UHF telemetry and HAM operators.

[chamokane]

Yesterday, I drove in, to Spokane, and took the test to get an amateur radio operator's license. In about a week, I'll have a call sign, and I'll order some 433 MHz telemetry gear. The test was administered by members of the local amateur radio club. They put out a lot of effort to perform this service, administering the test and filing the results with the FCC. The tests have to be graded, and paperwork done by three different people. In addition, there was a test coordinator: all volunteers. They were all very friendly, helpful, and welcoming. My question is: Would it be a good idea to make sure that these people know what I'm doing with the equipment, and why it might be possible for them to pick up that type of transmission once in a while? This seems like a no brainer to me, for a number of reasons; but I've been wrong before.

[rkumetz]

Congratulations Dave. You are right. It is not rocket science and the test is more of a speed bump than a hurdle. As the ham radio manufacturers move along with their attempts to out-feature each other they have started to add
receive coverage outside the ham bands as well as reception of AM and even CW (morse) signals on hand held radios. As more of those appear in the hands and on the belts of hams they will become a good resource since hams outnumber falconers by about 100:1 in the US. (Before anyone flames me that is an estimate)

It might be helpful to others if you shared you experience in terms of how you prepared for the test and how difficult you thought it was, etc.

[jmnucci]

I am seriously considering switching over to 434 or 433 this summer. I hear that there is pretty much zero background which translates to longer signal distance. Can anyone comment on the differences who has made the switch. Seems like the test is pretty much a formality and you don't need to take it before you get your equipment. I'd love to hear some opinions before I go and throw down the 1400 bucks for a new reciever and trannys.


Thanks for starting this thread. I've been interested in this for a while.

[Hawkmom]

We were next to a HAM radio operator's tent at a local fair. They told us about the 'Fox Hunts'. Where they do a search and rescue drills, looking for signals. They volunteered their help if I ever get a wayward bird.

When I lost my MHH in Louisiana in 2006. The local HAMs also tried to help find him. They are good folks. They never found him, but I really appreciated their help.

After hurricane Katrina, the local HAM's in Louisiana set up communication stations while phone/cell lines were down. A valuable volunteer resource.

[chamokane]

Congratulations Dave. You are right. It is not rocket science and the test is more of a speed bump than a hurdle. As the ham radio manufacturers move along with their attempts to out-feature each other they have started to add
receive coverage outside the ham bands as well as reception of AM and even CW (morse) signals on hand held radios. As more of those appear in the hands and on the belts of hams they will become a good resource since hams outnumber falconers by about 100:1 in the US. (Before anyone flames me that is an estimate)

It might be helpful to others if you shared you experience in terms of how you prepared for the test and how difficult you thought it was, etc.

Hi Ron, To prepare fore the test, I ordered the "ARRL Ham Radio License Manuel, Level 1, Technician" from the ARRL website. I studied it for one week, then took the test. I got all the answers right. There are 35 questions on the test and you only have to get 26 right. It's all pretty basic stuff, but I don't work, and I already knew the electronics stuff. Some people might have to spend a little more time, some less. In the back of the book, the entire question pool, with answers is listed. There are 396 questions in the pool. It would be a bit awkward to just try to memorize the answers without referring to the explanations in the text. I read the book, then started studying the questions, referring back to the text to make sure I understood. There are practice tests available but I didn't find them necessary.
Your right about the capabilities of newer handhelds. I was looking at the Kenwood TH-F6A. If I'm reading the specs right, it has a wide band receiver with CW capability and could be used as a backup falconry receiver. I've never had a receiver fail me, but you never know what could happen when your away from the truck. What do you think of the Kenwood? Any other suggestions?
I see by your call sign that you hold the Extra license. It's nice to run into someone with some experience.

[chamokane]

I am seriously considering switching over to 434 or 433 this summer. I hear that there is pretty much zero background which translates to longer signal distance. Can anyone comment on the differences who has made the switch. Seems like the test is pretty much a formality and you don't need to take it before you get your equipment. I'd love to hear some opinions before I go and throw down the 1400 bucks for a new reciever and trannys.


Thanks for starting this thread. I've been interested in this for a while.

