Lo band antenna on Impala...where??

K2XM · Post by **K2XM** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:46 am

I just picked up a 2002 Impala and want to get going on putting
the radios into it before the snow start flying here in Southern
New Hampshire. One of the radios I'll be installing is a GE Delta
on 6 meters. I've already got the Larsen NMOQ-52 antenna to
use.

I'd like to hear from anyone else that is using a quarter wave
antenna on 6 on an Impala....where did you install yours....
roof (watch those low trees!), trunk lid, or fender?

apco25 · Post by **apco25** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:52 am

dead center trunk lid is the best spot

Post by Pj » Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:54 am

Yeah, on the impala you will want to dead center it on the trunk. On the roof, it will look too wacky!

Nice black 1/4 wave antenna will look nice.

Then again, you can go with the good old ball mount on the side fender...

KitN1MCC · Post by **KitN1MCC** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:29 am

Go with the real mans antenna with tha ball mount.

007 · Post by **007** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:24 am

Center of decklid, even offset if you use two NMO's on the decklid, will work fabulously. You could go for the ballmount on the fender, which I almost did, but a ballmount whip cut for 52.525 is only like 1 or 2 inches longer than a NMO whip. Go with the NMO. My other car has a ballmount, but it's cut for 42 MHz and doesn't look funny

You could put an NMO on either fender, but big antennas look wierd and lowband may give you tuning issues there.

My Imp has 2 NMO's on the deck, one on the roof...lowband thru 800 all work well on the decklid. I actually had problems with tuning a Larsen NMO50 on the roof, but I feel the sunroof may have caused that.

Go with the decklid, you won't be dissappointed. Also, if you have a civvie Impala you need to ground the decklid. PM me if you want further info.

K2XM · Post by **K2XM** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:22 pm

Pj wrote:Yeah, on the impala you will want to dead center it on the trunk. On the roof, it will look too wacky!

Nice black 1/4 wave antenna will look nice.

Then again, you can go with the good old ball mount on the side fender...

I had thought about the old ball mount, but decided to go
for something a little more "low profile", so I got the
Larsen NMOQ-52. That's way too tall to put on the roof,
the 2/440 dual band Larsen will go on the roof.

ASTROMODAT · Post by **ASTROMODAT** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:36 pm

If you use anything other than a Motorola ball mount on the rear quarter panel, Broderick Crawford will turn over in his grave. Isn't the CHP still using this approach?

Larry

KG6EAQ · Post by **KG6EAQ** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:45 pm

No CHP is using an NMO mount.

ASTROMODAT · Post by **ASTROMODAT** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:16 pm

Where is the CHP NMO mount located on their vehicles? What type/brand of antenna are they using? Are their lowband radios of the GE variety?

Just curious!

Thanks, in advance, Bob, for your help.

Larry

007 · Post by **007** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 9:05 pm

ASTROMODAT wrote:Where is the CHP NMO mount located on their vehicles? What type/brand of antenna are they using? Are their lowband radios of the GE variety?

Just curious!

Thanks, in advance, Bob, for your help.

Larry

NMO is on the roof, behind the structural cross-member. They are using a chrome Antenex and the radios are still GE Rangr's with the S815 control head. The VHF-Hi repeater antenna is now a glass mount Antenna Specialists on the rear window.

ASTROMODAT · Post by **ASTROMODAT** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 9:36 pm

Any idea as to when they will get off 42 MHz?!

KG6EAQ · Post by **KG6EAQ** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 9:43 pm

When 700mhz works better than lowband for a statewide coverage agency.

007 · Post by **007** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 9:48 pm

KG6EAQ wrote:When 700mhz works better than lowband for a statewide coverage agency.

Which it won't, so CHP will be lowband for a looooooooooong time to come

kb3jkp · Post by **kb3jkp** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:54 pm

yeah.. all they need is a "NEW AND IMPROVED" LB Trunking astro system... .. I can see the mot reps now... " but.... ITS DIGITAL!" .... haha

PETNRDX · Post by **PETNRDX** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 2:10 pm

That last post makes me laff so hard I fell off my chair.
Remids me of when the Mot sales guys (from Schaumburg) told us (In Seattle) that they would be able to cover all of King County with one 800 site. Two thousand square miles from one site... Must be GOOD technology.
LONG LIVE LOW BAND.
I use an X9000 into an NMO 150 cut to use on both 6 and 2 in case I need to swap antennas due to breakage.

