newbie Midland MXT275 antenna placement question

[jharv]

hello all,

 

newbie here, so i wanted to introduce myself along with asking a question about antenna placement. i few weeks ago i purchased / installed a midland mxt275 (15w) in my jeep. i also installed midland's -6db gain antenna. i also have a midland handheld.

 

in the past few weeks i've been reading many of the forum posts and doing as much research online as i could find. i've also done some local testing to compare this radio to my old cobra cb. my initial thoughts are that i've very impressed! i love the feel of this mic and the quality is awesome.

 

the one mistake i made was looking at the coverage circles of the repeaters thinking "oh wow, that's great" - not realizing at first that circle is the estimated range of the repeater's transmit... and my being able to reach that repeater is a whole different story! in my testing to the handheld, i got about 2, maybe 2.5 miles, through a suburban type area, with some trees and plenty of houses and buildings along the way. plus, the handheld was in the house, my daughter using it to test with me.

 

in another test from my jeep to a buddy with a midland mxt400 (40w), we got about 3 miles, hearing each other clear as sitting right next to each other. so i'm pretty happy with this - compared to the cb - but i want to make sure i'm getting as good range as a should be (with 15w).

 

here's the shameful part. i mounted my antenna on my jeep's tire carrier, between the tailgate and spare tire. i say "shameful" because i know it's not the best place, but i think (or thought at the time) that it was my best choice. i don't see many posts with pics here, but if anyone wants to see i do have two i can share. i knew mounting the antenna there would be shielded, which is why i went with the -6db loss antenna. it's 27.5" long and reaches up about 2-3" above the top of the jeep. recently i've been reading so many posts from people saying not to do this. my second choice for mounting it was at the base of the windshield, in front of the driver side mirror. i didn't choose that because i take my jeep off-road a lot, and it's going to constantly get whacked by tree branches.

 

i think 2.5 - 3 miles under these conditions is probably what i can expect, but that's just a guess and wanted to ask your opinions. if it's normal, that's ok. but if you think i should easily get 10+ miles then i have a problem. i ordered a uhf swr meter that should be here tomorrow. i'm assuming my ground is good - which is somewhat questionable, since it's mounted to a metal swing-out tire carrier. will test that with a multimeter tomorrow as well. the other problem - i've read recently to not mount an antenna near many vertical surfaces.... my nmo mount is on an L-bracket, screwed into what is basically a 2-3" wide vertical beam. 

 

so my questions are: do you think my range is about what i should expect? and more importantly, if i am getting feedback from the antenna back towards the radio because of the lack of ground plane or all the metal surrounding the base of the antenna, would i see the result of that as a high swr reading? i wanted to ask in case the swr is actually good, i didn't want to assume the mounting location isn't causing a huge performance problem. i've read about non-ground plane antennas and am thinking to try one of those, based on the readings tomorrow and any suggestions you may have.

 

thanks in advance for any advice or comments you may have!

[Jones]

 

Jones - the monitor function on the mxt275 basically turns off squelch completely, outputting (very loud) static until someone transmits.

 

 

Thank you for the clarification.  They really should do this like the commercial Midlands where MON defeats the RX tone, but keeps carrier squelch on.  That would solve everyone's problem.

[PastorGary]

 

jharv - Any news for us on your final antenna mounting configuration, since that was the main topic of this thread?

 

[jharv]

i do have an update on the antenna, but it's not a "final" configuration yet! i got my hands on a Laird no-ground plane antenna and did some comparison testing. in my opinion, it's slightly better than the Midland - but not by very much. i'll explain...

 

the midland is sold as "pre-tuned to 462 mhz". the laird is ufh 450-470 - it's tuned to 450, and to better tune to 462 i should cut it a bit shorter. i've been afraid to do that - fearing that if i cut too much off, i could make things worse. right now my SWR is exactly 1:1 - i'm assuming because the anteanna is slightly longer than ideal for this frequency. but before cuting / tuning, i wanted to test it as-is.

