EFHW 80–10 and the “Space” Argument
(Updated: December 19, 2025)
People keep saying: “I chose an EFHW 80–10 because I don’t have the space for a dipole/doublet/OCF.” That statement only makes sense if “space” quietly gets redefined to mean “feedpoint/support convenience.” If you mean actual wire-length footprint, the comparison is usually being made wrong.
Below are three antenna categories and three realities. Once you separate two-wire systems from end-fed systems with a return path, the “space argument” evaporates.
What “space” actually means (and why people talk past each other)
In practice, “space” can mean wire length you can deploy (the real footprint), or it can mean support/feedpoint logistics (where you can mount the feedpoint and how many high supports you have). EFHW installs often win on logistics. They do not magically win on wire length for 80 m coverage.
Strict OCFD (two-wire system)
A strict off-center-fed dipole is a two-wire radiator: two legs of wire, fed off-center, and the feedline is not supposed to be part of the antenna.
Wire length / “space”
A very common 80–10 OCFD recipe is about 133 ft total (about 40.5 m), split into two unequal legs. That places it in the same yard class as a typical full-size EFHW 80–10 (about 130 ft / 39.6 m, often trimmed into the ~40–41 m class).
Doublet? Same story for wire-length space
Classic “all-band doublet” lengths that aim for strong 80 m performance are frequently in the 130–140 ft (about 40–43 m) class. So “I can’t fit a doublet/dipole but I can fit an EFHW 80–10” is usually about supports/feedpoint convenience, not wire-length reality.
No end-fed counterpoise concept (in the strict model)
In a strict OCFD, there is no intentional third conductor. The job of the balun/choking is to suppress common-mode so the coax does not become an active radiator.
Key correction for forum debates: if your “OCF” behaves like a three-conductor system (long leg + short leg + coax shield), that is no longer the strict OCFD model. It means the feedline is participating because common-mode is not being suppressed strongly enough.
EFHW 80–10 (end-fed half-wave + defined short return section)
An EFHW is end-fed, so it always needs a return path. That return path carries RF current, and any conductor carrying RF current will radiate to some degree. The practical game is not “eliminate return current,” it is confine and control where it flows.
Wire length / “space”
Typical EFHW 80–10 products are around 130 ft (about 39.6 m) of radiator wire. Depending on trimming, you’ll often hear this summarized as “about 131–135 ft (about 40–41 m).”
Return path length commonly “allowed to exist”
A widely used rule of thumb is a counterpoise/return length of about 0.05λ at the lowest band.
(Rule of thumb, not a law of physics. Grounding, mounting, choke performance, and environment change the exact result.)
On 80 m, 0.05 × 80 m ≈ 4 m (about 13 ft).
What the choke is doing in an EFHW installation
The choke is not “making the counterpoise non-radiating.” It is stopping the rest of the coax and the shack wiring from becoming the counterpoise. In other words, it helps keep the inevitable return current concentrated in a short, predictable section (about 13 ft / 4 m on 80 m) instead of letting it spread everywhere.
So yes: even when an EFHW is done well, the return path will radiate a bit. “Done well” simply means that the radiating return is small and controlled.
EFOC29 / EFOCFD (end-fed off-center + intentional radiating coax section to a choke)
This is the category that clears up a lot of confusion, because the “third conductor” is not an accident. It is part of the design.
Wire length / “space”
The EFOC29 family is explicitly a 29 m (about 95 ft) wire with a 4:1 UNUN. If your real limitation is total wire you can physically deploy, this is a genuine wire-length “space saver” compared with a full-size ~40 m (~130 ft) 80 m-class radiator.
But the system footprint includes a longer controlled radiating return section
In this concept, the coax shield/braid is treated as part of the counterpoise, and the choke defines where it stops. The controlled radiating shield section is often specified around 12.2 m (about 40 ft) up to the choke.
This matches the EFOCFD idea very directly: the coax shield begins participating near the transformer, and a 1:1 choke terminates that participation so the coax from there to the shack does not radiate (at least not intentionally).
The clean takeaway: three systems, three different “footprints”
Strict OCFD: two-wire radiator; the feedline is not part of the antenna in the intended model. Wire length is typically ~133 ft (40.5 m) for 80–10 class builds.
EFHW 80–10: ~130 ft (39.6 m) radiator plus a controlled return section commonly targeted around 13 ft (4 m) on 80 m (about 0.05λ), with choking used to keep the rest of the station from becoming the return.
EFOC29 / EFOCFD: shorter radiator at 95 ft (29 m), but an intentionally longer controlled radiating shield/return section to a choke, often around 40 ft (12.2 m).
The one-paragraph myth buster
If someone says “EFHW saves space,” the first question should be which space, because a strict 80–10 OCFD/doublet is typically about 130–133 ft (≈40–41 m) of wire, which is the same wire-length class as a full-size EFHW 80–10 (≈130 ft / 39.6 m), so wire-length footprint is not the differentiator; both EFHW and EFOC/EFOCFD systems also require a return path and that return path will radiate, with the only real difference being whether you confine that radiation to a short section (often around 13 ft / 4 m on 80 m) or deliberately use a longer shield section to a choke (often around 40 ft / 12.2 m), meaning the usual “space win” of an EFHW is really about support and feedpoint logistics rather than needing less wire—and if space is genuinely the limiting factor, the EFOC/EFOCFD actually wins because its dominant radiating element is shorter (≈95 ft / ≈29 m) than that of an EFHW.
Mini-FAQ
- Does an EFHW 80–10 use less wire than an 80–10 OCFD? — Not in the strict comparison. Both are typically in the ~130–133 ft (~40–41 m) class for full-size 80 m coverage.
- So why do people feel EFHW “saves space”? — Because it often saves support and feedpoint logistics: one high support can be enough, and the feedpoint can live at the end near the shack.
- Is a strict OCFD a three-conductor antenna? — In the strict model, no. If the coax is radiating, that is common-mode leakage you are failing to suppress, not the intended OCFD behavior.
- Does an EFHW radiate on the return path? — Yes, to some degree. The practical goal is to keep that return current confined to a short, predictable section and prevent the entire station from becoming the counterpoise.
- What is the real “space saver” category here? — If you truly cannot deploy ~130 ft (~40 m) of wire, a shorter radiator class like ~95 ft (~29 m) is the honest wire-length reduction, with the tradeoff that you must treat the controlled return/shield section as part of the system footprint.
Interested in more technical content? Subscribe to our updates for deep-dive RF articles and lab notes.
Questions or experiences to share? Feel free to contact RF.Guru.