Baofeng UV-50X3

[BoxCar]

Has anyone looked at this offering by Baofeng? The manufacturer's literature states it is a self-contained cross-band and same band repeater due to the independent receiver and transmitter. With its low price it would make a great single unit repeater. My understanding i the radio would also require an internal duplexer for operation as a repeater. The literature isn't real clear on that point.

[coryb27]

Has anyone looked at this offering by Baofeng? The manufacturer's literature states it is a self-contained cross-band and same band repeater due to the independent receiver and transmitter. With its low price it would make a great single unit repeater. My understanding i the radio would also require an internal duplexer for operation as a repeater. The literature isn't real clear on that point.

 

1. This is a HAM radio not for use on GMRS,

2. Cross band is just what it says VHF to UHF it will not have an option for single band repeat.

3. The duty cycle on this unit is around 50%, one long winded conversation would cause it to melt down.

[BoxCar]

The majority of Part 97 mobile units are not capable (on their spec sheets) of accessing GMRS frequencies but are modified for operation in Part 95 frequencies. It is also true that almost all Part 97 radios are not certified for GMRS operation but many do reach those frequencies and are used by licensees throughout the areas covered by FCC regulations. We all recognize that a radio must carry an FCC certification for the service it is used in however, many of us holding GMRS licenses knowingly use, and champion the use, of Part 97 radios on Part 95 frequencies. 

 

Is the Commission aware of this issue? You can be certain they are. The question that remains is if the use of a radio certified for use in the amateur UHF band causing issues affecting users in the GMRS frequencies problems. As it appears this is not an issue affecting other licensed users it may not be seen as an issue requiring action by any division within the Commission. Bottom line, yes it is against the FCC regulations to use an uncertified unit but as the unit is certified to operate in a companion service on adjacent frequencies the radio would probably continue to operate within the limits specified for the uncertified service.

 

Thank you for your insights as to the use of the radio as a same band repeater. I may have to rework the configuration to add an external duplexer and second radio.

[coryb27]

I don't know of anybody that champions the use, of Part 97 radios on GMRS. I have however championed the use, of Part 90 radios on GMRS as that service has as strong or stronger specs. Recent changes to the FCC wording state an operator my operate equipment that is certified in another service, part 97 equipment is not certified. Furthermore the FCC has commented about the use of HAM radios on GMRS and will enforce action if one is caught. You can read more below, I am sure others on this site will agree that non certified equipment has no place on GMRS.

 

http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-turns-away-petition-to-allow-hams-to-operate-non-certificated-transmitters-on-gmrs

[BoxCar]

I thank you for the education regarding the interplay between parts 95 and 97. I did note one thing in the ARRL link you sent that could have been a deciding factor in denying the petition. That point was brought out in the closing paragraph regarding the use of home brew equipment.

[Ian]

Per the comparison chart here, the UV-50X3 is indeed a part 90 radio.

[Elkhunter521]

Ian, you need to be careful believing what Btech says, even in print. Best to see if its listed with FCC as part 90 accepted.

 

Keith T

[BoxCar]

Miklor also reports the radio is Part 90 approved.

 

http://www.miklor.com/COM/Review_50X3.php

[coryb27]

Miklor also reports the radio is Part 90 approved.

 

http://www.miklor.com/COM/Review_50X3.php

 

As soon as I see VFO its chances of having a valid part 90 spec go out the window.

[Radioguy7268]

You also need to consider that even when a radio lists a valid Part 90/ Part 95 type acceptance number, once you go to look up that number, you find out that the type acceptance is for very odd emission designations, usually at a power level that is well below what the radio is capable of being programmed for.

 

In short, if the radio is "type accepted" for Part 90 or 95 - but only for ultra narrow 4K0F1D emissions, with just 1.1 watts of power -  is it still a type accepted radio when you program it for 25 kHz wideband at 4 watts?

[axorlov]

That one was easy to find. FCC ID: 2AGNDUV50X3

 

The authorization is for Part 90, 50W with 10K4F3E designator. New Part 90 equipment will never have wide-band certification compatible with GMRS, if I understand the rules correctly.

[berkinet]

That one was easy to find. FCC ID: 2AGNDUV50X3

 

The authorization is for Part 90, 50W with 10K4F3E designator. New Part 90 equipment will never have wide-band certification compatible with GMRS, if I understand the rules correctly.

 

This radio is NOT Part-90 certified as applies to GMRS.

