Many thanks to Sam (WN5C) who shares the following guest post:
Notes from a homebrew POTA adventure
Sam (WN5C)
I recently wrote about the homebrew transceiver I built to operate on a month-long trip through the American Southwest. Upon arriving back in Oklahoma here’s the final outcome: 27 days, 40 parks, and 669 QSOs. I honestly can’t believe that the rig went the distance, or that I made so many contacts on 2 watts or less!
The priority of this trip wasn’t radio, though. I’m an archaeologist and I’m starting a new research project that marries my historical interests with my love of two-way communication. In short, I’m studying the effects of how communication technology aided the American colonization and transformation of the western United States around the turn of the twentieth century. This means I walked and mapped single-wire telephone lines strung up in pine trees in northern New Mexico (used to connect fire lookouts with Forest Service ranger stations), a fascinating story of dramatic changes in land management. I also visited heliograph (sun-mirror signaling) stations established in southeastern Arizona by the U.S. Army Signal Corps in 1886 to assist in apprehending Geronimo.
Working Fort Bowie NHS (US-0815) in Arizona. The peak in the distance, Helen’s Dome, had a heliograph station on top. From the fort telegraph lines would have connected remote operations to the rest of the Army’s 1880s communication network. Next time I’m climbing up on top!
I look forward to relocating and studying the artifacts from more of these heliograph sites (mostly on remote peaks) to reconstruct this communication network and understand the lives of both the soldiers and the Apache, and how this novel surveillance system altered the battlefield. Based on the artifacts I’ve seen so far there are many cans of Army-issued proto-Spam and beer bottles surrounding the signaling station where American Morse Code would have been sent and received via flashes of sunlight. The original Field Day?
But back to radio. I covered a lot of ground and activated parks in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and Kansas.
The POTA sites that I activated (click image to enlarge).
At some locations I was camping so I was able to do multiple long activations and work the lower bands well into the evening. These were some of my favorite moments of the trip, being the only spot on the POTA app and leisurely working with no time or weather-based worries. It also gave me a chance to hear callsigns I was unfamiliar with, essentially exploring a new area of the country.
Working closer states after hours on 30 and 40 meters at Colorado NM (US-0918).
For other times, due to time constraints or weather (thunderstorms or that it was unbearably hot), I got my 10 contacts and moved on. Sometimes I packed the equipment for a long hike, often carried it from the car to a picnic table, and a few times deployed my antenna and operated from my vehicle.
Not every activation was a grand adventure. Sometimes, like here at Rocky Mountain Arsenal NWR (US-0226) in Colorado, I worked from the passenger seat in the car.
Every activation was memorable in its own way. I worked folks from 44 states, five Canadian provinces, and an unforgettable contact from Italy.
A map of the contacts I made (not including those in northern British Columbia, Alaska, and Italy).
The radio held up surprisingly well. Aside from it looking like a Dalí painting as the 3D printed box continued to deform in the heat, and some hot glue remelting, the electronic components worked as they should. I look forward to printing a stronger case and making some upgrades going into the fall. I do now have a real respect for the engineering that goes into designing field radios, especially those that are thrown into a pack!
Setting up a portable shack on Vail Pass in the White River NF in Colorado (US-4410). This was near the end of the trip, the plastic case was looking pretty bad.
After I began feeling less anxious about the homebrew radio (it kept turning on!) I could start focusing on the trip itself: an amazing POTA adventure with an often-uncooperative sun. Here’s a few themes I noted. Continue reading WN5C: Notes from a homebrew POTA adventure→
Many thanks to Dale (BA4TB), who reached out this morning to announce that he’s working on a new product, the Venus SW-6B.
Dale gave me permission to share the following photo:
This will be a six band radio with a built-in rechargeable battery and small speaker.
The front panel reveals some other features:
Dedicated CW speed control
Dedicated AF and RF gain controls
Separate charging and external power ports
Two dedicated CW message memory buttons
It also appears to be enclosed in a case with lid
It’s still in the early stages of development, so some details may change, but I think this looks quite promising! I’m very impressed with the Venus SW-3B, so I suspect this will be a great little radio.
