I'm would like to get my own comm gear after my paper work is processed. I'm a ham but only my ft-817 is CAP authorized and only at 5 watts.
I'm curious what everyone's experiences are with their equipment. I'm looking for:
- make model
- how does it work for you
- issued or purchased
- source. ie ebay etc
- purchase price if your willing
I hadn't seen any recent wide ranging discussions on the authorized equipment, especially HF, so i was hoping to stir up some conversation.
Thanks
Brent
There is a list of complaint equipment.....start there.
Quote from: brent.teal on May 15, 2013, 06:49:38 PMI hadn't seen any recent wide ranging discussions on the authorized equipment
Seriously? There's plenty of
fights discussions about equipment, compliance, licensing and training here.
Nearly everything NHQ issues, mobile or HT will be an EF Johnson product, otherwise, hit the NTC site for the current list of products,
and check the recent threads for information on an inexpensive compliant radio that was recently released.
Me, personally, I have an issued EFJ-HT, and issues EFJ Mobile in my truck, and a Motorola Visar I own personally (along with some issues ISRs).
I guess I should modify that a bit, I hadn't seen much on HF equipment recently. I did see the discussion on the wouxon. Which will probably be what I get for vhf. I don't recall seeing anyone talking about the icom m* marine models. And of course you can get a micom 2 for about $2000 or a micom 3 for $3,000 on up on ebay.
HF has been a mess in CAP for a number of years, and still is.
For example, there was an initiative to equip all GTLs with a mobile HF, including a rediculous antenna with a base the size of a traffic cone.
And then they didn't.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 15, 2013, 09:37:36 PM
HF has been a mess in CAP for a number of years, and still is.
For example, there was an initiative to equip all GTLs with a mobile HF, including a rediculous antenna with a base the size of a traffic cone.
And then they didn't.
The initiative was not to equip all GTLs with mobile HFs. It was to equip all CAP vehicles with mobile HFs. The goal is now to equip 50% of CAP vehicles with mobile HFs. The hangup occured when the procurement folks notices we had alot of HF radios in storage. Since Micom calls the standard Micom 2 and 3 a mobile radio, they stopped buying more of the remote head version (2T/3T) that we consider a mobile radio since the main body is difficult to install in a operable location in the vehicle with the controls accessible.
HF is still a mess, but it's getting better.
Yeah, you're right, ours was going to go in the ICP trailer instead of the truck.
The wing DC was running one in his POV, and when he'd key it up at full power his airbag light would come on!
I can't tell you how many candles I lit asking to be there to see the bag go off while he was transmitting. Alas, no luck..
I have mixed opinions regarding HF in CAP vehicles. The promise is nice since the Rocky Mountains are full of places where cell phones don't work. Unfortunately the HF-ALE installs are complex and often anything but user friendly. Almost no one knows how to use the things. Propagation is relatively unpredictable and inefficient mobile antennas make it worse.
Worse, I've never made a useful CAP contact within my own state using mobile HF. That same install has successfully talked to other states and regions but "local" contacts suck grande. Local for HF, meaning I would like to talk from Ft Collins to Colorado Springs, Summit County, Grand Junction, etc. Those successful contacts to distant points likely depended on the other side being a fixed station with a good antenna. I could ask for a relay but most of the time no one else is listening. That doesn't get me through to my ICP 150 miles away.
My preference is sufficiently trained operators using HF at stationary sites, either permanent or temporary, with suitable antennas. That allows a hub & spoke style topology. VHF locally, HF for longer paths when other methods aren't available. At best I see mobile HF used with designated comm relay vehicles, where dedicated comm geeks can do their antenna magic and provide the gateway from VHF to HF.
My best successes with mobile HF have been on the ham bands, when I untether the HF antenna and lean it away from the vehicle (looks like the van is jousting). Again, I suspect those contacts relied on the other station doing the heavy lifting with big ears and a "big mouth."
So for the OP, get a good, compliant, VHF radio. CAP HF is interesting if you can setup a good base station install.
i would like to setup a mobile at somepoint. i have a 80 meterish loop
Anyone had any luck with the ef johnson 51xx radios verson 1.x that are on ebay.
Quote from: brent.teal on May 22, 2013, 11:22:11 PM
Anyone had any luck with the ef johnson 51xx radios verson 1.x that are on ebay.
