Wouxun KG-805G, FCC ID WVTWOUXUN16, and blanket 95E approvals

[Lscott]

are there any ramifications for licensees using any of these radios if they crack down at some point in the future?

I think in general that by itself is a worthwhile question. If a radio was purchased and was “certified” at the time but later the FCC pulled the certification is that radio still legal to use? I would say any radios sold after the certification was pulled are not legal. However how would a user of a purchased radio would know if the certification was pulled after their purchase and as a user are they under any legal obligation to periodically check?

[JeepCrawler98]

Ok; so ran into another interesting development on this today:

I ordered a Retevis RT29 last week; seemed like a durable radio, although I expect the internals to be less than great. The IP67 rating, 2-year warranty, and 3200mah battery appealed to me - for $50, again, a cheap beater radio to throw around the woods that supposedly lasts almost a week on a single charge per some of the reviews (curious to verify that) and is supposedly submersible (also curious to verify that)

This model is listed on FCC ID 2ASNRT76, which uses the RT76 as the primary radio, declaring the RT1, RT26, and RT29 as identical models.

Retevis didn't answer my email I sent them before I ordered to see what the FCC ID's were on this radio (they stated they forwarded it onto engineering but never heard back).

This showed up in the mail today; this radio is indeed badged compliant with the 2ASNRT76 FCC ID... so a legal Part 95E radio???

First impressions on the RT29: Again I don't expect great things from this radio performance wise and I literally got this in my hands with the sole intent of finding out what the manufacturer would send me, so take it with a pound of salt; the build quality feels excellent from a mechanical standpoint - very solid, not a creak to be heard, and feels similar to my TK380s and TK390s in terms of dead weight and general physical solidness. Feels a lot more sturdy than the KG805G which I'll say comes across as lightweight, although the bonus on that one is more so the memory channels and the receiver. I'm pretty sure you could knock someone out with it and still carry on a QSO. Perhaps a good radio for family use while you keep the high end gear for yourself...

Firmware wise the RT29 is not locked to GMRS, and will do 400-480Mhz and will also do wideband and high power on the 467Mhz interstitial channels (I should note that dual part 90/95A surplus can do this too so that's probably not an actual deal-breaker and its up to the programmer to get it right). The radio I received is only listed for Part 95E, you could use it on the ham radio service but of course that's also not allowed per the FCC rules if you use it on GMRS as well.... so really just a legal GMRS or ham radio (not both), and even then you probably can only use it on medium power (5 watts) since that's what the 95E cert is limited to.

First Impressions on the KG805G: now that i've had it for a few days with real-world use; it's indeed not a very selective receiver and does pick up and suffer from adjacent noise and interference fairly readily, it does do better than my UV82 (consider that a GMRS-V1 analogue) overall which is its competing market, but I will say that in low noise environments the receiver is very sensitive even with the stock antenna. In a clean environment, it seems to have a slightly easier time picking out signals than my Kenwood TK380, 390 and 3180 so its not without merit for a starter radio I'd say, and not a bad deal at all for a new radio with part 95 cert. Audio is generally very clear although lacking lows, but I'm also spoiled by Kenwood on this, transmit audio sounds excellent. The UV82 provided a richer sound due to the larger speaker, but it's also not as clear and easy to understand. Programming the channels beyond channel 30 works as advertised and is a big advantage over other panel-programmable GMRS radios in the current consumer market. I wish the radio felt more solid and had some more 'oomph' to it but honestly it's probably fine for most users.

Havent thrown either of these on the spectrum analyser and power meter to see what they put out; but will get to that in time. If causing interference is indicative of transmitter cleanliness and used as an unscientific benchmark, the KG805G does readily knock my computer monitors offline, causes Lucifer himself to type random incantations on my keyboard, and also puts my computer in sleep mode as does the UV82. The RT29 also does, but less easily and only at 10W high power. The Kenwood commercial radios do not do this at all even though they put out the same amount of power as the 805 and 82.... things that make you go hmmmmmmm....

[SUPERG900]

Okay - was on Amazon today and this popped up...

 

I'd venture a guess that somebody manipulated this photo  - not very obfuscatory - FAIL!

 

Same FCCID as my pair of RT76P - on those you might as well expect a code reuse since it's targeting the identical part 95 application. They even look somewhat similar to the RT76. But not here, at 10 watts! Hmmm...

 

 

[gman1971]

Wow, 50 bucks? Considering the Baoturd BF-888s is 9 dollars, it seems like 41 dollars too much... for the same performance, as measured. 

 

The RT29 and the entire RT family of radios I've owned all measured exactly the same figures: a whopping -92 dBm effective sensitivity in UHF...   and for the microvolt crowd, that is an effective sensitivity of (drumroll) 5.617 uV.... yes, not 0.5617 uV, its 5.617 uV, and for comparison, the XPR6550 has an effective sensitivity of 0.35 uV... so there you have it... 

 

Could you please measure the KG805G with an ISO-tee?, I would love to know what the effective sensitivity of that is... 

 

G.

[WRUV810]

On 1/15/2021 at 9:26 PM, gman1971 said:

The RT29 and the entire RT family of radios I've owned all measured exactly the same figures: a whopping -92 dBm effective sensitivity in UHF...   and for the microvolt crowd, that is an effective sensitivity of (drumroll) 5.617 uV.... yes, not 0.5617 uV, its 5.617 uV, and for comparison, the XPR6550 has an effective sensitivity of 0.35 uV... so there you have it...

Hello, I'm new to the hobby here. This basically means it needs very strong signals to receive anything, right? And is simply a low quality front end? Sorry, like I said - new to this. Thanks!

[SteveShannon]

12 minutes ago, WRUV810 said:

Hello, I'm new to the hobby here. This basically means it needs very strong signals to receive anything, right? And is simply a low quality front end? Sorry, like I said - new to this. Thanks!

Yes. By GMan1971’s sensitivity measurements, the radio has much less sensitivity, less than a tenth that of a Motorola XPR6550 (which is very expensive if purchased new and requires special software to program). 
But for everyday use maybe it’s not as dire as that one isolated measurement might indicate. Watch some videos on the YouTube channel “Notarubicon”.  He actually does real world tests of range, clarity, and usability. He’s also a frequent participant on this forum under the name @OffRoaderX. 
Just be sure you understand that much of the things he says reveal an dry acerbic wit which bothers some people.

[MichaelLAX]

On 10/30/2022 at 9:46 AM, Sshannon said:

Watch some videos on the YouTube channel “Notarubicon”.  He actually does real world tests of range, clarity, and usability. He’s also a frequent participant on this forum under the name @OffRoaderX. 

Just be sure you understand that much of the things he says reveal an dry acerbic wit which bothers some people.

BTW: "Some People" is a registered trademark of Notarubicon! 

Welcome, Michael, to GMRS and this Forum.

This is an excellent source for answers to your questions.

Looks like the open 725 Repeater in Paynesville might be closest to you.