Just take my money, Dale!
Speaking of which, this radio is still in development, so I don’t have pricing or availability information yet. When those details are available, you’ll hear it here first! Follow the tag: Venus SW-6B
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: there’s never been a better time to be a CW operator!
Many thanks to Sam (WN5C) for sharing the following guest post:
Homebrew in the Field
by Sam (WN5C)
What a week it’s been!
I have the opportunity to spend a month traveling through and camping in the American Southwest (specifically, New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado) doing archaeological work. And of course, that means the prospect to operate portable at weird times and in lots of places.
I’ve been planning for this trip for a couple of months, about the same length of time that I’ve been trying to achieve my amateur radio dream: to build a complete transceiver. So why not try to do both things at once?
This is just a quick note of my experiences in the first quarter of my trip of taking a homebrew rig into the field.
First off, I have absolutely no background in RF engineering, or electronics at all. But the literature is good and Elmers are priceless (thanks Kenn KA5KXW!). I started small, with kit projects, and then very basic transmitters.
I’ve always appreciated how much satisfaction my father gets by building things by hand, and finally I have a similar hobby. I called the radio I designed the Thunderbird Mk 1 based off the fact that I cut my CW and POTA teeth at Lake Thunderbird State Park in Oklahoma and will probably continue to work there the most. It’s a 6-band (40, 30, 20, 17, 15, 10) CW QRP transceiver with SSB receive.
The receiver is direct conversion and is an amalgamation of VU2ESE’s DC40, KK7B’s Classic 40, and W7EL’s Optimized QRP Transceiver. The VFO is an Arduino/si5351 combo based on the schematics and code written by VK3HN (who has helped me from afar, thanks Paul!). It’s crude, but I use a 6-position rotary switch to manually switch between the band-pass filters.
The transmitter is based on W7ZOI’s Updated Universal QRP Transmitter, married with VK3HN’s Arduino code that acts as the oscillator, keyer, and side tone generator. I get about 3 watts output for 40, 30, 20, a little less for 17 and 15, and about a watt on 10 meters. Like the receiver, I manually switch the low-pass filters.
Here’s a picture of the digital parts (ignore the second Arduino Nano, I thought I would need it but did not), the power board, and the filters. It’s on the bottom:
On top is the main board with the receiver, the transmitter, and T/R switching. Also, you’ll notice the green PCB. I *really* wanted to build NM0S’s Hi-Per-Mite from scratch but I couldn’t get the circuit to run right before my trip so I opted to install one that I built from a kit. It’s a fantastic CW audio filter that I can switch in and out (everyone should have at least one!).
I can switch in a little speaker and added a straight key jack. I printed the box on a 3D printer at the local library. It works great for the shack. In the sun, it’s starting to warp in the heat, so I’ll have to address this, but things still work!
Getting out the door on time with a finished radio was tough! I had finished right before I left on my trip (end of May 2024) and had no time to field test. The best I got was taking the rig to the table in the back yard and firing it up during the WPX contest.
I made amazing DX contacts on all the contest bands I had and called it good. But working superstations isn’t real life, and over the next week I’ve had to MacGyver the radio (rigging a car jump pack, an inverter, and a soldering station together at a picnic table to replace a bad transistor, for example). I think I’ve finally shaken out (literally) all of the loose solder joints and bad grounding. Continue reading Sam’s Thunderbird Mk 1 Takes Flight: A Homebrew Radio Field Report from the American Southwest→
Sometimes, we do things for the pure nostalgia of it all!
I mentioned in a previous post that I recently acquired a circa 1995 Index Labs QRP Plus transceiver. Being transparent here, this was an impulse purchase fueled by pure, unadulterated nostalgia.
The QRP Plus was the first QRP transceiver that I’d ever laid my eyes on only a month or so before obtaining my ham radio ticket in 1997. I’ll write about this in more detail in the future–and I speak to this in my video below–but let’s just say that this little cube of a radio made a big impression on me at the very beginning of my ham radio journey.
