Leaderboard

CLICKBAIT!!! I came to this thread thinking I was going to see a belt-clip that SHOOTS LASER BEAMS! Man, the chicks would really dig that! ...very disappointed.

Used my fiber laser to engrave my call sign on my GM-30 belt clip. I'm not trying to drum up business. Unless you can drive to my front door with a smile and a handshake and a beer I ain't taking on any work.

There are a lot of folks who shake down radios with test equipment, and for that I am intrigued and grateful. But when it comes to purchasing equipment, all I own is an SWR and power meter and I'd be willing to bet a lot of people don't own that much test equipment. So I really have to take it on faith that the manufacturer testing and FCC certifications have to cover my buying decisions. I don't in any way shape or form want to use a dirty radio and spew spurious emissions all over the place but I really don't know if I'm doing it or not. I suppose I could semi-test with an RTL-SDR or something. The day someone walks up to me and says "when you key up, my TV goes bonkers" is the day I'll stop using that particular radio. I know there are strong opinions on non-compliant radios but if I buy a radio and the FCC ID data says it is complaint and certified that is all I have to work with (mostly). Not trying to stir up hate and discontent but just my opinion on the matter.

Marc and Sven, great comments! I ran out of upvotes but will get to you guys, tomorrow! I am convinced that the average citizens/voters in our country are little more than literal sheep, easily led and easily pushed; by politicians, media, and others, with cliche's, sound bites, and zero critical thinking. When I was a cop, back in the mid and late 2000's, there was a big push to get South Carolina a "cell phone law" similar to the abomination that Georgia now suffers under. I believe it has to be hands-free and if you touch it more than once, they can cite you, or similar lunacy. Everywhere I went, convenience store clerks, customers, and others would say "we need a cell phone law" (said in a smarmy, whiney voice). I always replied, "no we don't". I mentioned that for every discourteous or dangerous maneuver that one might do on the roadway, there was an existing statute in the SC Code of Laws which could be brought to bear on the driver who committed that act. All it takes, I noted, is cops familiarizing themselves with the statutes already available to them and utilizing them. Move over into someone's lane and hit or almost hit them; there's a statute for that. Run a red light; there's a statute for that. Sit in the middle of the road yakking on the phone or texting after the light turns green; there's a statute for that. When I saw someone doing something stupid like the above, I stopped them and ticketed them. I also let them know, when applicable, that it appeared that the reason for the violation, and therefore the ticket, seemed to be that they were engrossed in their cell phone. I advised them to pay better attention to the road. Some people can multi-task well. Some cannot. I never got the point of creating another law, penalizing people for what they "might" do wrong instead of just going after the ones who are doing wrong. Who is the greater danger to the public, the guy or gal driving, with a phone to their ear, obeying all traffic laws and operating their vehicle in a competent manner, or the one who veers into an adjacent lane for whatever reason, including adjusting the climate control, adjusting their AM-FM radio, adjusting their underwear, or whatever? Target the ones actually creating the hazard, not the ones who "might" do something wrong. This is about as ludicrous as most gun laws. They operate under the perception that because you are wearing a gun, you somehow will not be able to constrain yourself from committing a crime with it. Gun laws only impede the law abiding, the very people who are not the problem. Criminals, being criminals, are mostly unimpeded by gun laws. A year or two ago, I read an article where some honcho in the SC Highway Patrol was whining that our current texting law was too difficult for his Troopers to enforce and that we needed something closer to what Georgia has. I remember thinking that he either needed better Troopers or needed to re-train the ones he had. Instead of creating a new class of violator (to enhance revenue collection, perhaps?) go after the ones who are making dangerous maneuvers on the road. I mean, if talking on a cell phone is THAT dangerous, you won't have to follow them far before they commit a ticket able violation, right? Finally, I will leave you with a quote my late maternal grandfather used to regularly repeat. He was right. Marcus Tullius Cicero

Clearly, the science is settled.