 

so i road tested the laird and compared to the midland. the first thing i noticed was the laird no-ground plane definitely had more "reach" than the midland, by a few blocks. maybe about half a mile to a mile farther. so i drove in and out of where i thought the range would end, and noted on a map where coverage was good, bad (meaning no receieve either direction), or staticy (receive but with static).

where the range ended wasn't a hard cut-off. i found spotty areas just a bit father away that worked pretty decent. but overall, i was happy with the no-ground plane antenna being that it might have little better "reach" plus the spotty areas.

i then retested with the midland anteanna, driving the same route. this time the midland performed better than my test a few weeks ago, and i also noticed more spotty areas where i had signal but didn't expect to. so the midland was better this time than last time, but still not as good as the no-ground plane. i think the different results with the midland were just more thorough testing and different topography / weather.

in my test results, there were some spots that the laird worked and the midland didn't, and others that the midland worked and the laird didn't... but overall it seemed the laird worked better. i probably need a few more days to know for sure... but i guess that indicates there's not a huge difference.

 

the mxt275 also came with a mag-mount antenna. i road-tested that one also, having it sit on the very top of my tire carrier (where i'm thinking to move my mount to). it performed better than i expected. within a mile it sounded crystal clear, but after about 1 - 1.25 miles it cut out pretty hard. really makes me wonder how a 1/4 wave would perform mounted at that point - one day i will try that, but might take a few weeks for me to find all the parts i need and to make sure i have enough coax.

 

i found something else interesting with the two midland (mxt275 versus handheld gxt1000).

if i configure a PL tone on a channel (which is applied to tx and rx) and run channel-scan, it stops at a channel that has signal, and operates as carrier squelch. if i change to that channel manually, with PL set, I don't hear anything. but as soon as i scan, it'll stop and that channel and i hear the transmission. i was surprised at this - and tested it again using my handheld with no PL configured. the mobile 275 stopped and i could hear it (only in scan, not when just sitting on that channel).

i did the same test using the handheld as the receiver, with a PL set on the handheld, using the mobile to transmit with no PL. when the handheld is in scan mode and i transmit with no tone, the handheld stops at that channel, but i still hear no audio. so it more "pauses" the scan until there's no signal, then it moves on.

i just thought that was odd, especially on the mobile.... but admittedly, i probably should check the manual, but it was more fun to just try it.

[Elkhunter521]

Hi all, I just got off the phone with an engineer at Midland Radio. The 3 XMT radios (115, 275, 400 )cannot have a pl tone for transmit and NOT have the same tone for

recieve. I asked about Chirp programming to alter this. His response was it might work. Problem, the slightest change would revert it back to "stock". Channel change, even a volume change. Midland does not have a fix in the works for this at present. I pointed that Bao Feng radios could do this. His reply was that Midland was looking into this for future models.

It will a complete firmware revision to fix this.

 

Thanks for listening to me cry.

 

Keith T

 

 

Radio is just a power supply for an antenna.

[jharv]

Keith - thanks for the update. i agree, that's very sad news.

[PastorGary]

Just an observation - Kenwood TK880-1 (25 watt) or TK880H-1 (40 watt) plus the TK863G (25 watt)  are available used from many sources, are Part 90 AND Part 95 Certified, have user friendly software and can be programmed to do most things that the current crop of Midland radios can not do.

 

I am not at all familiar with anything 'Motorola' but I suspect that they have good used equipment that will run circles around the Midland equipment as well.

 

[berkinet]

Just an observation ...

... and another.  It seems people arrive at GMRS by three routes... Directly, having had no prior radio experience, via CB (10mHz), and Ham radio.  It seems those coming from CB tend to be brand oriented and tend to want to have certified equipment. On the other hand, hams tend to be more interested in function and less rule oriented. Those coming directly to GMRS, well, I haven't got a hypothesis for that.

 

So, While hams tend to be willing to look at used equipment and commercial equipment that can operate on the GMRS band (though, not always legally) CBers want a clean approved package want manufacturer support and are less willing to take the possible risk with used and non-type accepted gear.

 

So, what's the point of this comment?  Former CBers might benefit from moving a little out of their comfort zone and find not only some nice bargains, but some high quality equipment.  OTOH, this comment  could just be the result the late summer doldrums and an attempt to find a pattern where none exists. YMMV.

[mcallahan]

The inability of Midland radios to do split tones is why I will never buy one At their current price point for the 40W mobile, they really ought to..