I thought it might be fun to take it to the field and compare this 1995 state-of-the-art radio with so many of my other field radios. The QRP Plus wasn’t a perfect radio, but it was a marvel at the time it was produced. I can’t think of a smaller, more battery-efficient general coverage 160-10M QRP transceiver at the time.
I was eager to introduce this little radio to the world of POTA so on the morning of Thursday March 21, 2024, I grabbed it and hit the field!
Zebulon B. Vance Birthplace (US-6856)
I called the Vance site that morning and learned that a large school group would be arriving around noon. Since I was planning to leave around that time anyway, it was perfect timing for me.
Since I hadn’t created a field kit specifically for the QRP Plus yet, I brought my watertight stackable Husky brand box that basically contains everything I need to set up a field radio station, save the radio.
I unpacked everything I needed: a key, key cable, battery, power cord, cable assembly, antenna, logbook and pencil.
Since the QRP Plus has no internal tuner, I paired it with my MM0OPX 40M EFHW antenna which would give me 40, 20, 15, and 10 meters. Note that Index Labs used to make an external manual ATU for this radio called the QRP Companion–I’ve never seen one in person, though.
Even though the Vance staff told me that the school group would not be using the picnic shelter, thus I could have free reign, I still deployed my antenna in a way that it would not become a trip hazard–keeping it close to the shelter and as conspicuous as I could (I do wish I would have brought along my flagging tape, but I left it at home).
Setting up the QRP Plus station was quick and easy. Time to hit the air!
Gear:
Note: All Amazon, CW Morse, ABR, Chelegance, eBay, and Radioddity links are affiliate links that support QRPer.com at no cost to you.
Yesterday, I posed the following question and asked for your input:
“Which aspect of a QRP radio holds more importance for you: its ergonomics (ease of use, comfort, display, size, etc.) or its performance (receiver test data, dynamic range, etc.)?”
Thank you to everyone who participated in my recent quickie poll, which has now closed. There were so many interesting points in the feedback. Here are the results from the 252 votes cast within a 20-hour window:
In essence, a slight majority preferred ergonomics, with 57.1% of respondents indicating it as more important, while 42.9% favored performance.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I’m well aware that this question paints with broad brush strokes. There’s not a give-and-take between the two: an investment in the user interface typically doesn’t mean performance is going to suffer. Indeed, I would say most of our modern transceivers sport decent ergonomics and decent performance.
If anything, the relationship between price and performance plays a proper tug of war. Even that’s nuanced, though!
I also received a number of comments and messages from readers who pointed out that my survey was flawed because it didn’t define what I meant by ergonomics and performance carefully enough. I agree that this wasn’t a carefully considered and properly worded poll.
That said, the way I wanted to present this was more like an informal raise of hands–something I often ask for during radio club presentations.
Selection of Comments
The comments from readers were excellent and what I would expect to hear from people who’d raised their hands in a club meeting.
Here are snippets from a few of them, (for all of the comments, click here):
From Scott (KK4Z):
A tricky question. I actually prefer a balance between ergonomics and performance. If you have a good performing radio with mediocre ergonomics, it might not be used to its full potential. A radio with good ergonomics and mediocre performance might be used to its full potential which may be above a good radio with poor ergonomics.
From Mark (NA4O):
My assumption is that performance would have to be good enough for the radio to be in the running. Likewise, ergonomics would have to be good enough for it to be considered usable.
From Nick (KC0MYW):
As I consider the radios that I have and have used and which ones I like better and why, I think that the performance of the radio can almost be considered an ergonomic characteristic with regard to how comfortable and easy the radio is to operate. While a radio with poor ergonomics is not a lot of fun to operate, a lower noise floor and smoother QSK can add as much to the enjoyment level as an easy to access RIT control.
From William (KR8L):
Difficult to say… Since my field operations are very casual affairs I suppose performance is a secondary consideration, although I don’t think I’d enjoy doing a POTA activation with my HW-8.
Ergonomics can be very important — for example, although my FT-817 performs well enough, the number of button pushes and knob twists required to change the keyer speed (or just about any other setting) can be very annoying.