I trust and believe everything that the government tells us!! If the FCC decrees that a radio passes their testing and approves/certifies it with a Part 95 Approval, then this PROVES beyond any shadow of a doubt that it is good/clean and SAFE and EFFECTIVE for use on the airwaves. anyone saying that a radio is not 'clean' when the government has decreed that it IS clean and save & effective for use, is just spreading misinformation and should be silenced. Obviously anyone claiming that these Part-95 certified radios are not clean, safe, and effective, are just conspiracy theorists.. These radios are approved using scientific methods and everyone knows that the science is never wrong, so anyone saying otherwise is a science-denier.

Yes. That’s true. GMRS is intended to be a service using retail products that comply to part 95e. It’s not a service designed to encourage experimentation or require tuning before use.

Those that push using channel 19 haven't looked at their license I guess. The frequencies for channel 19, simplex and repeater, are prohibited north of "Line A" and East of "Line C". That cuts out a LOT of population centers. That's why it's a dumb idea.

Belt clips with frickin laser beams?

I have been able to tilt my HT far enough out of polarization to have my signal go from full readable to barely readable when in contact with a repeater 20 miles away. Also whether the ISS repeater was readable or not (yes, with a regular verticle on a HT).

Anything by Comet, Browning or Diamond. In reality you could even use a Nagoya. Don't use RG8 coax that you have on your VHF, 65cm UHF doesn't propagate thru RG8 as well as VHF does. Look for LMR-400 or equivalent. Marine band 156mhz (1.9 meter) is almost in the 2 meter ham VHF band, GMRS is 65cm is the next door neighbor of ham 70cm. A dual band 2 meter/70cm ham antenna won't be PERFECT but likely close enough for both radios to be compatible. My 2m/1.25m/70cm Comet tests pretty good for GMRS on a SWR meter and nanoNVA, well under 1.3:1 across GMRS.

Did you try the map tab at the top of the page?

I would suggest a shielded cable, as short as possible, since it will be carrying audio, (possibility of getting hum) and may be susceptible to picking up RF in the shack, especially if the radio is running at full power output. Some thoughts: Any way to re-locate the radio closer to her and keep the mic cable the original length? While 30 feet of extra antenna cable will introduce some loss, it may be acceptable and not impact noticeably on signal strengths. (transmit or receive) The Wouxum's head can be remoted, and comes with a 10 foot extension cable to run from the head to the main unit. Since the mic connects to the head, the mic lead does not have to be changed. While more expensive than the other radio, this might be a consideration. I assume the cable they use is shielded, although it it NOT a straight-through cable, and a regular Ethernet cable CANNOT be directly substituted. (see the thread here: https://forums.mygmrs.com/topic/7247-wouxan-kg-1000g-plus-faceplate-data-cable/#comment-77387

All, Here are the steps I took to remove the antenna. The radio is great but gluing the antenna is probably the most annoying thing they could do. Please note this will most likely void your warranty. There is also the possibility that you do permanent damage to the radio. 1) Remove the glued antenna as gently as possible. Use your hands! (If needed, apply some WD40 and let it rest. Place the radio upside-down to avoid getting WD-40 inside the radio.) 2) Once the antenna is off, you should still see the center connector coming out of the radio as seen below. 2b) The antenna should look something like this. 3) Remove the black plastic gasket 4) Apply plenty of electrical tape to the antenna side so that you can grab it with the vice. When you place the antenna in the vice, don't get it too tight! Just enough so that it does not rotate. 5) Apply WD40 and separate the copper rim by gently rotating it using a pick or a screwdriver. I was constantly using a pick to remove the glue debris. I did this to apply WD-40 at the edge of the antenna. This step might not be needed but I did it as it gave me a clearer picture of what I was doing. 5) Use some locking plier to rotate the connector away from the antenna. There is no need to lock the plier, just hold them with you hand. If needed, apply WD-40 and let it sit for 5minutes. 6) Once the connector is out, clean it and remove any glue. 7) Once everything is clean, apply some super glue and install the connector back to the radio. Now install the black gasket 9) Install the copper color ring. Then once again apply super glue. We are doing this to avoid yanking the connector out again when we change antennas. 10) Let the super glue dry and you are all set. Here is a comparison between the KG-Q10H and KG-Q10G. Hope this helps!

