[50mhz] Simplex below 51 Mhz

[email protected] [email protected]
Sun, 09 Jun 2002 23:17:24 -0500


Tim,
if you want to use a semi "private" simplex freq, try 52.49 or
52.47 or 52.55...those are not used much and are simplex channels
in most of the bandplans (90% of the country anyway :)...
I have tuned GE MIIs , EXEC IIs and MVPs above 52 Mhz with no problem;
though EVERY once in a while you may run across one that needs a cap
change because of age in the original component or the coil was not
exactly the same AND you get reduced drive in the exciter...the PA
you cannot do anything about...for some reason they DO roll off a little
above 53 MHz...but on 6, whats a few watts :).....the rcvrs usually
tune to 525 with no problem....if anything only the exciter may be
a SLIGHT issue..
If you have multi or 2 channel rigs, set up 1 for 525 and the other
for an alternate freq...but with 525, you wont be causing any problems..
heck I listen all the time here in Houston....and besides from the few
locals I work, I usually hear nothing else unless the band is open.
BTW in answer to your previous question, 51-54 MHz is FM/rptrs....(rptrs
of course are stuck in that range by Part 97...FM of course can go down
to 50.1...which was a dumb action by the FCC IMHO...) USED to be 
52.5 and above was allowed 5 kHz deviation and BELOW 52.5 you had to
run sliverband (+/- 1.75kHz dev)...but that got changed in the late 70s
and the bandplan was changed in 80 to allow rptrs below 52.5 as well

Chris
WB5ITT

Tim Hynde wrote:
> 
> Ok, sounds good. I had heard from another source that about 51 megs was the
> end of the tuning range without changing coils or caps, 525 is OK but we
> were thinking more along the lines of getting a group going in the area and
> didn't want to tie up the calling freq.
> 
> If I can get it to go above 51 then I probably will pick something there and
> not worry about it although it sounds like there is some promoted activity
> on 50.3, I guess I have a listen a while longer and make a decison.
> 
> Thanks to all for the detailed input.
> 
> Tim ka8ddz