Hi Justin,

You might want to get the license first. If you get your transmitters from Marshal, they will program them to transmit your call sign in morse code every ten minutes to keep you legal.
According to the Marshal website, the 433/434 MHz RT+ produce about 4 times the power of the 216 MHz RT+, and about 2 times the power of the 216 Power Max. All else being equal, this should give about twice the range of the RT+, and about 1.5 times the range of the Power Max. Then, like you say, there is the reduced noise.
As soon as I get the new equipment, I'll test it against my Marshal Stealth 216MHz and post the result.

[chamokane]

We were next to a HAM radio operator's tent at a local fair. They told us about the 'Fox Hunts'. Where they do a search and rescue drills, looking for signals. They volunteered their help if I ever get a wayward bird.

When I lost my MHH in Louisiana in 2006. The local HAMs also tried to help find him. They are good folks. They never found him, but I really appreciated their help.

After hurricane Katrina, the local HAM's in Louisiana set up communication stations while phone/cell lines were down. A valuable volunteer resource.

Hi Kitty,
I agree, the Amateur Radio folks seem to love to help in any kind of emergency, and they spend a lot of time training for it. Also, it could be a chance for falconers to make positive contact with another segment of the public. Thanks for your reply.

[rkumetz]

Hi Justin,

You might want to get the license first. If you get your transmitters from Marshal, they will program them to transmit your call sign in morse code every ten minutes to keep you legal.
According to the Marshal website, the 433/434 MHz RT+ produce about 4 times the power of the 216 MHz RT+, and about 2 times the power of the 216 Power Max. All else being equal, this should give about twice the range of the RT+, and about 1.5 times the range of the Power Max. Then, like you say, there is the reduced noise.
As soon as I get the new equipment, I'll test it against my Marshal Stealth 216MHz and post the result.

Keep in mind that the free-space loss at 433mhz is twice as high as it is at 216mhz.

[rkumetz]

Your right about the capabilities of newer handhelds. I was looking at the Kenwood TH-F6A. If I'm reading the specs right, it has a wide band receiver with CW capability and could be used as a backup falconry receiver. I've never had a receiver fail me, but you never know what could happen when your away from the truck. What do you think of the Kenwood? Any other suggestions?
I see by your call sign that you hold the Extra license. It's nice to run into someone with some experience.

You are correct. The TH-F6A would make a good backup receiver AND you can use it to call for help if something happens to you out in the field. There are few places where there is not at least one 2-meter ham repeater around. A co-worker owns one and he says that it does receive CW/SSB which would also let it receive telemetry transmitters. The sensitivity is not good enough to be a primary receiver but as you point out you never know what can happen. You could fall on your receiver and break both it and yourself!

My wife took the opposite route to her license. She just took practice tests over and over for about 20 minutes per day and after about 5 days she took the test and passed. She knows little about radio but it does demonstrate that the test is pretty easy. [DISCLAIMER: my wife is a very intelligent person but even she admits that you don't actually need to know anything to pass the test. Anyone that was planning on calling her and telling her that I was badmouthing her to my falconry buddies your plan has been thwarted]

[chamokane]

Keep in mind that the free-space loss at 433mhz is twice as high as it is at 216mhz.

Yep, all else is never equal. It will be interesting to see how the two rigs compare side by side.

[chamokane]

You are correct. The TH-F6A would make a good backup receiver AND you can use it to call for help if something happens to you out in the field. There are few places where there is not at least one 2-meter ham repeater around. A co-worker owns one and he says that it does receive CW/SSB which would also let it receive telemetry transmitters. The sensitivity is not good enough to be a primary receiver but as you point out you never know what can happen. You could fall on your receiver and break both it and yourself!

My wife took the opposite route to her license. She just took practice tests over and over for about 20 minutes per day and after about 5 days she took the test and passed. She knows little about radio but it does demonstrate that the test is pretty easy. [DISCLAIMER: my wife is a very intelligent person but even she admits that you don't actually need to know anything to pass the test. Anyone that was planning on calling her and telling her that I was badmouthing her to my falconry buddies your plan has been thwarted]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for the input on the TH-F6A.