The well thought out controls of my KX2 make it my favorite for field operating, but then it’s a good performer too.
From Brian (K3ES):
Tough question. I will say ergonomics, but what I really mean is easy access to the features I need. I don’t necessarily need contest grade performance, but I do rely on features like a tuner, cw speed adjustment, vfo, etc.
From Emily Clark:
I pick performance for a few reasons: I do contest QRP at times (most recently ARRL RTTY Roundup). I like the filtering, the clarity of the screen, the true FSK for RTTY, and the ability to put an IF spectrum out into N1MM+. I only have wire antennas, and with the AH-705 I virtually do entire contests on my 80m OCFD.
From Michael (N7CCD):
If taken to the extreme on both options, I think I would have to choose performance. I would rather operate a radio that can handle QRM (overloaded front end, etc.) with confusing menus, than the opposite. If not taken to the extreme, then I may choose ergonomics…
From Mark (W8EWH):
Ergonomics for me because I, like many, have many field portable radios and as I cycle between them I need to be able to use them without the need to consult a user manual or waste time fumbling around a menu system looking for a particular feature or setting.
From Shawn (WS0SWV):
Performance! As a retired design engineer, I learned that good design addresses the performance needs of the user(s) in an intuitive manner. If it is cumbersome or overly complex then users will tend to migrate away from it. Some communities have specific ergonomic requirements and for QRP field radios I would argue the primary ones are size, weight, current consumption there are others depending on mode of operation like keyer memories and narrow filters for CW but those are the big ones.
From Wlod (US7IGN):
Different people have different preferences and ideas about ergonomics and performance. It’s important to find a balance, or better yet, have different radios for different tasks.
From Andrew:
Ergonomics is nice, but without performance … it has no use, imagine a coffee mug; it may be hyperergonomical, but then it has a hole at the bottom…
From Dick (K7ULM):
Interesting question. It is interesting how the ergonomics of the KH1 over shadows the performance of the KX2 for some use cases. In some uses the KH1 is definitely the the choice due to its ergonomics. For other radios of its size it will be chosen because of performance and ergonomics. The specific use case is the controling factor IMHO. Performance slightly over ergonomics, generally for me, kind of?
My thoughts?
If there was one comment that reflected my thoughts most closely, it would be this one from John (AE5X):
There’s a lot of overlap between these two characteristics. Too little of one undoes the effectiveness of the other.
I find that most radios do have “good enough” performance (barring an outright flaw or deviation from legal requirements), therefore I pay attention to ergonomics more than to lab numbers of dynamic range and other electronic specs…if I need lab equipment to discern whether or not my radio’s performance is acceptable, it’s acceptable. I don’t like buried menus for commonly-used features.
John’s right. We’re lucky these days in that most of our modern QRP field radios have acceptable performance for our field activities like POTA, SOTA, IOTA, QRP Contests, and some even have the chops for the RF density of, say, Field Day.
If performance is acceptable, I tend to give more weight to ergonomics because it’s important to me that the radio be fun to use.
What makes this show of hands a hot mess, when we look at it under the microscope, is the fact that both ergonomics and performance are nuanced. Herein lies the challenge I find in writing radio reviews: I believe it’s important to explore those nuances so that the review can inform a potential buyer (who might not share my same point of view) in a meaningful way. Sometimes it’s difficult to do that within a print publication’s word count.
Closing thoughts…
As we often say, there is no “perfect” radio that will please everyone, so I think it’s important before we make a purchase decision that we’re realistic with ourselves and understand what we actually value.
Here’s one real-life example–outside the world of QRP transceivers–I’ll share from a friend who, sadly, is now Silent Key. Since I can’t ask for his permission, I won’t mention his name.
Back in 2010, he came to me for advice on buying an SDR (Software Defined Radio)–a PC-connected black box receiver.
Even though not that long ago, keep in mind this was still during the infancy of modern, high-performance, SDRs and most of the options were going to set you back $1,000 or much more. In other words, a substantial investment.