Greetings. If you have programmed your AR-152 radio with Chirp or RT Systems BAO-152 programming software, it is possible that your radio is malfunctioning and you won’t know it because your AR-152 will continue to appear to function normally. I need your help if you (1) have programmed your AR-152 radio with third-party programming software and (2) you own or have access to a VHF-UHF Power Meter. I have purchased a number of these radios and I believe that I have discovered a fairly serious problem that probably affects all AR-152 radios because, as far as I know, Baofeng is still using its original hardware design and A152V01 firmware version. But, since your radio still appears to operate normally, the true problem will be hidden from you. Here’s the problem: When you first receive your new AR-152 it functions correctly. However, as soon as you connect it to either Chirp or RT Systems’ BAO-152 programming software and program the radio, a Transmit Power malfunction is triggered and, after this happens, there appears to be no way to restore the radio to normal operation. One of the problems with this malfunction is that your AR-152 radio still appears to function normally. It can still receive and make transmissions. There is zero hint that anything is wrong. When you set TXP=High/Mid/Low, the little “H”, “M”, “L” indicators appear in the LCD and so on. When you push the PTT button, the little transmit icon makes it look like your radio is transmitting the selected power. However, the truth is very different and the only way to determine if your AR-152 is working properly after it has been programmed, is to measure its Transmit Power. If it works properly, setting TXP=High should always produce the highest Transmit Power and setting TXP=Mid should always produce more power than TXP=Low. If you have not yet programmed your AR-152, I strongly recommend that you NOT do so. Configure its Memory channels only via the built-in menus and avoid programming it with external software and you will not trigger the malfunction. If you have programmed your AR-152 with external software, I’d like you to do a quick Transmit Power test and report your results here. Any Surecom Power/VSWR Meter with a 50-ohm test load will work for the test. Here’s the test procedure: Fully charge your AR-152 battery. Put your radio in VFO mode with a long press of the MENU key. Enter a VHF frequency (such as 144.000 MHz) and test the Transmit Power at each of the radio’s three TXP settings (High, Mid, Low). Make a note of the frequency you used and the Watts at each TXP setting. (Hint: The keypad shortcut to change the TXP setting without using the menu is a short-tap of the #/lock-keypad key while the radio is in standby.) Pick a UHF frequency (such as 462.600 MHz) and test the Transmit Power at each of the radio’s three TXP settings (High, Mid, Low). Make a note of the frequency you used and the Watts at each TXP setting. Describe the kinds of programming changes you made when you programmed your AR-152. Turn your radio off. Then press and hold the 3/SAVE key while you turn the radio back on. As soon as the LCD comes to life, release the #/SAVE key and the firmware version of your radio will momentarily appear. It happens so fast that you may need to do this several times so you can record your firmware version. Please include it in your post. (All of my radios have firmware “A152V01”, which I believe is version 1.) If your radio has the Transmit Power malfunction, you’ll discover that the Watts you measure do not match the TXP settings. When TXP=High, the Watts will be too low. When TXP=Mid or TXP=Low, the Watts will be the same and they will be way too high. The dangerous aspect to this is: You think your radio is transmitting its lowest power when you set TXP=Low. But, in reality you’ll be transmitting at nearly full power. To help you visualize the problem, I’ve attached five graphs which illustrate what is happening. Each data point on the plotlines was measured by me. The before measurements were made before the radio was programmed. The after measurements were made after the radio was programmed. The first graph shows the AR-152 when it is working correctly. This is how our radios should work. The second graph shows the AR-152 after the malfunction has been triggered by programming the radio. The third graph combines the first two so you can view both in one graph. The fourth graph focuses on TXP=High only and shows its dramatic drop in level after the malfunction sets in. The fifth (last) graph focuses on TXP=Mid and TXP=Low. The reason TXP setting are shown in the same graph is because, after the malfunction is triggered, the radio thinks they are the same setting and regardless whether you select TXP=Mid or TXP=Low, you'll get the same power level and it will be way too high. Thanks in advance for your help. Together, I hope we can demonstrate to Baofeng that this malfunction is not an isolated incident and this will prompt them to give its solution their highest priority. If you know other AR-152 radio owners who have programmed their radios, please ask them to join myGMRS and add their Transmit Power measurements to this thread. Again, thanks! Kind regards, RGB

