Gene

There are many 1.2 DV repeaters on the air 
(mostly because Icom offered them Free to groups 
buying a 2M and 70 CM Dstar repeater).  1.2 isn't 
just a line of sight band, just ask any Weak 
Signal enthusiast.  I'v worked Central TX from FL 
on all VHF+ bands through 3456 MHz on 
SSB.  Advantages are small antenna sizes (great 
for those living in deed restricted communities) 
Not that mine are small (55 el on 1296) and the 
lack of interference from non Ham sources.

As to feedlines, there is a lot of 7/8' Andrews 
Hardline showing up at major hamfests for 
reasonable prices.  Also usable is 75 Ohm CATV Hardline (SWR is only 1.5:1).

As to antennas - for mobile use it can be simple 
- Look at: Kent Britain, WA5VJB, has designed a 
pretty good mobile antenna, that most of us are 
capable of constructing. Look at 
<http://www.wa5vjb.com/references/1200MHzant.pdf>http://www.wa5vjb.com/references/1200MHzant.pdf
 
Its on the k5tit.org web site under forums.

Its a great band - Lets use it before we lose it.

VRY 73
Bob Cumming
W2BZY
QRV 160M - 9CM + 3CM (5760 next)
from EL98hr

Also Repeater Chairman - Orlando Amateur Radio Club
K1XC - 2M, 70CM & 23 CM Central Orlando
Coming soon
W4PLB - North Orlando

1.2 is just like any of our higher bands- If we 
don't use them we'll lose them - This is Prime 
Real Estate for the Cel industry if we lose it.

At 10:00 PM 1/30/2009, you wrote:

>How many of you repeater owners have an active 1.2 DV repeater on the
>air? Do you see any actual use?
>
>I'm curious about this because, IMHO, 1.2 DV has very little to offer.
>1.2 is strictly line of sight, and one really needs a high gain
>antenna and expensive feedline for reliable work. Why operate on a
>band where losses are so high, when 2M will triple the range with a
>far less expensive radio?
>
>Please note, 1.2 DD is a different animal. In Minneapolis/St Paul,
>you can set up your ID-1 anywhere around the metro and repeat that
>128kbps data stream all over--They got the WOW factor going on with
>that network!
>
>73 de NAØG Gene
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to