Lscott

A 1/4 wave whip maybe your best bet for the moment, and not just for technical reasons. It seems you want to put the antenna on the roof of a pickup truck at some point. A 1/4 wave antenna will only be around 6 to 8 inches tall. You'll soon discover that's an asset when you find it necessary to go through a "drive through" window at a bank, fast food joint, parking garage all with a low overhead limit. The truck, or most SUV's, roof is already taller that a typical car decreasing your head room. A higher gain antenna is going to be taller. I have a high gain dual band on my Jeep that's about 60 inches tall. I have to think all the time about where I need to drive to avoid damaging it. Sometimes I have to get out and unscrew the thing from the roof rack mount. One other point a 1/4 whip, when tuned right, has a very wide bandwidth. I've built a few for inside and temporary use out of a male BNC PCB socket and stiff bus wire. I can get the SWR down to under 1.5:1 from 430 MHz to 470 MHz with 3 feet of small gauge coax measured using an AA-1000 antenna analyzer. That covers all of the usable Ham 70 cm band and all of the FRS/GMRS channels. You'll find that advantageous when you get your Ham license.

Just a note about antenna restricted areas. I read some time back a Ham had a problem with is HOA with wanting to put up some antennas. Well he researched the bylaws and came up with the following solution. He installed a small crank up tower on a trailer and parked it in his back yard where you couldn't see the trailer part. Cranked it up when he operated. Since the bylaws didn't prohibit antennas on vehicles, which you could reasonably argue applies to trailers. He moved the trailer every once in a while so they couldn't claim it was permanently parked in one spot either to qualify as a vehicle. The HOA couldn't say much. Another Ham did something similar by installing a telescoping mast on his truck parked in the driveway. He then snaked the coax across the ground to the truck from the house. The HOA wasn't very happy but he wasn't breaking any of the rules either. 8-))

I you down load the TK-360G/TK-370G Service Manual from the link in my last post then look at page 11. That's section 8, Self Programming Mode. There it shows you where D17 is located, which has to be removed, and also the front panel/self programming mode enabled in the software has to be selected. The sequence for entering the various parameters through the front panel is covered in the service manual section. As you can see from the tables and flow charts it's really a pain. I've never modified my radios since it's far easier to use the programming software. 8-/ The radios don't have a real "VFO" so any programming done has to be to a particular memory slot. So field programming is not that useful IMHO. Oh, to "simulate" a VFO I did program one memory bank in the 370G with a sequence of frequencies every 25KHz. The memory names were like 440-000, 440-025, 440-050 etc. for example. So skipping to the simplex bank and adjusting the big top side channel selector nob simulates the operation of an adjustable VFO with the frequency step size set at 25KHz. That covered most, depending on how many memory channels you have left, of the simplex section of the band outlined in the ARRL recommended layout for 70cm. Better than nothing I guess. Another good radio that is still currently manufactured by Kenwood is the TK-3170. Also Part 95 certified. If you find them used they tend to sell for more than the TK-370G's do. I've only seen one with a full keypad however. Most just have the top row of function keys. https://5.imimg.com/data5/LH/CE/FE/SELLER-3451103/kenwood-tk-3170-uhf-two-way-radio.pdf You'll notice the band split is spec'd at 440 MHz to 480 MHz for the type one. No question this will cover part of the Ham 70cm band. If you want a mono band radio for VHF look at the TK-2170's band spilt in the same brochure. It will cover the complete 2 meter band up past where the NOAA weather channels are around 162 MHz. These radios are hard to find and people want way too much for them. I think you can guess why. I have both types and they are good radios. 73 KC8LDO WRBZ532

I have both types. I agree the radios are great, particularly the TK-370G-1's. They are also both Part 95 certified too. I use the official Kenwood software to program the 370G's and Chrip for the 370's. I had issues with Chirp and the 370G's. When trying to organize the frequencies using the "Memory Group" feature Chirp would fail to add frequencies in, some would get deleted and other odd things. It seems to work fine for the 370's which is good because the official software for that model is DOS based. The down side is you don't have access to all of the features in the radio. For the 370G you want the "KPG-56Dv422.zip" file. This works with Windows 10 by the way. You will need some kind of serial number to install the software which should be included in a text file in the download. This software gives you full access to ALL of the radio's features. http://rsws.zapto.org/RadioSoftware/Kenwood/Kenwood.htm As far as I know both models are in fact field programmable. However two things must be done to enable that. First the option must be enabled in the programing software and second a small component must be removed from one of the circuit boards inside. Enabling the feature in software is not sufficient. Also if the radios don't have a full keyboard self programming isn't going to do you much good. http://www.repeater-builder.com/kenwood/pdfs/tk-360g-tk-370g-svc-man.pdf http://yo3hjv.blogspot.com/2010/05/field-programming-for-kenwood-tk-370.html http://rsws.zapto.org/radiosoftware/kenwood/Field Programming the Kenwood Tk-270 370.pdf https://www.manasrekha.com/pdf/TK-270G-370G.pdf https://www.manualslib.com/products/Kenwood-Tk-370g-3058542.html While the radio spec's don't show it you can program in frequencies outside of the official band spread for both models. I have the 370G programed for GMRS wide band and narrow band plus a number of Ham UHF repeaters and some simplex frequencies. The Ham repeater section of the band and simplex section are mostly between 440 MHz to 450 MHz which the radio will TX and RX on it seems OK. The official Kenwood programming software will throw up a warning about those frequencies being out of range but you can click OK and the software will accept it. Its just a bit annoying when building the code plug.