I just saw that Retevis now has a 40W GMRS mobile radio. The website is pretty thin on details: Retevis RA87 40W GMRS Mobile Radio and Heavy Duty Radome Antenna Kit | retevis.com

RGB, Thanks for the heads-up... I'm having the same issue with my AR-152. Just received it two weeks ago. I don't have a fancy watt meter, but I do have an ancient SWR meter with an analog watt meter incorporated within. It's not very accurate, but it is showing about 7 watts on Med and Low, and about half that on Hi. What a bummer. I also have firmware version A152V01. Field programming this radio is pretty simple; but, without the laptop programming software, I won't be able to give the channels labels. That's a huge loss for me, as I need to be able to identify and confirm channels quickly. Thanks for including the detailed power output graphs. If the malfunctioning Low and Med settings were putting out at least close to what the normal Hi was, I might live with it and just adjust my settings accordingly. But since there is a significant difference, I can't justify keeping this radio. It looks like this unit is going back to Amazon tomorrow. Now the question is, do I buy a new one all over again and keep it clean this time? The 12,000 AH battery is whispering "yes."

This is 100% by design, and as it should be, and it is not intended to be the same as the 5G, which uses a totally different kind of screen. The user manual unlocks the mysteries of how to set the different screen settings, it is highly suggested reading.

My sailboat has a marine VHF radio with transom-mounted VHF antenna, which is a terrible place to mount an antenna on a sailboat. My mast is down right now, and I am planning to install a new VHF antenna on the mast head before putting up the mast again. Shakespeare sells masthead antennas that seem to be what "everyone" uses for marine VHF on inland waters. I sail on the Great Salt Lake, so the maximum distance between two boats is going to be a little under 40 miles. And one would never be more than about 35 miles from either of the two shore stations (the two harbors). With a transom mounted VHF antenna, my signal to other boats with transom antennas fades after five to seven miles. With a masthead, which places the antenna 34 feet above the water level, I can communicate with other masthead-mounted VHF installations for about 22 miles, in my experience, and I can communicate with the harbormaster's VHF from pretty much anywhere on the lake. That's VHF. But marine VHF has restrictive rules about how it can be used, and ship-to-shore is not really permitted unless the person on-shore has a land-station license. On the other hand, GMRS doesn't restrict ship-to-shore communications. So I'd like to also get a masthead GMRS antenna. Can I get a recommendation for a GMRS antenna for a 34 foot sailboat mast? Are there any GMRS antennas that have dual-band GMRS / Marine VHF capability? (Realizing that's probably a lot to ask). What cable should I be running for that distance? Consider 34 feet mast head to deck, then ten feet from the through-deck fitting to the GMRS radio. As for radios, I would probably move my MXT-275 from my vehicle to the boat, and then use that as excuse for getting a more feature-full radio for my vehicle. Boat to boat, I would mostly still use VHF, since that's what other boaters on this lake use. But for convenient communications with family members within the harbor, or while out on the lake, talking to family on-shore, or talking through a repeater to family at home, I would use GMRS. (I've verified good repeater coverage for this application.)