This friend was an avid SWL DXer and was considering an SDR that, at the time, had a slight performance edge over popular SDR models from manufacturers like Microtelecom, RF Space, and WinRadio. I’m not going to call out this SDR by name either, but I’m sure some of you can guess which one I’m referencing.
This particular SDR had fabulous receiver characteristics on paper, but it was well known that the proprietary PC application that controlled it was a bit of a nightmare to use.
My friend purchased it. I tried to help him set this SDR up and learn how to use some of the basic functions and features, but we both found it a struggle. The GUI (graphic user interface), one could tell, was likely designed by the hardware engineer, not someone with experience creating usable software applications, also, unlikely someone who was a DXer or SWL.
He ended up selling this SDR after having owned it for less than a month. He agreed that the performance was brilliant, but hated using the app that controlled it. In the end, he purchased the venerable Microtelecom Perseus and absolutely loved it.
Rob’s advice
This topic of our personal preferences is such a deep one; I think I might put together a club presentation, exploring some of the nuances.
Speaking of presentations, if you’ve never seen Rob Sherwood’s excellent presentation exploring transceiver performance, I highly recommend you check this one out. Rob will be the first to tell you that modern transceivers tend to perform so well that the operator should give weight to ergonomics and usability.
I’m in the midst of writing several radio reviews, and this process always brings up a few inherent dichotomies.
For example—and the point of this quickie poll—some operators seek, first and foremost, a radio with brilliant performance specs. This is especially the case when we’re talking about contest-grade, pricey transceivers. Dynamic range, sensitivity, filtering, and blocking? Yeah, those are looked at very carefully by contesters and DXers.
On the other hand, for some, a radio’s performance is less important than how enjoyable the radio is to actually operate. Are the ergonomics well thought through so that common tasks are easy to perform? Is the display easy to read? Is the encoder weighted correctly? Is the radio compact but useable, etc.?
Even though field radios are typically not thought of as “contest-grade,” many of them have superb contest chops and receivers that can handle RF-dense environments with ease (I’m thinking about my KX3 with roofing filter here).
However, some radios might lack precision filtering and a contest-grade receiver architecture but are designed with field use in mind interface-wise. The Elecraft KX1 and Penntek TR-45L come to mind, although there are many more. Both have great receivers, actually, but the designers obviously placed an emphasis on user a user interface that is field-friendly. I find both such a pleasure to use.
What’s your opinion?
I recognize fully that I’m painting with broad brush strokes here—there are so many other variables in evaluating a radio. I’m sure most of us want a good balance of both performance and ergonomics.
But if pressed for an answer, where do you fall? What do you give higher priority: performance or ergonomics?
If you’d like to cast your vote, please consider participating in the poll below:
I recently acquired an Index Labs QRP Plus transceiver (more on that in a future post!).
This little rig was produced in the mid to late nineties and, to my knowledge, was one of the first 160-10 meter, field-portable, general coverage QRP transceivers on the market. The only other one I can think of was the Ten-Tec Argonaut II, but please correct me if I’m wrong on this point.
QST ad from 1995 courtesy of WD8RIF.
I’m just curious if anyone here ever owned one and what they thought of it? Please comment!
From Elecraft: something BIG, in an incredibly small package…!
Just this morning, Elecraft introduced the new Elecraft KH1.
In brief, the KH1 is a five-band (40, 30, 20, 17, and 15 meter) handheld QRP CW transceiver with options for an internal battery, internal ATU, whip antenna, and fold-out logging pad.
Exciting! And if you’d like to get the scoop on this new handheld radio–– along with photos––we’ve got it here.
Q: What is the Elecraft KH1?
WG0AT with the KH1 making contacts pedestrian mobile.
A: The Elecraft KH1 is a compact, five-band CW QRP transceiver designed for both handheld and tabletop operation. Indeed, the “H” in the model number signifies “Handheld.”
To be clear, although it is quite small, the KH1 isn’t just a tiny radio: it’s ergonomically purpose-designed, to be a pedestrian-mobile CW station. It’s lightweight, easy to hold and use, and will fit both right and left-handed operators. With the optional “Edgewood Package,” it also includes a fold-out logging pad.
