SuperLance Loft Antenna

Reviewed By: Steve N

Review Date: 21/01/03

I remember these antennas from the early 90’s – and I believe Midland were one of the first manufacturers to produce these.    Ideal for those who have small spaces available (such as inside a loft) – or those who don’t want (or can’t legally have) a full size antenna mounted outside their house/flat.

 The Superlance is about a meter tall, and very lightweight.   It’s fully watertight, so can be mounted internally or externally – and has no SWR adjustment.   Theoretically it just ‘works’ – without any fiddling.   This sounds good – but is performance compromised?

 I attached the Superlance to a beam in my loft – not knowing if this would be a permanent arrangement I simply taped the bottom bracket to a beam.   I figured this would be sufficient for a test.    I cut a length of co-ax – and ran this to the radio, via a switch box.   The other side of the switch box had a small ¼ wave dipole connected – this was also situated in the loft, in a similar position – about 2 meters apart from the Superlance.   Both antennas were in free space – and were connected to a Maycom EM-27 radio.

 Now, due to the small size of the ¼ wave dipole – I’d had great difficulties with the SWR.   SWR of the dipole at best was 1.5:1.   Checking the SWR of the Superlance – and it’s about 2:1 (slightly high!).   Check the instructions – and apparently I should have cut the coax to a specific length, depending on the band being used.    Now, call me suspicious, but – I believe lengthening or shortening the coax may make a meter read differently … but the actual real SWR at the antenna shouldn’t/wouldn’t change.  So, is this antenna tuned for general coverage, and poor SWR?   Changing coax length may produce a better impedance match at the radio end – but I don’t personally believe this would effect the performance of the antenna.    I would have tested this – but having used all my spare coax, it was either an SWR of 2:1 or a trip down to the nearest shop.   Being lazy – I decided 2:1 wasn’t bad enough to warrant a 45 minute round trip – so went ahead and used it as it was…

 Grabbing a friend to sit at home with the Maycom/Superlance/Dipole setup – I proceeded to drive off, in a straight line away from the house.    A few miles away – and the dipole was outperforming the Superlance by a good few S points.   Further away still, when reception became difficult – flicking between antennas and the Superlance seemed to outperform the dipole.   I’m not entirely sure if this would be down to a difference in angle of radiation between antennas … but it was very strange all the same.

 On the journey back, I thought I’d take a long route, circling the house.   This involved a fair bit of country driving, along lanes with tight bends – with height changing quite considerably too.    The result?   Completely random.    Every 5 minutes the best performing antenna would alternate – with no obvious pattern.   Not exactly the result I’d hoped for.

 That was on TX – on receive, both antennas seemed to produce very similar results.

 So – in conclusion – there is no conclusion.    The Superlance isn’t any more or less effective than a small dipole.   How each would compare if mounted externally – I can’t predict.   However, at just over a meter tall – the Superlance is certainly the smaller of the two antennas.   Also, it would be interesting to compare this to a proper ½ wave or 5/8 wave antenna, although I suspect its performance is physically limited by its size.

Overall performance is good – but I wouldn’t expect it to compare well to larger antennas.  However, mount it high in the loft (or ideally on a chimney or similar) – and it’s a good way of getting reasonable performance without creating an eye-sore.