There are several marine antenna manufactures and marine electronics dealers that can help you. Also, there are some that will custom build your antenna to your specs. You do have several choices and all you have to do is do the research and pick who you want to do business with.

Yep. There is usually a statement in the FCC ID's from the manufacturer saying X is representing us, etc. etc. etc. I have watched so many testing videos and while I agree that makes for riveting commentary I question some of the test equipment or whether it has any calibration standard. I own a 50 or 60 year old vacuum tube tester that I use but it hasn't been calibrated in forever so I don't know exactly how accurate it is. Just a comparative statement. And I've also seen plenty of videos where people have no test equipment validation that declare whether a radio is clean or dirty. It's a jungle out there.

I can make my own RJ45 cable and I know how to swap the connections so it won't be a problem. Moving the head on the Wouxum will be able to cut down the distance. I MIGHT me able to move the radio a little closer but still have about 12' from the wall to the recliner, which would also save me money on the LMR400 cable. I want to keep the cost down but don't want to "Cheap" out. I haven't purchased anything yet. I'm just doing research to see what my options are. I'll go check out the link you gave.

Could not agree more. I ASSUME if the radio has some degree of complience standard, and the radio manufacture has been around awhile, it should be ok. No spurious emissions, etc. All I have is a nano vna, I have never verified that the wouxun xmits at the power advertised. Course if I had to make a choice on selecting a really "clean" transmission, or the last watt out, I will take the "clean" transmission. xmit power is more of a advertising point, as oppose to what it really means. Great content, and information.. all info is good info. regards

I have to disagree with using a mobile radio being dangerous when driving. I am unaware of a single study that supports the claim. There are plenty of studies that show drivers adjusting their AM/FM/Sat radios are in the top 3 causes of distracted driving, but nothing about 2-way radio. I would think it's no different then talking to a passenger. The next step from laws like this is no entertainment radio, no navigation, no talking to passengers. It's stupid and tyrannical. Just hold people accountable for distracted driving instead of naming and outlaw every possible distraction.

A standard for a "Travel Channel" and its history is well documented and established probably way before many people on this forum were born or took up this hobby and that may be the reason why there is this confusion between Channels 19 and 20. My position the standard hasn't gone away its still there I just wish that people would honor it.

The same people tend to like ridiculous gun laws that don’t actually reduce crime. Those people likely don’t own radios or guns, so they don’t care. They want government to make it all better. Safer. They also lack enough intelligence to understand they are willfully and incrementally giving up their freedom.

I'm convinced that the reason some people want this kind of thing to pass is that they refuse to differentiate between a radio that doesn't take your eyes off the road and a smart phone that requires you to often look away and type. Therefore, their logic is "If I can't use my device, no one can." Followed immediately by "nerny nerny nerny".

No, people want to be able to talk into a mic, and no, we don't want it to pass.

That’s ridiculous. Please don’t be a state to set this precedent..

Typical government overreach from people who desire complete control of the population. It would be nice if the citizens would wake up and stop electing actual tyrants. Actions > Words

Remember the days when your name, your wife's name, address and phone number were published for all to see in a book then promptly mailed free of charge without anyone asking, to everyones house! I was just searching my name today for fun, it's pretty funny, it says I'm single, I'm not, it says I went to a high school I never went to or even lived anywhere close to it. It says my net worth is pennies while my yearly income is some giant number. And says my family members include people who's names I've never heard of. It says my past address while correct, was from 2000 when I havn't lived there since college in 1989. The interweb gets ALOT wrong. But i'm sure the media would be happy to publish it as fact.

What is wrong with you? People should be able to ask questions without you being a jerk.

