2 Meter Radios

[Guy Acheson]

I have heard pilots expressing their enthusiasm for
2 meter shortwave radios. (ie. clear channels, repeaters
provide extended range, ability to make telephone calls)
I would like to hear comments on specific models so
Santa can make a certain little boy happy.

[Vaughn]

"Guy Acheson" > wrote in message
...
> I have heard pilots expressing their enthusiasm for
> 2 meter shortwave radios. (ie. clear channels, repeaters
> provide extended range, ability to make telephone calls)
> I would like to hear comments on specific models so
> Santa can make a certain little boy happy.

Does that "little boy" have an amateur radio license? It is the
requirement for licensing (which requires passing a rather stiff written
test) that pretty well keeps two meter radios out of glider cockpits. I
have been a licensed amateur radio operator far longer than I have been a
glider pilot and I have never even considered taking a 2-meter radio flying
with me. Why would I want to carry yet another radio?

Vaughn (WB4UHB)
>
>
>

[Tim Ward]

"Guy Acheson" > wrote in message
...
> I have heard pilots expressing their enthusiasm for
> 2 meter shortwave radios. (ie. clear channels, repeaters
> provide extended range, ability to make telephone calls)
> I would like to hear comments on specific models so
> Santa can make a certain little boy happy.

If you're in the U.S., spend the six bucks or so it costs to take the test
to get the Technician amateur radio license.
When I took it , it was 55 questions, from a known question pool. Radio
Shack has a book called "Now You're Talking" for twenty bucks, and it has
the question pool, or you can probably find them on the net.
Studying for the test will give you a good idea of what you can expect from
the radios, and if you talk to the volunteers that give the tests, you can
get lots of opinions on what the best brands are.
The Morse-code-free Technician license gives you access to 50 MHz and up,
which includes the two meter band, but not the lower frequencies that are
usually referred to as "shortwave".

Vaughn wrote:

> Does that "little boy" have an amateur radio license? It is the
> requirement for licensing (which requires passing a rather stiff written
> test) that pretty well keeps two meter radios out of glider cockpits. I
> have been a licensed amateur radio operator far longer than I have been a
> glider pilot and I have never even considered taking a 2-meter radio
flying
> with me. Why would I want to carry yet another radio?

Vaughn (WB4UHB)

Well, I found the test to cover such complex concepts as "Don't stick your
head in a microwave oven", and "Don't stick your fingers in the light
socket". I found a test site on a Wednesday, my wife and I studied the
question pool the rest of the week, and we both passed on Saturday morning.
Perhaps it's harder now. It's certainly not as expensive as ninety or a
hundred bucks to take the glider written.

As to why you'd carry one, it's not that unusual in the western U.S. to be
able to hit a repeater but not a cell phone site, at least on the ground. A
dual band (2m/70cm) HT with a collapsible gain antenna and the ARRL repeater
guide can be useful.

If you want to chit-chat, it leaves the crowded air-band frequencies a
little less congested.

Tim Ward
KD6UTW

[Eric Greenwell]

Tim Ward wrote:

> As to why you'd carry one, it's not that unusual in the western U.S. to be
> able to hit a repeater but not a cell phone site, at least on the ground. A
> dual band (2m/70cm) HT with a collapsible gain antenna and the ARRL repeater
> guide can be useful.
>
> If you want to chit-chat, it leaves the crowded air-band frequencies a
> little less congested.

Well, I'd certainly vote for less chit-chat on 123.3/.5, but are people
getting these in addition to or instead of an aircraft radio? And how
much chit-chat is on the 2 meter bands they'd be using from 10,000',
where they'd get much more range than the hams on the ground? Does that
bother the hams?

