WRTC928

Ah. Thank you. I've looked at a lot of antennas. I must have confused it with something else.

If I am reading the specs correctly, the Tram 1486 is a dual-band amateur radio antenna. Did it require any adjustments to function well on GMRS? Would it serve as both a GMRS repeater antenna and an amateur 2m/70cm antenna? By that, I mean, did you have to do anything to it that would make it unsuitable for 2m/70cm use, or is it usable on all three bands?

I know I'm likely to get a lot of differing opinions, but that's okay. If you were putting up a GMRS repeater, what antenna would you use, assuming that for the time being, you're going to put it on a 30' telescoping flagpole?

What do you mean by "quack"? Some of the people on my favorite ham repeater use Baofengs, but I've never heard anything I'd describe as a squawk or quack.

I've never been able to measure a loss of power using up to 2 adapters. I'd probably go the easy route and use an adapter.

I read or heard somewhere that Retevis has a new version with more wattage coming out in April. Not sure if that's true, but if it is, I'd expect the price on the older ones to drop considerably.

I've looked at telescoping antennas, but my concern is that I may break it. It might be fine if I only pull it out when I really need more punch and then switch it back to something else afterward. I wish it came with a BNC connector, though. I know there are adapters, but they induce some "wobble" in the antenna which probably doesn't affect performance, but it bugs me. Yes, I have a touch of OCD.

Thanks, that was good information. Even the 18" Abbree didn't give up anything to the Nagoya 771. There aren't many other 42" or 47" HT antennas to compare them to, but they showed a major boost over the 15" Nagoya. He did note that if left folded, the antenna would eventually develop a memory and become floppy. The whole point is to have something I can leave folded in a box or bag to whip (See what I did there? ) out when I want it. I don't know if that's a deal-breaker; I'll have to consider it. If being "a little floppy" doesn't significantly impair its signal, I probably won't care. In the military (long, long ago) the "tape measure" whips we had on the PRC-77s flopped around like spaghetti but they seemed to work okay.

The fact that it's subjective doesn't mean it's not true, but I haven't had a similar experience with Comet or Larsen antennas. Of course, all the antennas I've compared were dual-band, not GMRS-specific like the MXTA26 and I didn't compare them to the UT-72G.

That's generally true, but 1/4 wave is the longest antenna that's practical on top of my car. If I ever replace the antenna on the truck, I'll certainly consider a longer one. But the fact that longer antennas perform better than shorter ones isn't a knock on the 72; it's a criticism of 1/4 wave antennas in general. Sometimes 1/4 wave is realistically the best you can do.

Why is that? What about its performance characteristics makes you wish you had one?

That doesn't tell me much. Better in what way?

I did find that the Midland Ghost performed as well, or perhaps just a little better, but it's only useful on GMRS. I didn't compare the UT-72 head-to-head with the UT-72G, but my subjective sense is that there's not much difference in performance on GMRS. At least, I can't hit my local GMRS repeater any further away with one or the other and I get good signal reports with both. As far as getting something better for not much more money, that was kind of my point. I did spend more money on some other antennas. Heck, I bought a Larsen 2/70 and while it's spectacular on 2m and 70cm, its SWR on 467 is so high that I'm afraid to even key up, so for my purposes, it's not "better". The Comet SBB-2 is a good antenna but its SWR on 2m ran closer to 2:1 than 1.5:1, so perhaps almost as good, but also not better. Maybe under different conditions, I'd notice that its transmission characteristics were inferior to some others, but I haven't yet. I'm not touting it as "the greatest antenna ever" but it certainly has a place, IMO. As I said, I put the NMO-72 on my car and so far, it has done everything I've asked of it. "Good enough" is a valid concept.

Yeah, with a mag mount, you're pretty much stuck with what you have. Plus, I don't like having to route the antenna through the door or window. Range and coverage don't seem to be issues where I live -- I either get good signal or I don't, and the antenna doesn't matter much. Obviously, that will vary. The one point I will concede to the "cheap Chinese junk" crowd is that QC can be spotty. However, if I get one and it works, that's all I need.

I guess I'm the odd man out, but I don't understand why so many people malign the UT-72. It seems to usually revolve around a claim that its transmission is not good, but I haven't had that experience at all. Every check I've done with mine got a report of "loud and clear, full quieting" in any location where I've been able to use other antennas. Maybe some people are trying for more distance than I am, but in my area, wherever I can't get a clear signal out with the UT-72, I can't get a clear signal out with any other antenna either. Right now, it's sitting on a steel pizza pan in my living room floor attached to a 5 watt HT and I participated in a net this morning on a repeater 20 miles away. Maybe some people are just expecting too much from a $35 antenna, I don't really know. It does require a decent ground plane, but that's typical of mag mount antennas. It's the only antenna I've tested which showed SWRs of less than 1.5:1 from 144 to 467 MHz with several different radios. That includes a Larsen and two Comets. Yes, SWR doesn't mean much if you don't get good performance, but as I said above, its performance has been just fine. I like it so much that I'd use it on both of my vehicles if weren't a mag mount unit. I bought the NMO-72 but it isn't exactly the same antenna. I can't really complain; its performance as is just as good and all SWRs in the GMRS, 70cm, 2m, and MURS bands were below 2:1, but I'd rather have 1.5:1. I had a similar experience with the GMRS-specific UT-72G and I recently passed it on to a friend who's a new GMRS licensee. So I'm curious... If you don't like the UT-72, why not? What experience did you have with it? What were you trying to accomplish that it wouldn't do? For that matter, if you tried it and did like it, why? Admittedly, this is a sample size of one, and maybe I just got lucky, but I'm curious what others have experienced. I don't discount the experiences of knowledgeable people, but when my own experience is significantly different, I wonder why.

