I checked that after I posted my previous. No Stick. Well so much for using the CW27. I guess, I'll just stay with the Firestik II antenna. At least it will VSWR out at just barely more than 1.0:1 on Ch. 1 to less than 1.1:1 on Ch. 40. It is what it is, a CB on a Jeep and my 3 miles in the FM mode is fine for me. Its only a CB.
-
To anyone looking to acquire commercial radio programming software:
Please do not make requests for copies of radio programming software which is sold (or was sold) by the manufacturer for any monetary value. All requests will be deleted and a forum infraction issued. Making a request such as this is attempting to engage in software piracy and this forum cannot be involved or associated with this activity. The same goes for any private transaction via Private Message. Even if you attempt to engage in this activity in PM's we will still enforce the forum rules. Your PM's are not private and the administration has the right to read them if there's a hint to criminal activity.
If you are having trouble legally obtaining software please state so. We do not want any hurt feelings when your vague post is mistaken for a free request. It is YOUR responsibility to properly word your request.
To obtain Motorola software see the Sticky in the Motorola forum.
The various other vendors often permit their dealers to sell the software online (i.e., Kenwood). Please use Google or some other search engine to find a dealer that sells the software. Typically each series or individual radio requires its own software package. Often the Kenwood software is less than $100 so don't be a cheapskate; just purchase it.
For M/A Com/Harris/GE, etc: there are two software packages that program all current and past radios. One package is for conventional programming and the other for trunked programming. The trunked package is in upwards of $2,500. The conventional package is more reasonable though is still several hundred dollars. The benefit is you do not need multiple versions for each radio (unlike Motorola).
This is a large and very visible forum. We cannot jeopardize the ability to provide the RadioReference services by allowing this activity to occur. Please respect this.
AM or FM MODULATION BETTER FOR OFF-ROAD TRAIL COMMS
- Thread starter nokones
- Start date
K6GBW
Member
Wow, now that’s a cool little radio! I might need to look into one of those.
Davidbt
Member
I'm keeping an eye on this thread. After I get my QT-80 installed in my truck, I'm thinking my next project is installing the CS-47 in my jeep tj. There's a antenna bracket at the driver rear tail light already from the previous owner. I just installed a Radioddity DB20-G last week thought I may as well have cb also.
UHF FM is going to be king in the vast majority of cases. VHF in theory is going to go further, but antennas are almost never given a proper RF ground plane on modern vehicles, and certainly not in a Jeep or other compromised install. A proper RF ground plane is a third of the size on UHF and even a janky installation should be suitable. Also, antennas on UHF are much smaller (5 inches as opposed to 19, give or take) meaning you can get a much better performing antenna in the same space as a VHF quarter wave.
Years ago I compared Low Band, VHF, UHF and 900MHz to see which worked better in a mobile environment for real-world results. Antennas were all quarter wave antennas. VHF won by a long shot, but only because I had a proper ground plane. With even a slightly compromised ground plane (such as a lip mount), performance went down, quickly (as well as SWR).
And regarding AM vs FM? FM 100%. FM isn't nearly as susceptible to noise and fading as AM is. Especially for off-road comms where you often have after-market LED lights which can be REALLY noisy, RFI wise. Another reason I'd use UHF as well; most of those LED lights wreak havoc on lower frequencies, but UHF and up are more or less immune.
Years ago I compared Low Band, VHF, UHF and 900MHz to see which worked better in a mobile environment for real-world results. Antennas were all quarter wave antennas. VHF won by a long shot, but only because I had a proper ground plane. With even a slightly compromised ground plane (such as a lip mount), performance went down, quickly (as well as SWR).
And regarding AM vs FM? FM 100%. FM isn't nearly as susceptible to noise and fading as AM is. Especially for off-road comms where you often have after-market LED lights which can be REALLY noisy, RFI wise. Another reason I'd use UHF as well; most of those LED lights wreak havoc on lower frequencies, but UHF and up are more or less immune.
Last edited:
Similar threads