I think there is a sort of broad misunderstanding of what you can do on UHF, with watts and DB antennas. People want the 50 watters and the 9db gain antennas thinking that's the best way to operate. For your home setup, and with an antenna up high, sure... But it's more to do with the height/LOS. You could probably be achieving the same result with 10 watts if you're doing nice in that configuration. For the mobile side, you're a low plane level antenna. No matter what,... You can't punch through that dirt grade with watts. 50 or 5,000. The only thing that you can have control of is your take-off angles. The higher DB antennas are shallow. Give up on the watts or ERP. Just radiate more omni.. I've found that that it's been the solution. 5 watts can sound like 50 if it's clear to radiate. On UHF, you're due to lose the contact by terrain long before petering out on power. People CW on 5 watts across the planet. Power isn't the thing folks.. HF does it by ricocheting off of the ionosphere. Power only matters if you care to step over a guy. Do we do that in polite society?

Although GMRS is in the name of the site, the site also caters to ham radio interests. Radio is radio. If you’re so up-tight that the inclusion of helpful information about a radio triggers you, then you probably aren’t getting much enjoyment out of anything. Learn to ignore posts about non-GMRS radios.

Nice job documenting the problem. Ignore the naysayers. They’re just upset because you’re smarter than they are.

Sad-H.A.M.s are a myth and do not exi....... I stand corrected...

My Experience with the AR-152 I first learned about Baofeng’s AR-152 radio a few months ago from NotaRubicon Productions’ YouTube video (from 07-Nov-2023). I was immediately drawn to the radio because of its gigantic 12,000 mAH (12 AH) battery and its ability to operate over such a wide frequency range which included Ham, Business, MURS and NOAA NWR frequencies in the VHF band and Ham, GMRS and Business in the UHF band. Plus it can receive FM Radio. This makes it an ideal two-way radio for use during an Emergency or Disaster when FCC license requirements are temporarily suspended for people in life-or-death situations. Since then I have purchased a number of these radios from different sellers like Brushbeater and Kong Tone. The first thing I do with a new radio is test it to make sure it is working as intended. This includes Transmit Power tests. Every one of my AR-152 radios tested great and I was very happy with them. Then I programmed my first one using Chirp and the BF-F8HP profile (this is the profile recommended by Brushbeater and it is the ONLY profile that supports all three of the TXP settings (High, Mid, Low)). Chirp enabled me to expand the VHF and UHF frequency limits (as shown in a YouTube video by Indrid Cold on Brushbeater’s website) and I configured some Memory channels to facilitate further testing. Next, I returned to my Transmit Power testing to see how well the expanded VHF and UHF limits worked. This is when I discovered the problem. From that moment on, the Transmit Power of my programmed radio malfunctioned. My first thought was that I must have received a defective radio. So I tried programming a second AR-152 from a different vendor and the same thing happened again. My second thought was that Chirp must be defective or the BF-F8HP profile is an insufficient match for an AR-152. So I found RT Systems’ BAO-152 programming software that is specifically made for the AR-152 radio. I purchased a copy and used it to program a third AR-152. The same thing happened again. All three of these radios were brand new and had never been programmed before. I measured the Transmit Power of each of them and all three measured great before they were programmed. I purchased one from Brushbeater and two from Kong Tone. The likelihood of all three radios being defective seems rare. And remember, all three measured great before they were programmed. I took the usual safety precautions so I could restore a radio—before I programmed it: I downloaded and saved its original factory settings using the programming software. Then, after the Transmit Power malfunction was triggered during programming, I did a full factory reset (RESET ALL) and reinstalled the original factory settings. This never fixed a radio. Once the Transmit Power malfunction was triggered, I could find no way to restore the radio to normal operation. Yesterday (08-Apr-2024), NotaRubicon Productions posted a new YouTube video about the AR-152. It stated that the AR-152 is Chirp-compatible. However, I think my tests have shown the opposite. In fact, the current iteration of the AR-152 should not be programmed with any third-party software less you trigger the Transmit Power malfunction. With your help I hope to document the extent of the problem. I have been in contact with Baofeng. They were very nice, but it took three messages, three radios and my detailed graphs to finally convince them of the potential scale of the problem. The last thing they told me was that they had forwarded my data to their “technical team”. However, Baofeng provides zero official support for the AR-152. It is considered a specialty radio which is only sold through select sellers. And they say those sellers configure their AR-152 radios differently for their markets. Therefore, they defer all technical support and warranty service to their sellers (in this case Brushbeater and Kong Tone). I understand their position, but I think this problem, if widespread, is beyond the scope of their sellers and should result in a repair (if possible) or a recall and replacement (if repair is not possible). These are still the early days of this issue and it may take some time before Baofeng responds. As for radio differences from one seller to the next, my radios from Brushbeater and Kong Tone appeared to be configured the same. Kind regards, RGB