They seem to be OK, but if you bid on any, verify with the seller beforehand that it is a VHF (136-174 MHz) unit. The descriptions on a couple of them seem to be uncertain on the freq band. The 3rd digit of the second section of the model number should be 1, for full range VHF -> 242-51
1x-xxxx
Programming might be an issue, depending on your wing policies.
I had heard that there where some issues with the early 1.x and 2.x versions of efj's that are on ebay. I was wondering if anyone had experienced any.
As far as programming goes, are some wings not programming member owned radios tot he national plan? I did read in the 100-1 that encryption would not be put on member radios without written permission from NHQ.
In order to program a radio, you need to know the following:
the assigned channel number, the channel designation, the channel frequency, and the CTCSS tone
Acquiring this info from your wing, especially if you're not assigned to a group or wing comm position, can be difficult. Almost equally difficult can be having wing do the programming.
Quote from: SarDragon on May 24, 2013, 04:36:16 AM
In order to program a radio, you need to know the following:
the assigned channel number, the channel designation, the channel frequency, and the CTCSS tone
Acquiring this info from your wing, especially if you're not assigned to a group or wing comm position, can be difficult. Almost equally difficult can be having wing do the programming.
OTTH, some wings are quite easy to get the information or programming from, particularly if they're already programming some radios. Now, getting them to add other channels not the wing standard plug, such as ham, may be difficult due the painful process of building the code plugs. Definitely contact YOUR wing DC about it.
I have an EFJ 5113 I bought on EBay. It's a beautiful radio, near mint condition, part of a cache that was seldom/never used.
Still, after all I went through on that radio, I wouldn't recommend getting one. My Wouxun KG-UV6X handles most of the situations I encounter, it was a bit cheaper, and there's a much better support infrastructure.
Dr.T
I have three EFJ 5100 radios bought on EBay and they are all working well. These are the first generation and I don't ever expect to have any encryption keys installed. CAP is still a long way away from using encryption on a regular basis. These are rugged radios that will do both analog and Project 25 digital. Our wing CD told me that more of our missions will be conducted using digital. I program these radios myself and it's fairly easy if you can get a copy of an old base code plug to start, then add you local ham channels. The Chinese handhelds are cheaper and are good but are analog only.
If you buy on EBay, be careful and look for a price below $300. I got one for $150. You can buy a programming cable for about $25.
Bob Morris
Bob:
Interesting comment from your Wing CD. We just had our Wing Conference (VAWG), and the unofficial word was that we would remain predominantly analog for the near future due to the liaison organizations we deal with.
Yes, I like my EFJ5113 (it's an FPP model) a lot, but I'll probably use my Wouxun more frequently for GTM -- it's lighter, and also does UHF.
DrT
ILWG has been experimenting with P25 but I haven't seen it used yet on an exercise or mission (at least not personally). If we needed to do liaison work we would use IREACH, the State of Illinois' liaison freq, which is analog.
The problem I see with digital is that it's all-or-nothing. At least with analog you have the possibility of getting some kind of rough contact, even at the edge of your range. With digital, if you start dropping packets, you get nothing. I've also heard of 10-15% reductions in range.
Also, if we were to go all-digital, right now, you're going to hack off a lot of people who all they own is analog-only gear. Not that I actually see most of those (that own 100% of their radios with no CAP-owned equipment) types turn up anywhere, but it would still sow discontent.
We ran out opseval a few weeks ago all digital
Quote from: dogden on May 29, 2013, 06:48:31 PM
We ran out opseval a few weeks ago all digital
Would love to do that, but our wing has a couple of planes that are non-digital capable, so we almost always run all-analog comm plans.
Quote from: JeffDG on May 30, 2013, 02:15:29 PMWould love to do that, but our wing has a couple of planes that are non-digital capable, so we almost always run all-analog comm plans.
Except of course for the folks in the field that don't know the difference and can't figure out why the aircraft can't hear them.
Quote from: Fubar on June 01, 2013, 01:44:53 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on May 30, 2013, 02:15:29 PMWould love to do that, but our wing has a couple of planes that are non-digital capable, so we almost always run all-analog comm plans.
Except of course for the folks in the field that don't know the difference and can't figure out why the aircraft can't hear them.
Which is why we try to keep it simple and say, in the Comm Briefing "If your channel designator has a "P" in it, it's wrong!"
Quote from: JeffDG on June 03, 2013, 02:25:37 PM
Which is why we try to keep it simple and say, in the Comm Briefing "If your channel designator has a "P" in it, it's wrong!"[/quote]
Boy, and a half!