 

For UHF 406.1-480.0 the radio is approved for 5K21F3E (5.21kHz) and, as Axorlov noted, 10K4F3E (10.4 kHz). These correspond to Narrow (6.25kHz)  and Wide (12.5) band FM. So, it would, at first, seem this radio might be ok on GMRS.

 

However, In their cover letter BTECH states

The Mobile Radio with FCC ID: 2AGNDUV50X3 was designed to operate in the frequency bands 400-480MHz&136-174MHz.

To aid equipment authorization in other countries which accept the United States FCC Grant for certification, BTECH (BaoFeng Tech) is requesting that the FCC lists the frequencies 400-480MHz136-174MHz, under FCC Rules Parts 90 on the FCC Grant.

BTECH (BaoFeng Tech) attests that the repeater will not be marketed to USA users with the frequency band which is not allowed by the rule part 90.

Per the FCC’s KDB634817 guidance, as an alternative to listing the exact frequencies, we acknowledge that it’s a violation of the FCC Rules if this device operates on unauthorized frequencies.

 

Then, in the frequency table attached to that letter 

UHF: 400-480MHz

Frequency Range(MHz)      FCC Rule Part

400-406 MHz                      For Federal

406.1-450 MHz                   FCC Part 90

450-454 MHz                      FCC Part 90

456-460MHz                       FCC Part 90

460-462.5375MHz             FCC Part 90

462.7375-467.5375MHz    FCC Part 90

467.7357-470MHz             FCC Part 90 

470-480MHz                      FCC Part 90

 

Note, they explicitly exclude GMRS: 462.5500 - 462.7250  & 467.5500 - 467.7250

 

So, while the UV-50X3 may be freely used on the Ham bands and in Part-90 service on the stated bands, it cannot be used as either a Part-95 radio or a Part-90 radio on GMRS.   So, Corey's postulate on Part-90 radios on GMRS would not apply.

[Elkhunter521]

Wow, I guess i'm stupid. I do not understand why a China or any other place cannot build and get certified a radio with the following.(pay attention Midland):

 

1. Wide band channels 15 - 22 simplex and duplex.

 

2. 40 t0 50 watt tx.

 

3. Ability to set seperate pl tones for tx, rx, including no tone.

 

4. Retail at $150 us dollars.

 

Hey, this is a good list so far. What have I missed?

[BoxCar]

Wow, I guess i'm stupid. I do not understand why a China or any other place cannot build and get certified a radio with the following.(pay attention Midland):

 

1. Wide band channels 15 - 22 simplex and duplex.

 

2. 40 t0 50 watt tx.

 

3. Ability to set seperate pl tones for tx, rx, including no tone.

 

4. Retail at $150 us dollars.

 

Hey, this is a good list so far. What have I missed?

How about the 50W duplexer built i

[berkinet]

Wow, I guess i'm stupid. I do not understand why a China or any other place cannot build and get certified a radio with the following.(pay attention Midland):

...

 

There are plenty of radios made that meet your requirements. The issue is, only a few of them are Part-90 certified and almost none are Part-95 certified.  As to why, my guess is the cost of FCC certification (it is not cheap) would not be justified by an increase in sales. In other words, people that care are buying radios from quality companies and are willing to pay the price. The rest want cheap and that is what they get.

[berkinet]

How about the 50W duplexer built i

 

Ok, I'll bite. Why in the world would you want a duplexer built into a mobile radio? And, how would you expect someone to be able to sell that for under under $150?

 

If what you want is a radio that is also capable off being a repeater, note that it would need to be capable of simultaneous reception and transmission with a duty cycle high-enough that wouldn't melt the finals after 5 minutes.

[Elkhunter521]

Recognizing my desire to be 100% legal and managing to partially supress that desire, what radios would meet my "list" accepting the part 95 cert.?

[BoxCar]

The UV-50X3 has a separate receiver and is designed to function as a crossband repeater

[berkinet]

Recognizing my desire to be 100% legal and managing to partially supress that desire, what radios would meet my "list" accepting the part 95 cert.?

Many of the UHF and UHF/VHF mobile radios sold today will meet your requirements 1-4. Look at Amazon. If you would accept lower power, the list gets even longer.

[berkinet]

The UV-50X3 has a separate receiver and is designed to function as a crossband repeater

You don’t need a duplexer to repeat VHF on UFH or visa-versa. And anyway, VHF duplexers are large and I have never seen a dual-band duplexer in a single mobile unit. Finally, I would not think a single dual band antenna would work very well for simultaneous VHF/UHF use. Not to mention cross-banding onto or from GMRS is strictly prohibited.