[chamokane]

The 433MHz stuff got here Friday. I got the FM UHF 100 receiver in 433 MHz, an RT UHF transmitter, and an omni antenna. Everything is very compact. I always carry the receiver with me in the field and I think I'm going to like this one. The yagi, fully extended, is only about 9 3/4 inches long and about 13 3/4 inches wide. All folded up inside the field holster, the whole thing is about 8 inches x 4 inches x 3 inches with a little pouch on the side to hold the quick release handle. The omni is also only about 13 3/4 inches long.

I did some quick tests of the 433 MHz rig against my old Stealth in 216 MHz with an RT+ transmitter. I used the omni antennas to save time.

In the mountains where I live, there wasn't much difference. The UHF had a slight advantage, but a 216 Power Max would have changed that. The lower frequency should have an advantage in the mountains.

Out in the channeled scablands where I hunt a lot, I laid both transmitters on the ground and drove off, checking both receivers, again using the omnis. The last signal I got from the 216 transmitter was at a distance of 1.8 miles. The last signal I got from the 433 transmitter was at a distance of 4.8 miles. About 2.6 times as far.

Then I hung the transmitters on a twig so the ends of the antennas were about 1.5 inches off the ground and drove off again. The last signal I got from the 216 transmitter was 9.6 miles away. I got a pretty good signal from the 433 transmitter at a distance of 15.4 miles. At this point I ran out of road running in the right direction, and I also ran out of time. I think that if I could have kept going, the 433 would have reached out a few more miles. Again, a Power Max would probably have narrowed the gap a bit. I have an old one and I'll try it against the 433 when I get a chance, but I think they have been improved since I got this one. Also, I think the Power Max works better on a bird than off.

This country doesn't really have a lot of high hills, but it is very broken, with a lot of channels running everywhere and ridges of basalt. As you travel through it, you are constantly going up and down and the signal varies accordingly. Within it's range, there were a couple of holes where the 216 got the better signal, again, it's a wavelength thing, but overall, the 433 was much better.

Obviously, a tail mount or TrackPak would have a big advantage over a leg mount if the bird was on the ground.

As far as the noise filtering - there isn't much background noise out where I was today, unless you have to point the yagi toward the city of Spokane, about 50 miles away. That's where I saw a big difference. The FM 100 with the filtering had a low, steady level of background noise, no matter which direction I pointed the yagi, if the gain was turned all the way up. The Stealth, without the filtering, didn't have much more background noise unless I pointed it toward the city. Then it was pretty much swamped. A big difference.

I like the 433 MHz rig, and I'll carry it on my belt.

[Tanner]

there were a couple of holes where the 216 got the better signal, again, it's a wavelength thing, but overall, the 433 was much better.


Thanks for the feedback Dave. It's harder than you'd initially think to make that apples to apples comparison huh? What you describe is almost exactly what my test told me with merlin sized transmitters (except I didn't have to drive as far!). Sometimes when the terrain was just right with hills between reciever and transmitter, the 216 signal would be slightly stronger. But "most of the time" the 433 was quite a bit stronger. I'd like to see the raw comparison with both transmitters suspended from a kite at 1000 ft.

[rkumetz]

I laid both transmitters on the ground and drove off,

Then I hung the transmitters on a twig so the ends of the antennas were about 1.5 inches off the ground and drove off again.



The radiation angle of any antenna is higher within close proximity to the ground. The lower the frequency the more pronounced the increase in angle which sends most of the signal upward rather than outward.

To do a valid test at 433 and 216 you should probably be suspending them at least 5' above the ground (greater than 1 wavelength) to minimize the effect on 216 vs 433.

Granted you may want to track your bird on the ground at times but to make distance tests it is misleading.

[chamokane]

Thanks for the feedback Dave. It's harder than you'd initially think to make that apples to apples comparison huh? What you describe is almost exactly what my test told me with merlin sized transmitters (except I didn't have to drive as far!). Sometimes when the terrain was just right with hills between reciever and transmitter, the 216 signal would be slightly stronger. But "most of the time" the 433 was quite a bit stronger. I'd like to see the raw comparison with both transmitters suspended from a kite at 1000 ft.

Hi Tanner,

You're right, it's not apples to apples. Since I use two transmitters on large falcons anyway, I think, for now, I'll use one of each. If I had to use just one, it would be the UHF. If I was hunting in the mountains, I might reconsider. I have a lot of experience tracking hounds in the mountains, and 216 works very well, and 151 works even better.