I think it is safe to say that we all agree that having a good antenna as high as one can get it along with a good quality coax designed for UHF will make more of a difference compared to using a 25 watt radio vs a 50 watt radio. Agin location, terrain, foliage, structures, etc will absolutely have an effect on how far one can talk to people. I took some screen shots to share showing line of sight from me to two friends and from me to our repeater. The repeater is easy to get into on 10 watts but we have to all use high power (50 watts) to talk on simplex. home to tower - 21.5 miles Friend at 18 miles away Friend that is 23-24 miles away

The UHF band is line of sight. So, the further you can see, the further you can talk. I lost track of my longest GMRS contact, but I have talked to astronauts on the ISS at 250 miles above the Earth with only 5w on VHF/UHF. I think my longest GMRS contact was about 170 miles while on a mountain over 4,500' MSL.

93 miles from Palm Springs, CA to our old "Delta" repeater, using the XTL5000 in my jeep with the Midland MXTA26 antenna mounted on the rear tail-light, where all of the "experts" still proclaim that the antenna will not work because it is below the roofline and due to the poor ground plane at that mounting location. Initially started using the repeater with my radio transmitting at 40W, and when I switched to 110W nobody could hear any difference. I have heard people in their mobile radios hitting that same repeater from 40 miles further away at Chiriaco Summit for a total of 133 miles, but I cant do it - probably because my antenna wont work where it's mounted.

This ^^^!!!

So I also found this: HOW TO USE 2 RA87 40W MOBILE RADIO MAKE A REPEATER? Do you worry about not having a repeater when you need to make a long-distance call? The New RA87 can work as a repeater in outdoor. The range limitation on GMRS handheld radios is 5W, which can reach about 1.5 miles in an open area. If you need a long-range call you should talk through a repeater. But a repeater is expensive even if you order an RT97 or RT97S portable repeater from Retevis.com. But now, you can use this new mobile radio RA87 if you need a long-range call directly or through a repeater to extend the call range on your handheld radios. About RA87 GMRS mobile radio The high power of this new radio is 40W. And according to our real test in an open area, the direct call range is 20km. So, its direct calling distance can meet the needs of regular calls. The numeric microphone can program the radio, you can press the function buttons and the numeric buttons can operate the radio. It is convenient for drivers if they have to set up their radio in the car. ANI function can send a signal to recognise your receivers to private your call. A programming cable in the set, so that you can program on the software for quick programming. And it can use a data cable connected to 2 RA87 mobile radios to copy the data and make a repeater. How do make 2 RA87 radios work as a repeater? You should have a data cable to connect your 2 radios. Connect to 2 RA87 mobile radios through the data port on the back panel. You can work on any repeater channel, and please confirm your RA87 mobile radios are on the same channel. Set up your handheld radios. If radio A is a transmitter, and radio B is a receiver. So, the TX and RX of radio A should equal the RX of your RA87. Similarly, the TX and RX of radio B should equal the TX of your repeater RA87. Then, a simple high-power repeater can work well with you. The link to the website is here: How to use 2 RA87 40W mobile radio make a repeater? - Two Way Radio Community

Here’s the antenna separately: https://www.retevis.com/mr300-1200mm-heavy-duty-fiberglass-radome-gmrs-antenna-us