[berkinet]

The inability of Midland radios to do split tones is why I will never buy one At their current price point for the 40W mobile, they really ought to..

 

The radio PastorGary noted is available;e for $45 on ebay.   And, here is a great little Motorola M1225 for $50. (Caveat, the software for the Motorola radios can be hard to find.  But, it is available.).

[mcallahan]

+1 for Kenwood radios - the

 

 (Caveat, the software for the Motorola radios can be hard to find.  But, it is available.).

 

It's not hard to find - I'm pretty sure Motorola will sell it to you.  There are quite a few RadioReference forum threads discussing the legal channels to procuring Motorola software.

[berkinet]

...[Motorola software] is not hard to find - I'm pretty sure Motorola will sell it to you. 

Yes. Though, it is not easy to actually find the software on their site and then set up an account. But, the biggest stumbling block is the price. Usually anywhere from 3 to 10 times the cost of a used radio.  BTW, on RadioReference, requests for Motorola programming software are discouraged and rarely answered.

 

Regarding software, a good place to look for radio programming software is https://hamfiles.co.uk

[mcallahan]

Requests for copied/pirated versions of Motorola software go unanswered on RadioReference, but there's plenty of discussion on how to purchase from Motorola.  As far as I understand, the long and short of it is you create an online account, you sign a license agreement, they approve it, and you will be able to download the software version(s) you have requested to purchase.  Expect to pay several hundred dollars.  I would think any proprietary software you find on hamfiles.co.uk (from Motorola or others) is likely going to be pirated, and that probably shouldn't be encouraged in this forum.  Chirp is excellent free software that supports an ever-growing number of radios from multiple manufacturers, including Kenwood.  This may be a better and legal option for the budget-minded shopper.

[n4gix]

Regarding software, a good place to look for radio programming software is https://hamfiles.co.uk

Unfortunately, the 12.1 (Build 245) I got from there about 2 years ago isn't available any longer...

[berkinet]

Unfortunately, the 12.1 (Build 245) I got from there about 2 years ago isn't available any longer...

For which radio?

[n4gix]

For which radio?

It is an XPR7550 I've been using for the past few years. I wanted to add some corrections for the statewide Hoosier DMR network, as well as some new GMRS repeaters I regularly use.

[SteveC7010]

+1 for Kenwood radios - the

 

 

It's not hard to find - I'm pretty sure Motorola will sell it to you. There are quite a few RadioReference forum threads discussing the legal channels to procuring Motorola software.

The M1225 was EOL over ten years ago. The software has been available for free on MOL since about 2010.

 

Programming cables are readily and inexpensively available. It is the same cable used for Radius, Maxtrac, GM300, Pro Series and more.

 

The M1225 has the 16 pin accessory connector allowing for all kinds of specialty uses.

 

It also can use a variety of Motorola mics, speakers, and other accessories.

 

As pointed out previously, it is fully Part 95 type accepted.

[mcallahan]

Also worth noting is that with Motorola you need not only the software, but sometimes the proprietary Radio Interface Box hardware too - especially with the older radios.  There's all sorts of cheap Chinese "RIB-less" cables and other documentation about programming Motorola radios, but Motorola doesn't really care about the amateur/hobbyist/GMRS user, and the software interfaces have virtually no other programming options besides the /V\ software.  Unless you buy a pre-programmed Motorola radio and don't care to make any modification to it in the future, a Motorola radio is going to cost you $$$. I have a Motorola CDM1250 programmed for GMRS - it's a great radio, but I needed a 3rd party to do the programming for me, and I don't have any ability to tweak any settings for the radio to best fit my needs.  This is why I have moved pretty much to Kenwood radios for GMRS and amateur use.  Lower price point and easier to program as a hobbyist.

[SteveC7010]

Also worth noting is that with Motorola you need not only the software, but sometimes the proprietary Radio Interface Box hardware too - especially with the older radios. There's all sorts of cheap Chinese "RIB-less" cables and other documentation about programming Motorola radios, but Motorola doesn't really care about the amateur/hobbyist/GMRS user, and the software interfaces have virtually no other programming options besides the /V\ software. Unless you buy a pre-programmed Motorola radio and don't care to make any modification to it in the future, a Motorola radio is going to cost you $$$. I have a Motorola CDM1250 programmed for GMRS - it's a great radio, but I needed a 3rd party to do the programming for me, and I don't have any ability to tweak any settings for the radio to best fit my needs. This is why I have moved pretty much to Kenwood radios for GMRS and amateur use. Lower price point and easier to program as a hobbyist.