It looks a lot like German flecktarn pattern.

Before you think of buying a more powerful radio, consider all the advice you've been given here. Check all the things @SteveShannon suggested. If you're wanting to use it in a fixed location, @Socalgmrs is spot on about a good antenna and elevation. If you want to be mobile with it, the best you can do is a magnetic-mount antenna on the roof of your vehicle, but that will still be much better than the stock HT antenna. Even handheld, a better antenna can help. The stock antennas are usually mediocre at best. Radio waves do funny things, but generally speaking, they travel in a straight line, meaning that if you can hear the repeater, it should be able to hear you...but there are some caveats. An RF signal may be completely blocked by intervening terrain, in which case you won't pick it up. However, it can sometimes be somewhat attenuated but not blocked. In that case, more power may be helpful, but it's possible to overdo it and spend too much money. For any practical purpose, each watt increase costs more than the watt before it, and that adds up pretty quickly. Power is a distant third behind topography and antenna in terms of improving your signal. It's been my experience that if I can't hit it with 15-20 watts, I can't hit it with 50 watts either. By this, you may infer that I spent the money for a 50 watt radio. I don't regret it because it was extra features I wanted it for, but for two identical radios, I wouldn't pay extra for anything above 20 watts. This is only my personal experience and others may disagree, but my advice is worth at least what you paid for it.

It kind of depends upon what you want to test. If you're planning to put up a 40' antenna and push 50 watts through it, you probably need the Nano VNA or better. If you want to test a new mobile antenna on your vehicle, the Surecom SW-102 is hard to beat. It takes about 5 minutes to become an expert with it and it's good enough to be sure you won't damage your radio.

GMRS is for whatever TF I want to use it for as long as I'm not committing an actual violation.

@OffRoaderX (aka Notarubicon) tested this myth on his YouTube channel and found that looping the cable didn't affect the SWR at all. That prompted me to test it myself with two different pieces of coax and three different radios from 5 to 35 watts, and I also found no change at all in SWR or transmission range. I'm about to put an antenna on my truck and I plan to leave a few extra feet of coax so I change the position of the radio, plug in an HT, or whatever else may come up. I'll just coil the extra into a loop and secure it with cable ties.

Now THAT's legitimate usage!

It's not a good place to start if you're easily butthurt, however.

Most radios can be programmed with a "busy channel lockout" which will prevent you from transmitting when the frequency is busy. Usually, they can be set to lockout only when it's in use by someone with your tone or by anyone on the frequency, even if they don't share your tone. So far, I've never been in an environment where I felt the need to use BCL, but it certainly could happen.

A lot of amateur radio operators think of GMRS as a pseudo-ham service for people who are too lazy or too dumb to pass the test for an amateur radio license. As such, they feel superior. I had a GMRS license for 3 years before I tested for (and passed) Technician, so I came to it with a somewhat different attitude. And to be fair, a lot of the hams in my local club have GMRS licenses and use it alongside ham for various purposes. Amateur radio tends to be dominated by people for whom the excitement is all about making or obtaining different types of equipment and seeing how much they can get out of it. A bit like if shooting sports were dominated by the people whose interest in firearms is chasing that elusive one-hole 600 meter group. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, except that in both cases, it tends to attract people who consider themselves "purists" and thus superior to "ordinary" folk. There are a lot of hams who don't even like to talk to people; they just make a contact, log it, and move on. By no means does this apply to all hams, however. Some of the most helpful people on this forum are also amateur radio licensees. I've toyed with the idea of amateur radio for decades, but Hurricane Helene was the deciding factor. Radio is the only means of communication which doesn't rely upon any other infrastructure. At present, I have a Technician license which doesn't encompass most of the really long-range modalities, but I will go for a General license in the near future. Then I'll practice the long-range stuff to become adept at it, but I probably will never develop a strong interest in making 30 second contacts with people in Sao Paulo. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, but to me a radio is a communication device. Whether that's for staying in touch while offroading or passing along the recipe for a Black Russian (which I just now heard on GMRS 19), you're using the radio "properly" IMO.

Yes, but people who behave politely get plenty of attention here, too. All you have to do is impart some useful information and you'll get kudos. Unlike the toddler, there are other ways to get that attention in this group.