Q: How much does the Elecraft KH1 weigh?
A: With all options (ATU, Antenna, Battery, and logging pad) the KH1 weighs in at a featherweight 13 oz.
Q: What features does the Elecraft KH1 offer?
A: Here’s a feature list from the Elecraft brochure:
KH1 features:
40-15 meter ham bands
6-22 MHz for shortwave broadcast band listening
CW mode; 5 watts, all bands
ATU includes whip & high-Q inductor for 20/17/15 m
2.5 AH Li-Ion battery & internal charger
CW decode & 32K TX log
Scan/mini-pan feature
RTC [Real-Time Clock]
Full remote control
Speaker
RIT, XIT, & VFO lock
Light gray case stays cool even in bright sunlight
Three CW message memories with chain and repeat functions
Like nothing else on the market…
The KH1 design is all Elecraft and built on several years worth of design iterations. It is, no doubt, fueled by Wayne’s passion for handheld portable HF.
Again, the KH1 focuses on ergonomics that would make handheld operation not only easy, but enjoyable.
The two main multi-function controls (the AF Gain and Encoder), for example, are located on the bottom of the radio. This gives the operator easy and ergonomic access to the controls while the radio is in-hand.
The four buttons on the top of the radio default to the most useful functions one would need while operating portable. Using them to dig deeper into the menu levels, however, is also intuitive and well thought-through.
While the KH1 menus and features are naturally not as deep as those of the KX2 and KX3, it’s impressively well-equipped for a radio this size. At the end of the day, it’s a much more simple field radio––by design––than its KX2 and KX3 predecessors. If anything, it’s more akin to the venerable KX1!
(Source: Elecraft)
The KH1’s paddles (KHPD1) are located at the bottom of the radio––they flip down for transport, and up during use, so your fingers are well away from the AF and Encoder knobs.
The KH1 has an optional internal ATU that is not as wide-range as that of the KX3, KX2, or T1, but is much better than that of the KX1. I understand that it’ll match most of what you throw at it.
Wayne told me that one of the most complicated parts of the KH1 design was the fold-out logging pad. He wanted the logging pad to be functional for one-handed operation. The indents around the loose-leaf logging sheets allow you to pull out a completed sheet and slip it behind the others in the stack.
The logging sheets are available as a PDF download; simply print and cut. No doubt, the format would be easy to modify.
Whipped!
This is the part I love: the KH1 is designed to operate with a telescoping whip antenna.
Basically, you unclip the whip from the side of the radio (assuming you have the ATU/whip option) and screw it on the top of the top. The ATU will match the whip antenna––there’s a mechanical slide switch that selects 15/17 m or 20 m high-Q inductance for whip––or an external antenna on the BNC port.
If you’ve been reading my field reports and watching my videos, you know I’m a huge fan of the Elecraft AX1 antenna. The KH1 basically has the option of a built-in AX1 antenna…Just take my money!
Speed…and stealth
If the counterpoise is already attached and wrapped around the body of the KH1, you will be able to deploy the station and be on the air in about 20 seconds.
As many of you know, I’ve always said that the secret power of the AX1 and AX2 antennas is speed of deployment. The KH1 allows for an even speedier deployment.
This will be most especially appreciated when activating summits in the winter where exposure to the elements from simply setting up the antenna and station will often make your hands go numb.
Also, the KH1 is so low-impact and low-profile, you’ll be able to activate parks that might otherwise be off limits to an HF field installation. I know of one urban park that, with permission, I’ll definitely use the KH1 to activate; it has no park benches and no trees, just a strip of grass around a historic building in the middle of a city. Perfect for the KH1!
KH1 versus KX2?
The KH1 and KX2 are very different animals. Elecraft actually produced this comparison chart to help potential customers make a purchase decision.
My advice? If you have a KX2 on order, don’t cancel it.
The KH1 is not a KX2 replacement. The KX2 is a much more capable radio. The KH1, however, is a radio focused on ultra lightweight, low-profile, pedestrian-portable, CW HF field operation.
A KH1 review?