[chamokane]

I'd like to see the raw comparison with both transmitters suspended from a kite at 1000 ft.

Tanner,

While we were out playing with the stuff yesterday, my wife said the same thing and offered to tend the kite while I drive off with the receivers. I was already planning to do that, but since she brought it up, I wonder if I can get her to pay for the gas. :D

[chamokane]

The radiation angle of any antenna is higher within close proximity to the ground. The lower the frequency the more pronounced the increase in angle which sends most of the signal upward rather than outward.

To do a valid test at 433 and 216 you should probably be suspending them at least 5' above the ground (greater than 1 wavelength) to minimize the effect on 216 vs 433.

Granted you may want to track your bird on the ground at times but to make distance tests it is misleading.

Hi Ron,

What you say is true, but the thing I use telemetry for the most is to find a bird on the ground on game she has caught at a distance. I need to get there before another predator can harm her. This makes the tests with the transmitters on and near the ground the most valid tests I could start out with for my situation. It's nice to understand some of the reasons for the difference in performance under a given set of conditions, but I'm more interested in the performance it's self when I need it. I spend a lot of time hunting ducks on large ponds and small lakes and the kill can take place quite a ways away.

Probably the second most common thing I use telemetry for is if the bird has climbed up, out of sight, I might check her direction to make sure she is in a reasonable position to take advantage of the flush. Most any transmitter, receiver combo is fine for that, but the small size of the 433 antenna makes it handy.

I'll do other tests as time allows. I always appreciate your input.

[chuck]

this last bird I lost has been the most heart breaking experience in the last ten years. I don't think I can fly another bird without telemetry. I'm just having a bit of a tough time deciding on the right system. I live and hawk in hardwood forests, rail road right of way and industrial parks.... can anyone advise on a system for my style of falconry... I fly RT on rabbit and squirrel, with some luck I hope to get a HH for the coming season.

[chamokane]

this last bird I lost has been the most heart breaking experience in the last ten years. I don't think I can fly another bird without telemetry. I'm just having a bit of a tough time deciding on the right system. I live and hawk in hardwood forests, rail road right of way and industrial parks.... can anyone advise on a system for my style of falconry... I fly RT on rabbit and squirrel, with some luck I hope to get a HH for the coming season.

Hi Chuck,

I'm very sorry you lost your bird. I know what that can feel like.

I'm sure there are several rigs that would work with your style of hunting and the birds that you like to fly. I guess I can only speak to the equipment that I'm familiar with. For the last ten years or so, I've used Marshall equipment. Maybe others can chime in with info on other systems.

I think that if I was getting my first receiver, I'd choose something in the 216 mHz frequency. It's the most common one used and other falconers might be able to help check for a signal if your bird is lost. Also, there are a lot of reasonably priced transmitters in 216.

I'd probably choose the Marshall FM800 receiver. I think it sells for $895.00. You can check Marshall's web site. It comes with a small, folding, attached, center loaded, three element antenna that makes it very handy to carry on your belt or in your vest, and still gives you approximately the range of a full sized three element yagi. It has noise filters that can help a lot anywhere near towns or power lines. You can use it with or without the quick detachable pistol grip.

I have never hunted squirrel, so someone else will have to give their views on the type of transmitter mount that works best for that. I've flown Redtails and one HH in sagebrush and heavy riparian cover with a lot of Russian Olive and Hawthorn, and in the mountains with thick evergreen forest. My opinion is that, in all cases, the more power the transmitter has, the better; but especially in the mountains and forest. For my type of hunting, I'd use a Marshall PowerMax transmitter with either a tail mount or a TrackPack. There is always some chance that any transmitter, of any brand, might fail, so I'd also use a leg mount RT Plus for back up. If you don't want to use a leg mount because of the squirrels, you could use a TrackPack and a tail mount. A lot of falconers use just one transmitter, but I like to use two. I like transmitters with short antennas - less likelihood of electrocution or entanglement.

A Redtail or HH usually won't wander off too far, but if one gets up in a thermal they can go a long way. My advice would be to do your research and get the best equipment you can afford. And change batteries often.:D Also, spend a lot of time playing with your new equipment before you use it on a hawk. It's not always as straight forward as one would wish.

Good luck, and have fun.