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Robin Birch]

In message >, Eric Greenwell
> writes
>Tim Ward wrote:
>
>> As to why you'd carry one, it's not that unusual in the western U.S. to be
>> able to hit a repeater but not a cell phone site, at least on the ground. A
>> dual band (2m/70cm) HT with a collapsible gain antenna and the ARRL repeater
>> guide can be useful.
>> If you want to chit-chat, it leaves the crowded air-band frequencies
>>
>> little less congested.
>
>Well, I'd certainly vote for less chit-chat on 123.3/.5, but are people
>getting these in addition to or instead of an aircraft radio? And how
>much chit-chat is on the 2 meter bands they'd be using from 10,000',
>where they'd get much more range than the hams on the ground? Does that
>bother the hams?
>
The hams will probably go ballistic. In the UK it will bring the wrath
of the radio authority down around your shoulders in the US I suspect
the ARRL would also want to have a big beef as well

Robin,
Astir Pilot and Radio Ham
--
Robin Birch

[Tim Ward]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Tim Ward wrote:
>
> > As to why you'd carry one, it's not that unusual in the western U.S. to
be
> > able to hit a repeater but not a cell phone site, at least on the
ground. A
> > dual band (2m/70cm) HT with a collapsible gain antenna and the ARRL
repeater
> > guide can be useful.
> >
> > If you want to chit-chat, it leaves the crowded air-band frequencies a
> > little less congested.
>
> Well, I'd certainly vote for less chit-chat on 123.3/.5, but are people
> getting these in addition to or instead of an aircraft radio?

Hmm. I was using them XC in hang gliders, so it was typically instead of.
Hang gliders may be a special case, because we usually had more than one
pilot to a retrieve vehicle. So small groups of pilots find it useful to
have their "own frequency".

When I used 70 cm in my glider, it was in addition to.

Since there's now an HT that is both airband and 2m, there's no reason it
couldn't be in addition to, even if the HT is the only radio in the glider.

> And how
> much chit-chat is on the 2 meter bands they'd be using from 10,000',
> where they'd get much more range than the hams on the ground? Does that
> bother the hams?

Well, done correctly, the pilots ARE hams. Notice I'm not saying everyone
should just go out and buy a radio. Getting a Technician ticket is not
hard, and will (probably) teach you how to operate without irritating other
hams..
Hams use 2m when driving and hiking and biking and all sorts of things. I
don't see why hams shouldn't use 2m flying gliders (though in some countries
it is not legal to operate aeronautical mobile). But there are lots of
simplex channels, and if you stay off of the simplex calling frequency, it's
unlikely to be a problem, especially in remote areas.

OTOH, calling up as aeronautical mobile is enough of a novelty to get some
attention. Some of my ham friends have wondered about the weird "alternator
whine" of the vario in the background.

Tim Ward

[Libelle Driver]

The problem with 2 meter is there would not be a way to call the closest FSS
to get weather, or to contact the tower when you land.

"Tim Ward" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Tim Ward wrote:
> >
> > > As to why you'd carry one, it's not that unusual in the western U.S.
to
> be
> > > able to hit a repeater but not a cell phone site, at least on the
> ground. A
> > > dual band (2m/70cm) HT with a collapsible gain antenna and the ARRL
> repeater
> > > guide can be useful.
> > >
> > > If you want to chit-chat, it leaves the crowded air-band frequencies a
> > > little less congested.
> >
> > Well, I'd certainly vote for less chit-chat on 123.3/.5, but are people
> > getting these in addition to or instead of an aircraft radio?
>
> Hmm. I was using them XC in hang gliders, so it was typically instead of.
> Hang gliders may be a special case, because we usually had more than one
> pilot to a retrieve vehicle. So small groups of pilots find it useful to
> have their "own frequency".
>
> When I used 70 cm in my glider, it was in addition to.
>
> Since there's now an HT that is both airband and 2m, there's no reason it
> couldn't be in addition to, even if the HT is the only radio in the
glider.
>
> > And how
> > much chit-chat is on the 2 meter bands they'd be using from 10,000',
> > where they'd get much more range than the hams on the ground? Does that
> > bother the hams?
>
> Well, done correctly, the pilots ARE hams. Notice I'm not saying everyone
> should just go out and buy a radio. Getting a Technician ticket is not
> hard, and will (probably) teach you how to operate without irritating
other
> hams..
> Hams use 2m when driving and hiking and biking and all sorts of things. I
> don't see why hams shouldn't use 2m flying gliders (though in some
countries
> it is not legal to operate aeronautical mobile). But there are lots of
> simplex channels, and if you stay off of the simplex calling frequency,
it's
> unlikely to be a problem, especially in remote areas.
>
> OTOH, calling up as aeronautical mobile is enough of a novelty to get some
> attention. Some of my ham friends have wondered about the weird
"alternator
> whine" of the vario in the background.
>
> Tim Ward
>
>

[ISoar]

> >much chit-chat is on the 2 meter bands they'd be using from 10,000',
> >where they'd get much more range than the hams on the ground? Does that
> >bother the hams?
> >
> The hams will probably go ballistic.