Yes, it’s coming! I will purchase and review the KH1 “Edgewood” package. My unit should ship next week, so look for updates and photos, and I will push those field reports and videos to the front of the line.
To be completely transparent: I have been in a volunteer group of testers for the KH1. Other than this, the only real affiliation I have with Elecraft––besides knowing Wayne, Eric, and some of their staff––is being a long-time customer. I own, or have owned, every radio they’ve ever made, save the K3 and K4 lines. And it’s Elecraft that makes my favorite field radios.
In the early fall and spring, I go over my QRP radios and give serious thought to how I’ll build compact field kits around them.
Why? I’m pretty sure it’s the pending change in weather that’s the catalyst. The temptation to get back out there and make some contacts.
Then again, any excuse: I absolutely love building field kits, and fortunately it never gets old.
The radios I’m considering at present are my MTR-3B (named Threepence) and KX1, now named Audrey. (Yep, I chose “Audrey”…thank you for all of the amazing suggestions!)
Both of these are ideal little radios for kitting out because they’re so compact and truly made to be taken to the field.
One of these two radios––and I haven’t decided which one yet––is going to live in my EDC bag.
The Tom Bihn Stowaway in black has been my EDC bag for many years. I’ll need to pay attention to the weight and bulk of this field kit, because I’ll be lugging it pretty much everywhere.
I’ve got some ideas and a couple of pouches in mind, so this will all start coming together soon.
But first…
Care to share your portable radio kit?
One of the things I enjoy doing when I’m putting together a new field kit is to check out what others have done. It’s a great way to get some fresh ideas…and besides, it’s just plain fun to compare notes.
If you would like to showcase your field radio kit on QRPer.com, please send a short write-up with photos detailing how/why you built your kit as you did, and list all of the components with links to the manufacturers.
We only ask that you send your own original ideas––and not just a link to another website article or video––as we’d like this content to become part of the QRPer archive. That way, if an external link is removed, it’ll still be safe and sound here. (We take our archiving seriously on this site.) Of course, we welcome links to blog articles and videos in your post.
Simply send your information via email to my callsign K4SWL at QRPer.com.
Update: Also, please note that the G106 is on sale at Radioddity at time of posting. With our affiliate link pricing is only $264 US (see note at end of review). Please read this review prior to making a purchase decision!
An in-depth review of the Xiegu G106 QRP HF transceiver
by Thomas (K4SWL)
Last year––in May of 2022, that is––Xiegu announced a new compact field radio that would be added to their line of transceivers: the Xiegu G106.
Xiegu has really made a name for themselves over the past few years with several transceiver offerings, many of which have become very popular. Among these:
The Xiegu G90 is a 20-watt transceiver with an excellent built-in ATU. The G90 has become a very popular field radio over the past few years.
The Xiegu X5101 is a five-watt shack-in-a-box HF transceiver covering 160-6 meters. The X5105 has become a go-to QRP portable due to its fine built-in ATU and built-in rechargeable battery pack.
The Xiegu X6100 is much like the X5105, in that it’s also a shack-in-a-box QRP transceiver, but it leverages SDR technology to provide a beautiful color spectrum display and a host of features not found on its predecessors. Many have adopted the X6100 because its operating system is Linux-based and many enthusiasts have created their own X6100 interface that promised direct digital mode operation.
Because we’re seeing more products like these from Xiegu, the up-and-coming Xiegu G106 stirred interest.
Moreover, Xiegu has become a low-cost leader among HF transceiver manufacturers. In each of the reviews I’ve published about Xiegu radios, my summary statement is that each unit offers a lot of performance for the price. Xiegu transceivers don’t have the most robust receiver front-ends, and the audio is unrefined, but their rigs get the job done and have some serious “fun factor.”
So when I first learned about the new Xiegu G106, I was curious where it would fit into their product line.
I did watch, however, K8MRD’s initial and updated review of the G106 on YouTube. While it was less than stellar––understatement alert––more relevant to me was that Mike shipped his second evaluation unit to me on behalf of Radioddity.