Give me a fully standardized channel plan, tell me group and channel. Anything else is unnecessary and wastes everyone's time in a continued
effort to force the issue of field operators "needing to know".
In my wing, one of the groups is trying to get permission to set up P25 talk groups on their local repeater. The talk groups would allow for multiple squadrons to use the repeater for individual business and not interfere with each other.
I have traded away my Motorola XTS2500 for a slightly used model 3 VHF 5100ES. Works far better than my 2500 ever did, and with the AMBE+2 vocoder, has awesome digital transmit and receive. Motorola didn't start using AMBE+2 until their most recent APX series.
As far as HF, I have a Micom 2TS in my car, a Micom tuner in the trunk, and a 12' whip over the car. I used a simple ball and spring mount since I do not need the Micom Wima setup (Wima setups use the large pylon which contains the tuner).
Haven't used my personal HF radio for CAP yet, however, at our last SAREVAL, I set up an inverted-V antenna and was able to make several contacts using a Micom 3 RDP. Our base was in north central Ohio, and I was able to communicate with a mobile HF station ~65 miles away, and several base stations even further.
I've rather started to enjoy HF-ALE. It takes the big VFO dial out of HF, but it adds a more technological aspect to it! I get on the ham ALE net once in a great while!
Quote from: kd8gua on July 01, 2013, 03:33:01 AMIn my wing, one of the groups is trying to get permission to set up P25 talk groups on their local repeater. The talk groups would allow for multiple squadrons to use the repeater for individual business and not interfere with each other.
Interesting. Each talkgroup actively in use will require two frequencies, plus the control channel frequency. Obviously they've done the math or they wouldn't be asking for permission, so how are there enough CAP frequencies to make that work? Unless of course they're only going to allow one talkgroup to be repeated at a time.
Nope. P25 talk groups are different than trunking talk groups in that P25 systems use one repeater input/output pair. You set up talk groups separately from standard PL/NAC information. For example, on the R123 repeater, which covers 5 squadrons easily in Group 1, the radio would be programmed to have squadron 101 as talk group 101, squadron 102 would be talk group 102, etc. The radio would have a separate zone set up for these talk groups. All of the actual frequency information for each channel is exactly the same, but by changing the talk group per channel entered, while on channel 1, you would only hear traffic for squadron 101.
A more localized application of this would be an Encampment that is too spread out for ISR radios, but a portable repeater would have the acceptable range. Instead of everyone hearing all traffic passed on the one repeater channel, the Command staff would be in a talk group, medical in another, logistics, etc. So, much like changing channels on the ISR, you'd just change to the appropriate talk group on which you want to talk.
Ok, so it's not that groups won't interfere with each other, it's that they won't hear each other making it easier to interfere with each other.
At least that's what would happen at the encampment I went to last year. Multiple ISR frequencies were frequently in use simultaneously, which if I understand your description correctly, would be a problem with the proposed setup.
Community repeater would be a better description than talk groups.
Quote from: kd8gua on July 01, 2013, 05:57:36 AM
Nope. P25 talk groups are different than trunking talk groups in that P25 systems use one repeater input/output pair. You set up talk groups separately from standard PL/NAC information. For example, on the R123 repeater, which covers 5 squadrons easily in Group 1, the radio would be programmed to have squadron 101 as talk group 101, squadron 102 would be talk group 102, etc. The radio would have a separate zone set up for these talk groups. All of the actual frequency information for each channel is exactly the same, but by changing the talk group per channel entered, while on channel 1, you would only hear traffic for squadron 101.
The problem with that though is you've basically added a second layer of squelch control, so you'll end up with your end-user getting frustrated "Comms why is my radio bonking at me when I key up? There's nobody talking so I should be able to get out!" Yea, nobody that you can hear because they're on a different talkgroup... Talkgroup systems only really make sense in A.) low-traffic environment where you have dedicated radios for specific personnel you want to address specifically (just use a different channel, I say) or B.) high-traffic environment with a large (10+) frequency pool to choose from in a trunking situation, like what we use at my office. Keeps any given frequency busy for only 2 seconds or so so the rest of the state can use the system. (Statewide linked 800mhz Motorola SmartZoneII trunking system)
CTCTSS and a sensible ICS 205 will eliminate the need for all this fancy talkgroup mess. Besides, what all are you doing in your Wing for "business" if you're so busy that you even have to consider a talkgroup system?