Not in my experience. When hang gliding on a non-XC flight I kept my
radio on lowest power setting because anybody I wanted to talk to was
within a few miles line of sight. On the days when we got to 7k - 10k
AGL hams 30 miles away could pick us up. Most of the reaction was
friendly. They were curious about antennas and about hang gliding.
The only unfriendly reaction was to folks not using their call signs,
or not having callsigns. But that's the same unfriendly reaction the
unlicensed users got when standing on the ground.

[Tim Ward]

"Libelle Driver" > wrote in message
...
> The problem with 2 meter is there would not be a way to call the closest
FSS
> to get weather, or to contact the tower when you land.

This is not a problem with 2 meter radio. This is a problem with not having
an air band radio.
I haven't seen anyone in this thread advocate replacing the air band
tranceiver with 2m.
I think amateur radio can be a useful tool for some XC pilots.
I think if you use 2m, you should get the license, or, contrariwise, you
shouldn't use 2m if you don't get the license.
I think getting the Technician license here in the US is pretty easy.
I think the Yaesu VXA-700 ( http://www.pilotshop.hu/yaesu/vxa-700.pdf ) isa
really nifty package, and I _really_ wish they'd been available when I was
flying hang gliders.

Tim Ward

[Lennie the Lurker]

"Tim Ward" > wrote in message >...
>>
> Well, I found the test to cover such complex concepts as "Don't stick your
> head in a microwave oven", and "Don't stick your fingers in the light
> socket". I found a test site on a Wednesday, my wife and I studied the
> question pool the rest of the week, and we both passed on Saturday morning.
> Perhaps it's harder now. It's certainly not as expensive as ninety or a
> hundred bucks to take the glider written.
>
Then you wonder why QCWA members don't respect the newer hams. My
test was free, BTW taken at a FCC field office, (SF) and with a 13 WPM
code requirement. From what you describe, a novice in 1963 would know
more than you were expected to. BTW, one week after becoming WB6EOQ,
I took and passed the FCC Second Class Radiotelephone. (P2-12-8015)
Course, that's back when we had to know something. Novice was limited
term, two years, no renewal. General had all current priviledges,
Extra required a very stiff technical test, 20 WPM, and minumum of
five years with a lower class license. Three months after getting the
first station license, I became WA9JTF, from 1963 to 1988 when I let
it expire. Too many appliance operators that couldn't have figured
an 80 meter dipole for themselves. Still have my J-37 and D-104,
although I doubt that you'd recognize either one of them. Used to
amuse myself by building 7 to 10 element yagi's for 2 meters. Guess
no body wants to do anything for themselves anymore.

[Wayne Paul]

"Lennie the Lurker" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tim Ward" > wrote in message
>...
> >>
> > Well, I found the test to cover such complex concepts as "Don't stick
your
> > head in a microwave oven", and "Don't stick your fingers in the light
> > socket". I found a test site on a Wednesday, my wife and I studied the
> > question pool the rest of the week, and we both passed on Saturday
morning.
> > Perhaps it's harder now. It's certainly not as expensive as ninety or a
> > hundred bucks to take the glider written.
> >
> Then you wonder why QCWA members don't respect the newer hams. My
> test was free, BTW taken at a FCC field office, (SF) and with a 13 WPM
> code requirement. From what you describe, a novice in 1963 would know
> more than you were expected to. BTW, one week after becoming WB6EOQ,
> I took and passed the FCC Second Class Radiotelephone. (P2-12-8015)
> Course, that's back when we had to know something. Novice was limited
> term, two years, no renewal. General had all current priviledges,
> Extra required a very stiff technical test, 20 WPM, and minumum of
> five years with a lower class license. Three months after getting the
> first station license, I became WA9JTF, from 1963 to 1988 when I let
> it expire. Too many appliance operators that couldn't have figured
> an 80 meter dipole for themselves. Still have my J-37 and D-104,
> although I doubt that you'd recognize either one of them. Used to
> amuse myself by building 7 to 10 element yagi's for 2 meters. Guess
> no body wants to do anything for themselves anymore.