The results look pretty good for a quick test. Some people say they get better range when they add a “rat tail”, “tiger tail” or more correctly a counterpoise to the radio. https://hackaday.com/2014/02/08/improve-your-ht-ham-radio-by-adding-a-counterpoise-antenna-wire/

I hope at some point these guys will get to the beta phase of development then it might be stable enough to do something with it. I've been watching this project for a while. It's an open source clone of MS Windows. https://reactos.org

I'm not sure about the software he has but I've run across some that still use 16 bit installers. Those don't work on Win 10 at all. Setting the compatibility mode is useless. The solution he used is a good one, running Win XP in a VM. https://www.virtualbox.org You can get a Win XP VM in Win 10 but you have to pay for the much more expensive Pro version to get the VM subsystem, "Hyper-V". https://www.download3k.com/articles/How-to-add-an-XP-Mode-Virtual-Machine-to-Windows-10-or-8-using-Hyper-V-00770 VirtualBox does about the same thing for zero cost. However you're left with finding a copy of the Win XP on your own. Virtual Box is a good opensource VM package. I've even run Windows 3.1 in it. Even managed to find a copy of IBM's OS2 Warp 4 and got that to install and run too. If IBM and Microsoft had their act together we would all be running OS2 instead of Windows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2 Remember "Windows is a pane in the glass".

It's still would be an interesting experiment. Stories surface about counterfeit antennas from at least one well known manufacture are out there. I think it is Nagoya. Antenna testing showed the difference between the real one and the fake. https://www.eham.net/reviews/view-product?id=7741 On another point I have purchased a few "cheap" magnet mount antennas mostly to get the mount from Ham Radio flea market vendors. After testing them the performance was nowhere close to the spec's on the package. Some antenna testing results. http://www.km4fmk.com/AntTesting.html

If the link above doesn't work, you have to copy the whole line and past it into the browser. Then try this one. http://www.w3pga.org/Antenna%20Books/Reflections%20III.pdf

You may find this book of interest. The book is about antennas and transmission lines. I hope Firefox didn't mangle this link again. http://www.w3pga.org/Antenna Books/Reflections III.pdf It's a good reference to keep on hand.

You want to really have some fun try testing some HT antennas! They're not easy since the radio, and part of your body, ends up as part of the antenna. When you see the results you'll wonder why they work at all. A few I've tested belong in a landfill somewhere.

I wonder if the guy did the FCC RF safety evaluation. Depending on band, power level and antenna location it's a requirement. Just because its a mobile station the safety issue can't be ignored.

As the license holder of record you're responsible to insure those operating under it follow the rules. Kids have to learn rules for everything as they grow up. GMRS shouldn't be any different. As far as paying a fine the FCC, when they issue one, they don't screw around. Somehow getting one for $7,500 to $10,000 is sort of scary. They want to get your attention and make a point. And yes they most certainly have in other radio services for failure to ID, unlicensed operation, willful interference etc. I don't know about GMRS but it wouldn't be any different. A number of the cases I've seen the FCC contacted the party informing them of the rule violation(s) first. The fine(s) get issued when they party continues to ignore the rules and the FCC notices. Oh, they also have a habit of taking the equipment too in some cases along with issuing the fine(s). I remember years ago asking somebody at the local FCC field office here what they do with all of the confiscated equipment. I was told it goes to a local junk yard straight into the crusher. None of it ever gets sold or returned to the owner.

Thanks. Sometimes the copy and past with Firefox doesn't work so good.

Oops. Linked the wrong version or Part 95 rules.