ASTROMODAT · Post by **ASTROMODAT** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 2:27 pm

If anyone said that one 800 MHz site could cover all of KING County, they had to be either joking with you, and were perhaps using dry humor, or we're missing some aspect of this story.

larry

PETNRDX · Post by **PETNRDX** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 4:02 pm

No, they were SALESMEN.
They live in the flat lands of Schaumburg.
Had flown in to SELL 800 trunking.
I really think they BELIEVED that they could cover all of King County from either Cougar or Columbia tower.
In other words they did not know the terrain.
Scary part is the decision makers believed them.
Against all protests from those that knew better.
They would have been better off sticking to the existing 460 systems.
And that is without mentioning the NEXTEL problems.
And they continue to throw money at it.
State wide systems, hard to beat low band.
Counties & Large cities, VHF or UHF
High density counties & cities might have to/be able to afford to go 800.
Just my observations.

ASTROMODAT · Post by **ASTROMODAT** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 4:27 pm

Maybe things have changed since your experience, petnrdx, but Motorola sales guys typically won't make a serious comment like that without a quick and dirty RF propagation study. With the latest RF modeling software that runs on a laptop, one can very quickly run Carey charts with a 17 dB C/N threshold ratio in literally minutes for any given coverage area, and get a very rough and dirty first cut analysis of sites required. Of course, you need the USGS 50:1 topo maps for the area under analysis. It takes well under one hour from start to finish to get a first cut analysis, assuming you already have the USGS topo maps loaded in memory (which any RF group worth its weight in salt will already have on their PCs). These estimates are typically within +/- 15% or so, which is not bad for a first cut budgetary analysis.

I would have asked that sales guy if he had his RF Team run such a first cut analysis after he made the statement about one site. Short of that, it's kind of dumb to take someone seriously who had not done his minimum homework. IMHO, the proper protocol here would have been for your mid-level management (or above) to contact their counter parts at Schaumberg and have a heart-to-heart about said salesperson. When they realized they were competing for a trunking system of the ilk of $70 million for King County, and you had brought a competency/integrity complaint like this to their attention, I trust you would have gotten action. Perhaps a hole-in-the-wall, piss ant company might be able to get away with something like this one time, but a huge Malcom Baldridge winner (twice now!) couldn't stay alive with behavior that you are suggesting.

If you didn't do this, with all due respect, then shame on you. Or again, part of this story is missing.

larry

PETNRDX · Post by **PETNRDX** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 5:00 pm

Since this is a bit off topic, I will try to make this short and my last post.
Good points that you make.
Those are what is and can be done now.
I am talking about what was done, MANY years ago.
800 trunking was still very new. The computer tools available now (some were then) really weren't that common at the time. So I don't know if that was done.
It was very rare to see someone carry a laptop.
As I said, my opinion, and several others that should know, were that it was not the "best" way to go for the time.
And that there was NO way one site would cover.
The decision to go to 800 was made by the top managers, and more for political reasons than technical.
I doubt that the decision makers chose the 800 route just because of the sales pitch.
But I also don't think it helped.
Please don't take this as an assault on Motorola.
Its a comment about what a salesman said.
And how it happens, often, that decision makers don't listen to some of the people that they should listen to.
As you said, with the "tools" available, this might not have occured the same way.
I truly believe the area would have been better off to have waited and considered other options.

ASTROMODAT · Post by **ASTROMODAT** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 5:26 pm

I understand your points, petnrdx. Makes sense. I get awfully hacked-off at salesmen who start BSing about their products, with no back-up, whether it is a good, recognized company, or not. Wouldn't be the first time that a good company had an overly enthusiastic sales guy try to pull the wool over the customer. The real test is what that company does when you bring such inappropriate behavior to their superiors.

All in all, I think the 800 MHz King County system works quite well. Seems like the old 450 MHz systems, such as the one used by Seattle PD and the King County Police, plus the smaller VHF agencies, have all consolidated onto the 800 system. I would think the economics over the long pull should be very good, not to mention the channel congestion relief.

From your posts, I get the impression that the users in King County are not necessarily satisfied?

larry

P.S. Maybe we should move this to the "Infrastructure" section?

PETNRDX · Post by **PETNRDX** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:34 pm

Or to General Discussion.
Better yet I will PM ya.....

mr.syntrx · Post by **mr.syntrx** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 4:19 am

ASTROMODAT wrote:If anyone said that one 800 MHz site could cover all of KING County, they had to be either joking with you, and were perhaps using dry humor, or we're missing some aspect of this story.

larry

It'll cover all of the aircraft flying over the county