Times have changed. No more test question on neutralizing triode amplifier
circuits, etc. However, I still am running my old homebuilt equipment and
building antennas.

Wayne
W7ADK
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

[Lennie the Lurker]

"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message >...
> >
> Times have changed. No more test question on neutralizing triode amplifier
> circuits, etc. However, I still am running my old homebuilt equipment and
> building antennas.
>
Could explain why the ham bands and 11 meters don't sound any
different now.

(.._ ... . _.. _ --- --- .--. . .-. .- - . -- --- --- -. -.. ---
...- .- -.-. . --- -. ..---)

[Tim Ward]

"Lennie the Lurker" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tim Ward" > wrote in message
>...
> >>
> > Well, I found the test to cover such complex concepts as "Don't stick
your
> > head in a microwave oven", and "Don't stick your fingers in the light
> > socket". I found a test site on a Wednesday, my wife and I studied the
> > question pool the rest of the week, and we both passed on Saturday
morning.
> > Perhaps it's harder now. It's certainly not as expensive as ninety or a
> > hundred bucks to take the glider written.
> >
> Then you wonder why QCWA members don't respect the newer hams. My
> test was free, BTW taken at a FCC field office, (SF) and with a 13 WPM
> code requirement. From what you describe, a novice in 1963 would know
> more than you were expected to. BTW, one week after becoming WB6EOQ,
> I took and passed the FCC Second Class Radiotelephone. (P2-12-8015)
> Course, that's back when we had to know something. Novice was limited
> term, two years, no renewal. General had all current priviledges,
> Extra required a very stiff technical test, 20 WPM, and minumum of
> five years with a lower class license. Three months after getting the
> first station license, I became WA9JTF, from 1963 to 1988 when I let
> it expire. Too many appliance operators that couldn't have figured
> an 80 meter dipole for themselves. Still have my J-37 and D-104,
> although I doubt that you'd recognize either one of them. Used to
> amuse myself by building 7 to 10 element yagi's for 2 meters. Guess
> no body wants to do anything for themselves anymore.

Fortunately, I do not require your respect in order to use 50 MHz and up.
The QCWA members I am acquainted with are generally happy when someone takes
up the hobby for any reason, and either don't share your disdain, or are at
least polite enough not to mention it.
Just as you found no need to fly XC, or fly high performance sailplanes, I
have little interest in HF or CW.
I'm glad you were able to keep your key and your mike. Perhaps someday
you'll be a ham again, and be able to use them.

Tim Ward

[David Kinsell]

"Tim Ward" > wrote in message ...
>
> Well, I found the test to cover such complex concepts as "Don't stick your
> head in a microwave oven", and "Don't stick your fingers in the light
> socket".

Hope they don't throw in questions like "What's the best voltage to use
with a 14 volt radio?". Not one glider pilot in ten could figure that one out.

[Lennie the Lurker]

"Tim Ward" > wrote in message >...
> >
> Fortunately, I do not require your respect in order to use 50 MHz and up.
> The QCWA members I am acquainted with are generally happy when someone takes
> up the hobby for any reason, and either don't share your disdain, or are at
> least polite enough not to mention it.

If one compares the ham bands as they were even twenty years ago with
the morass of garbage they have now become, you would understand my
disdain. If one understands that it once was considered a sign of a
dedicated amateur to BUILD his own equipment, you would further
understand the disdain. I operated all bands from 80M though 220mhz
bands, using mostly homebuilt or converted surplus until the years
1980 through 1988, at which time I aquired a nice Collins 75A-1 and
Johnson Viking II CDC. NEVER was any brand on any of my antennas,
including the array for 2M moonbounce.

When they reinstate the technical and regulation portion of the test
to what was required, and bring back the CW standards required at that
time, I MIGHT think about reinstating my license. As long as the rice
box and the brick are the norm, not much of interest there. What is
in place now is NOT what The Old Man had in mind when he brought the
amateurs cause before the legislators. (Hiram Percy Maxim for those
that don't know.)