I connected that G106 to a dummy load, checked the transmitted signal on my SDRplay RSPdx spectrum display, and it simply didn’t look very clean. In fact, it looked worse than it did when Mike checked it only a couple of weeks prior.
I shared my results with Radioddity and told them I didn’t feel comfortable putting the G106 on the air; they asked that the unit be returned and checked out.
Fast-forward to January 2023, when I was once again contacted by Radioddity to see if I would like to field test an updated G106? I answered that I was happy to do so, because I was curious whether the G106 experience had improved.
In the spirit of full disclosure, keep in mind that Radioddity is a Xiegu retailer/distributor––the company is not the manufacturer, nor is it owned by Xiegu. They sent this G106 to me on an extended loan for an honest evaluation.
So where does the G106 fit into the Xiegu product line? It’s being marketed as a low-cost, entry level, multi-mode QRP HF transceiver that leverages 16-bit CODEC sampling to provide the user with a lot of radio for the price. It’s basic, and meant to be so, in that it’s only a transceiver; there is no built-in ATU or battery. The G106 is marketed as a bare-bones portable HF transceiver.
I feel like it hits this mark.
The G106 doesn’t have a lot of features or controls one might expect in other Xiegu radios, but it has more features than any other modern HF radio I know of in its price class (see features list below). Indeed, I can’t think of any other 80-10 meter general coverage QRP transceiver that retails for $320 or less. The G106 has this market niche to itself for the moment.
Overview
When I first received the G106, I was a little surprised: it was even more compact than I had imagined.
The sides of the G106 are rounded and the chassis extends beyond the encoder and front controls of the radio, thus the interior is quite well protected in the event the radio is dropped. This is one of the few QRP field radios on the market that doesn’t need an aftermarket cage. I’ve been transporting the G106 in an old hard shell headphone case a friend gave me. The case isn’t large, but it easily holds the G106 and a power cord with a bit of room to spare.
The G106 sports a small monochrome backlit display that’s very easy to read in the shack or in the field with full sunlight.
Besides the weighted encoder (which has soft detents), the volume control, and microphone port, there are also four multi-function buttons located under the small display on the front panel. On top of the radio, there is a power/backlight button, mode/pre-amp button, and two band buttons that also can be pressed and held to change the frequency cursor position. The internal speaker is also mounted on the bottom of the top cover, just behind the top panel buttons.
On the back of the G106, you’ll find a BNC antenna port, ground/earth lug, key port, COM port, 8 pin ACC port, and a DC input port.
The most conspicuous omission is a headphone or external speaker port. I would have expected this in a QRP field radio because operators often prefer using headphones in the field rather than a speaker. I know that some G106 owners have built their own RJ9 audio plug to port out the audio to headphones. There is a headphone port on the supplied speaker mic, but CW-only operators might prefer a more direct way to connect earphones in order to keep the bulk of their field kit to a minimum.
What is surprising is that the G106 has a very basic spectrum display that is actually quite useful!
Ergonomics
The ergonomics of the G106 are overall pretty good…but a bit quirky. To be honest, giving the user access to numerous functions and features on a radio this small is always going to affect ergonomics; there’s only so much control-surface real estate. Continue reading An in-depth review of the Xiegu G106 QRP HF transceiver→
QRP radios, product announcements, reviews, news and more. Low power amateur radio fun!
Please support QRPer by adding us to your whitelist in your ad blocker. Ads are what helps us stay online. All of our ads are ham radio related--no junk, we promise! Thank you!
The priority of this trip wasn’t radio, though. I’m an archaeologist and I’m starting a new research project that marries my historical interests with my love of two-way communication. In short, I’m studying the effects of how communication technology aided the American colonization and transformation of the western United States around the turn of the twentieth century. This means I walked and mapped single-wire telephone lines strung up in pine trees in northern New Mexico (used to connect fire lookouts with Forest Service ranger stations), a fascinating story of dramatic changes in land management. I also visited heliograph (sun-mirror signaling) stations established in southeastern Arizona by the U.S. Army Signal Corps in 1886 to assist in apprehending Geronimo.
