  6. Breakall, J. K., Young, J. S., Hagn, G. H., Adler, R. W., Faust, D. L., and Werner, D. H. (1994). “The Modeling and Measurement of HF Antenna Skywave Radiation Patterns in Irregular Terrain.” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 42(7), 936–945. https://doi.org/10.1109/8.299595

Further research reading: G. H. Brown, R. F. Lewis, and J. Epstein, “Ground Systems as a Factor in Antenna Efficiency,” Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engineers, 1937. Historical broadcast-frequency research; its numerical results should not be transferred directly to this HF installation. Research paper DOI