[Steve Bralla]

In article >,
(Lennie the Lurker) writes:

>When they reinstate the technical and regulation portion of the test
>to what was required, and bring back the CW standards required at that
>time, I MIGHT think about reinstating my license. As long as the rice
>box and the brick are the norm, not much of interest there. What is
>in place now is NOT what The Old Man had in mind when he brought the
>amateurs cause before the legislators. (Hiram Percy Maxim for those
>that don't know.)

In my day when a real metal worker wanted a lathe he would go to the mine, dig
the ore, smelt it. cast the need parts and then finish them with a file (that
he had made himself).
Bring back the old days!

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Steve Bralla) wrote in message >...
>
>
> In my day when a real metal worker wanted a lathe he would go to the mine, dig
> the ore, smelt it. cast the need parts and then finish them with a file (that
> he had made himself).
> Bring back the old days!

Ummm, yasss. IN case you were incapable of determining it, in 1963 we
actually had to WORK to get the license, and the thought of losing it
didn't appeal. Now all you have is CB types that don't care, if they
lose it, they'll keep on operating anyhow. We had to demonstrate
enough technical knowledge that we were deemed capable of maintaining
a station, and that we knew the regulations well enough to comply.
Such unreasonable things we had to do.

OF course, there was also the day when a REAL pilot first built his
own plane, then learned how to fly it.

But then, there are still a few people that can find their way around
town without a GPS. Hell, I can even find my way to the airport
without one.

Why I'd want to is the question.

[Buck Wild]

(Lennie the Lurker) wrote in message >...
> (Steve Bralla) wrote in message >...


Ahh yes, the good old days. Well, they're all gone now, people are
stupid and technology sucks, so Im going to quit everything, stay
home, and turn into an irritable old troll on usenet. Im working on an
interface so I can type on the keyboard using a morse code key, since
I only use one finger anyway, (you know the one) and Im converting all
my tools to steam power. Sorry, gotta go complain about something else
now.
Lennie the life-hater

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Buck Wild) wrote in message >...
>
and along with lowering the standards, the level of respect that
people have for each other has gone into the sewer, as you are a prime
example, buck pansy. However, I guess your idea of working for a
license is filling out the application and paying the money. 95% of
the people on the air today wouldn't know their own call in CW if it
was blasted at them with a full gallon from a half mile away on 80.
Hmmm. That might mean the 99.9% of the QRM in the CW bands might
consist mainly of splatter from overdriven SSB rigs. Naaah. Still
not worth the effort. Too many guys like buck wild on the bands.

[Buck Wild]

(Lennie the Lurker) wrote in message >...
> (Buck Wild) wrote in message >...
> >
However, I guess your idea of working for a
> license is filling out the application and paying the money.

I've had my extra class for over 20 years, Bozo.
When will you figure out that NOBODY is interested in your opinion?

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Buck Wild) wrote in message >...
> (Lennie the Lurker) wrote in message >...
> > (Buck Wild) wrote in message >...
> > >
> However, I guess your idea of working for a
> > license is filling out the application and paying the money.
>
> I've had my extra class for over 20 years, Bozo.
> When will you figure out that NOBODY is interested in your opinion?

Does anyone besides yourself give a ****, LID?

[Kimobear]

In article >,
(Lennie the Lurker) writes:

>I've had my extra class for over 20 years, Bozo.
>> When will you figure out that NOBODY is interested in your opinion?
>
>Does anyone besides yourself give a ****, LID?
>

Congratulations,
Lennie you have done it again. Turned an interesting thread about something on
the newsgroup into a negative immature name calling brawl.
Ever thought about seeking some professional help?

Groetjes
Kimobear

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Kimobear) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Lennie the Lurker) writes:
>>
> Groetjes
> Kimobear

Has it occurred to you that simply checking the regulations as they
are ON LINE would have answered 99% of the questions? Yes, it's
legal, just use the proper identifier, as in "WD6XXX air mobile" and
no problems. talk to tower on 2 meters? No. Legal without Fcc
Amateur station license? No. If you're going to be appliance
operators, at least read the damn regulations FIRST. Traditions that
have been kept for more than seventy years have gone out the window to
be replaced with what can only be classed as pure garbage on the
bands. Damn little civil conversation, even less technical
discussion, mostly reports on the latest rice box and brick. "Don't
build, you can buy it so much cheaper." (Buy it, you can remain
technically ignorant forever.)