![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mxsmanic" wrote in message news ![]() Perhaps this is a naive question, but: Why don't voice radio communications for aviation use FM radio instead of AM radio? Wouldn't that reduce the available frequencies? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yeah, Steve, it would. But I think we might be able to swap (on a long term
swap basis) the VHF com band for stuff up between 600 and 900 MHz. that have very limited usage. Not only could we get way more bandwidth, but the antenna size is cut by a factor of 6 or so. Jim "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message nk.net... "Mxsmanic" wrote in message news ![]() Perhaps this is a naive question, but: Why don't voice radio communications for aviation use FM radio instead of AM radio? Wouldn't that reduce the available frequencies? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steven P. McNicoll writes:
Wouldn't that reduce the available frequencies? For a given audio bandwidth, FM tends to require somewhat more radio bandwidth, as I recall, but the audio bandwidth of aviation radio is already so limited that I don't think this would be an issue. The gain in clarity would outweigh any loss of audio fidelity, assuming that the same channel widths were used. If frequencies were reallocated (instead of allocating new ones), that would be different. That would also obsolete older equipment much more quickly, which might not be acceptable. But there must be some space somewhere that could be added to the frequencies, or perhaps some band so rarely used that it could be reassigned. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
You recall incorrectly.
Jim "Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Steven P. McNicoll writes: Wouldn't that reduce the available frequencies? For a given audio bandwidth, FM tends to require somewhat more radio bandwidth, as I recall, |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
RST Engineering writes:
You recall incorrectly. Perhaps. Theoretically it should require exactly the same bandwidth, but I seem to recall reading that typical implementations used more bandwidth. In any case, you don't need much for voice communication. The advantage of FM would be the reduction of noise. Digital over FM would be still better. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder | John Doe | Piloting | 145 | March 31st 06 06:58 PM |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
terminology questions: turtledeck? cantilever wing? | Ric | Home Built | 2 | September 13th 05 09:39 PM |
I Hate Radios | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 9 | June 6th 05 05:39 PM |
AirCraft Radio Communications | [email protected] | Rotorcraft | 0 | November 13th 03 12:48 AM |