RIBs are old technology. The M1225 and newer radios all have ribless cables available in both USB and serial versions.

 

I hold legit software for the Professional, Commercial, 1225, and GM300 series of radios. They are easy to program, all without RIBs.

 

I also have Icom, Kenwood, and Vertex radios in our inventory. They are no more or less difficult to program the the Motorola's.

[Hans]

I got my M1225 programming cable from BlueMax49ers on eBay. His amateur call sign is KJ6ZWL. He sends a card in the packaging with his information. There was a compatibility problem with the USB chip and my usage. He diagnosed the issue immediately and sent me a replacement cable out that same day. For difficult programming cables, this is the person I send everyone to now. He hasn't let any of them down yet.

 

The programming cable I'm using for the M1225 radios is a simple USB type; no complicated RIB.

[mcallahan]

Thanks Hans - I do like Motorola equipment and I will keep this seller in mind!

[berkinet]

Since this discussion of used GMRS equipment is a topic drift from the original antenna topic of this thread. I have created a new topic to continue the equipment discussion... if there is interest.

[jharv]

Thanks for all the recommendations on different radios, I do appreciate it. I've been kinda wondering which are better than others and which may have some features that mine just isn't capable of. I may eventually replace the radio, but I'm in no rush - for my specific case of wanting something small in the jeep with limited space, I like the idea of the controls on the mic... the lack of "no PL on RX" is an issue, but not too big of an issue just yet. Since I don't [yet] have access to any local repeaters it's not a big issue... hopefully one day I can find some repeaters, then I could see it being an issue, and then may swap out the radio. So I'll take my time and research the radios now, so if/when the time comes I'll have a better idea of what I'm looking for. For a long time I was thinking to move away from CB to GMRS or HAM, but didn't really compare different radios - and didn't know enough about them or the technology. Going with the Midland micromobile was somewhat of a hastly decision I made, but while I am learning more and more of what it's missing, so far I don't entirely regret it. 

 

I'll keep an eye on that other thread as well... thanks again to everyone for all the advice!

 

As for my original topic of antenna performance, for now i'm happy with the no-ground plane antenna that I have. Eventually (time-permitting) I'll add another NMO mount to the top of the tire carrier, and will compare the performance and post the results.

[sifert]

 

Thanks for all the recommendations on different radios, I do appreciate it. I've been kinda wondering which are better than others and which may have some features that mine just isn't capable of. I may eventually replace the radio, but I'm in no rush - for my specific case of wanting something small in the jeep with limited space, I like the idea of the controls on the mic... the lack of "no PL on RX" is an issue, but not too big of an issue just yet. Since I don't [yet] have access to any local repeaters it's not a big issue... hopefully one day I can find some repeaters, then I could see it being an issue, and then may swap out the radio. So I'll take my time and research the radios now, so if/when the time comes I'll have a better idea of what I'm looking for. For a long time I was thinking to move away from CB to GMRS or HAM, but didn't really compare different radios - and didn't know enough about them or the technology. Going with the Midland micromobile was somewhat of a hastly decision I made, but while I am learning more and more of what it's missing, so far I don't entirely regret it. 

 

I'll keep an eye on that other thread as well... thanks again to everyone for all the advice!

 

As for my original topic of antenna performance, for now i'm happy with the no-ground plane antenna that I have. Eventually (time-permitting) I'll add another NMO mount to the top of the tire carrier, and will compare the performance and post the results.

 

 

Did the research and settled on a Maxon 8402A with help from a friend. I really wish the controls were in the mic like the MXT-275. Being an SEO guy and social sentiment monitor in my profession, I know both Maxon and Midland will be reading this. And to them both, I say: Don't ignore the 1-9-90 rule! Whoever manufactures a 15-, 25-, 40-, or 50-watt GMRS radio with controls in the mic that can run split tones as @mcallahan says, will mow down the rest of the industry.