[Elkhunter521]

Ok, to clarify my original request. A GMRS radio, with channels 15 - 22 simplex and duplex (repeater capable). Wide band, above 25 watt on tx.

With the ability to set any tone or no tone on tx and rx.

Still at $ 150 .

[Downs]

I don't know of anybody that champions the use, of Part 97 radios on GMRS. I have however championed the use, of Part 90 radios on GMRS as that service has as strong or stronger specs. Recent changes to the FCC wording state an operator my operate equipment that is certified in another service, part 97 equipment is not certified. Furthermore the FCC has commented about the use of HAM radios on GMRS and will enforce action if one is caught. You can read more below, I am sure others on this site will agree that non certified equipment has no place on GMRS.

 

http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-turns-away-petition-to-allow-hams-to-operate-non-certificated-transmitters-on-gmrs

 

They actually have to put in effort to "catch" someone.  They don't have the manpower or resources to perform such actions on a wide scale and would have to wait until someone caused some issues large enough to get reported.  

 

The problem with that is you're never going to find anyone who is going to be able to tell someone is using a Baofeng on GMRS anyway, at least not with any certainty.  So what's there for the FCC to track down?  

 

If it takes them the better part of a decade to make a "Move" against well known identified offenders on the HF bands, billy bob and his kids talking on GMRS/MUR/FRS on uncertified equipment. wont' even be a blip on their radar. 

 

I don't have the UV50X3, but do have a UV50X2 that I use in my Jeep for a mobile radio.  The only gripe I have with it, is IMO it needs a lower power setting.  All it has is low an high with Low being 20 to 25 watts and high being between 65 and 75 watts depending on where you are at on the spectrum, it's marketed as a 50 watt unit by the way.  

[WREB270]

Interesting power readings. I have tested 3 of the UV-50X2's the first put out 32watts, the second just died in about 30 seconds bouncing between 0 and 9 watts and the third only output 21 watts.

 

I was going to get the x1 for GMRS use but if it's the same unit just locked out... I think I will pass and am looking at the Midland MTX-400 instead.

[berkinet]

Interesting power readings. I have tested 3 of the UV-50X2's the first put out 32watts, the second just died in about 30 seconds bouncing between 0 and 9 watts and the third only output 21 watts.

 

I was going to get the x1 for GMRS use but if it's the same unit just locked out... I think I will pass and am looking at the Midland MTX-400 instead.

 

I can't comment on the UV50Xx radios since I've never used one. However, I can comment on the importance (or lack thereof) of power ratings.  While overall output power is certainly a factor in a radio, the actual accuracy of the power rating it is probably not the number one factor. A difference of 18 watts is less than a 2db difference. You can probably improve your transmission AND reception by at least 2db by using better coax and a better antenna placed in a better location (I.e.usually a taller mast).  Also, even if the radio output the full 50 watts, is it on channel or spread across a wide frequency range with lots of spurious emissions.

 

Personally, before worrying too much about power, I'd want to make sure the transmitter was clean, on frequency and within the expected bandwidth (wide or narrow) and I'd pay close attention to the receiver, particularly weak signal detection and adjacent channel rejection.  I'd also make sure the radio had the operational features I needed, was easily programmable, had any external interfaces I might want and had decent build quality.

 

But, back to the power issue, one thing to check is your power meter. If you are using a low-cost "CB meter" you will not get accurate readings at 460mHz. However, a radio failing at the get-go would seem to indicate possible quality issues. 

 

UPDATE:  You might want to look at the Amazon negative comments (15%) on the UV-50X2

[kipandlee]

They actually have to put in effort to "catch" someone.  They don't have the manpower or resources to perform such actions on a wide scale and would have to wait until someone caused some issues large enough to get reported.  

 

The problem with that is you're never going to find anyone who is going to be able to tell someone is using a Baofeng on GMRS anyway, at least not with any certainty.  So what's there for the FCC to track down?  

 

If it takes them the better part of a decade to make a "Move" against well known identified offenders on the HF bands, billy bob and his kids talking on GMRS/MUR/FRS on uncertified equipment. wont' even be a blip on their radar. 

 

I don't have the UV50X3, but do have a UV50X2 that I use in my Jeep for a mobile radio.  The only gripe I have with it, is IMO it needs a lower power setting.  All it has is low an high with Low being 20 to 25 watts and high being between 65 and 75 watts depending on where you are at on the spectrum, it's marketed as a 50 watt unit by the way.  

this software can be used to adjust power levels to your liking BTECH UV-25X2 and UV-50X2 Squelch Engineer Software