To be strictly legal the equipment must be Part 95 certified. Older equipment might be listed as Part 95 while newer equipment would be Part 95A. This should be a good reference for Part 95. It covers several of the radio services, specially GMRS, FRS and CB. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2009-title47-vol5/pdf/CFR-2009-title47-vol5-part95.pdf

Alex, unfortunately you're right. 8-( I didn't look carefully at the exact channel layout for both services. The combining of main channels with interstitial ones screwed me up. I found a document on line that shows in a nice graphical format how the two services frequencies relate to each other. Scroll down to last page and it is obvious what is going on. https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=biZxuanIfZOUqdjvLHdsyw%3 D%3D&desc=888861 D01 Part 95 GMRS FRS v01&tracking_number=239603 So as you pointed out the spectrum does look full. What is interesting are the GMRS interstitial channels sandwiched between the main GMRS channels. Its bad enough the low power FRS channels can cause interference on the main GMRS channels now we have the potential of higher power GMRS main channels partially overlapping the Interstitial GMRS channels. Then there is the potential interference of the Interstitial FRS and GMRS channels 8 through 14 with repeater input channels. The requirement that GMRS and FRS must be NB with a max of 0.5 watts is obviously to minimize interference on the GMRS WB repeater inputs frequencies. This is a mess. The interference issues could be mitigated by moving GMRS to NB. That would at least eliminate the multiple channels overlapping due to differences in bandwidth. Since the spectrum is full my idea of of going NB to get extra channels is not going to work in the existing allocated spectrum. Its very unlikely but the FCC could allocate a few new channels specifically for DMR use. As far as allowing DMR within the existing spectrum, well somebody will have to tolerate mix mode operation on one or more channels. Allowing DMR repeaters on several of the channels maybe worth thinking about. You get effectively two voice channels on one frequency pair. There is a lot of experience and knowledge on how to do DMR repeater linking from the Ham bands which could be applied to GMRS.

There would be one benefit to moving to NB operation for GMRS. Additional channels would be available in the same spectrum band. Some claim the service is under utilized now so extra channels wouldn't be needed. However the point to consider are the frequent questions I see posted about running DMR radios in the GMRS service. With newer NB channels the old ones would continue to be analog only while the newer ones would be reserved for DMR operation. This was done basically in the European PMR446 service with Digital PMR446. Originally it was analog only now they allow digital operation. DMR tier 2 uses a NB channel width of 12.5 KHz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PMR446 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_mobile_radio https://dpmrassociation.org/dPMR-a-brief-overview.html DMR uses TDMA, two time slots, thus two digital voice channels would occupy one NB channel effectively doubling the number of users. The mess with FRS radios can be mitigated with this change also by restricting FRS radios to the currently assigned analog channels. Licensed GMRS users and DMR enabled GMRS radios would have access to both, analog and digital, channels. With some firmware updates existing radios could easily be made available at an affordable price. Some have mention the Anytone analog/DMR radios, D878UV for example, and with a firmware change would likely work just fine. https://www.bridgecomsystems.com/products/anytone-at-d878uv-plus-bluetooth-gps-programming-cable-with-support

I wouldn't say changing from WB to NB is an easy way to get rid of GMRS. The real question is just how many people are running NB now and don't even know it? I see frequent questions about Midland equipment which seems to be NB only. Apparently they sell enough of them. If the FCC switched to NB those users wouldn't notice and most likely wouldn't care since their radios would continue to work reasonably well after the switch. The question of how it would impact repeater owners and users all depends on what equipment they use. If the repeater owner used old Part 90 radios that have both WB and NB capability the switch wouldn't be all that big of a deal. Same for ordinary users. In my particular case most of the HT's I have include both WB and NB functionality. All I need to do is fire up the computer, dig out the programming cables, read the codes plugs, switch bandwidth and then writing them back. Done. A bit of work but not a show stopper. Most of my radios already have dual sets of memories programmed, one for WB and another for NB. Yes it's a pain to flip from one to another depending on bandwidth but I can do it when necessary. Your last point is an excellent one. Sooner or later the FCC is likely to address this with another rule change "tweak". Expecting FRS radios to disappear to solve the problem isn't realistic. There are far too many of them. Perhaps as a group we could start a move towards NB operation for those that have the equipment. After a period of time, with enough GMRS users have switched, any potential forced switch by the FCC won't be so painful. Also a suggestion by others changing the rules to make GMRS the primary service and FRS secondary likely will fail too. People purchased the old combo FRS/GMRS radios, never read the instructions advising the necessity of getting a GMRS license, or just didn't care and used all the channels anyway. Expecting those kinds of people to respect, understand or yield the frequency to the primary user will result in about the same compliance experience, little to none.

A bit off topic. I have a growing collection of hand-held radios, mostly Kenwood VHF and UHF commercial models, and the antennas are getting harder to identify as to band and frequency spilt. Most have no identification on them for the frequencies. The VHF antennas seem to be “fatter” than the UHF ones. However there are different frequency ranges in each band. Seems like Kenwood uses a color coded gasket around the connector to denote the frequency range. I found the site below that has a lot of the antenna models with the band spilt identified by color. http://www.cqcq.ca/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=86

I forgot to point out the currently sold FRS radios are allowed to run up to 2 watts where most GMRS only radios can do 4 to 5 watts. From a practical point of view there will be a small difference between a hand-held FRS radio verses a GMRS radio. Its likely your kids will be using an FRS radio in place of a GMRS radio. FRS radios don't require a license to operate and thus an "easier sell" to the other parents in the area. The main advantage to GMRS radios are a bit more power, detachable antennas and repeater access. I'm not sure it would be a good idea for a group of young kids to tie up a repeater unless it's supervised. Remember repeaters do have a wide coverage area. I don't think people 10 to 15 miles away will want to hear the kids babbling away for hours. The detachable antennas would be nice if you wanted to setup a base station. If you get the Midland GMRS radios they seem to be narrow banded only and thus are compatible with FRS radios.

This is EXACTLY what GMRS is for, family comm's and with other users. I would say go for it. Your point about locking the radios to a specific channel is also an excellent idea. One it keeps the kids from messing up the channel settings and not understand why they can't talk to their friends. They WILL play with the radio buttons. Second as you pointed out it also keeps them from skipping around the channels like an electronic form of hide and seek annoying the crap out of other users. I have a family near by me that does this. I never know what channel they will pop up on and sometimes change while playing radio. Third you do want to make sure they don't end up on a repeater output channel. Young kids will just hit the PTT button and babble away even if the channel is in use. You can't expect kids that young to understand channel sharing. Even a low power FRS radio can wipe out the signal from a repeater if the FRS radio is close enough to another user's radio engaged in a repeater comm. FRS radios unfortunately are allowed on repeater output channels 15 through 22. Forth it keeps the kids from getting "glued" to the computer screen. Finally if the radio gets damaged or lost, young kids have a tendency to do both, it's likely cheaper to replace than a smart phone.

You have some good points marcspaz. About it being market driven, wide band verses narrow band, could get a boost by the manufactures. If they are already narrow band compliant it would be a marketing incentive for them to point it out to customers. Second any wide band equipment only, mostly used, would be eliminated from the market. Now users are pushed into buying more from the narrow band new equipment market and less from now smaller compliant used equipment market. On the regulation front manufactures could point out to the FCC they have good sales of their narrow band radios and few requests for wide band equipment. The FCC could then infer the consumer has a preference for narrow band equipment, or at least don't find it a limiting factor in how they use their radios. Making a decision to go narrow band for GMRS would be an easy one I suspect for the FCC. On the engineering side of things it's rather a screwy situation where you have two different radio services assigned the same spectrum but with different technical specifications for bandwidth. If the goal was really to allow the two to interoperate the FCC screwed it up. Having one station on frequency running wide band and another running narrow band results in some annoying messing around with the volume control. It's either to loud or too soft depending on who is doing the RX'ing and the TX'ing. By the way this happens with DMR when people don't get their audio levels set right. One minute i can hardly hear one station and the other station blows be out of the chair.

I read from time to time proposals to switch GMRS from normal FM to narrow band FM, 2.5KHz deviation, and the arguments for and against it including repeater owners. One of the questions that seems to get little attention is just how prevalent are narrow band FM capable radios out there that are in use? Any legitimate proposal to go narrow band has to address this question. I use several that can do both normal FM and narrow band FM, primarily Kenwoods like the TK-370G, TK-3170, TK-3140 to mention a few. The other point is how many of the current offerings from the likes of Midland, Btech and others that can do both or just narrow band like Midland that gets often mentioned? The point I want to get to is if the majority of radios currently, or at some point in the future, are just narrow band, because that's what people buy whether they know it or not, could be the tipping point where the FCC says GMRS is going narrow band. If most radios at that point are narrow band the disruption for the majority of users would be small so the FCC isn't going to worry so much about the small number of wide band radios out there. The FCC sort of did this with the combo FRS/GMRS radios where almost nobody was getting a license to use the GMRS channels. So they just changed the rules to reflect how the radios were really getting used. They didn't seem to worry much how this impacted GMRS users at the time.

Good luck taking the Tech Class license exam when they start testing again. Welcome to the group. GMRS is a lot of fun.