[ARC5] A-10 Radios

[D C _Mac_ Macdonald]

Yes.

73 de Mac, K2GKK/5​
(Since 30 Nov '53)​
Oklahoma City, OK​
USAF Retired 61-81​
FAA Retired 94-10
________________________________
From: arc5-bounces at mailman.qth.net <arc5-bounces at mailman.qth.net> on behalf of MICHAEL ST ANGELO <mstangelo at comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 13:30
To: Robert Downs via ARC5; Robert Downs
Subject: Re: [ARC5] A-10 Radios


Isn't FL 195 shorthand for  flight level 19,500 feet?


Mike N2MS




On July 12, 2018 at 12:59 PM Robert Downs via ARC5 <arc5 at mailman.qth.net> wrote:


If you mean why 8.333… spacing because there is no need for that many channels, they are presumably looking ahead a few decades.  If you mean why that wide a spacing (instead of for example 5 KC spacing, remember how radios really work.  The audible bandwidth may only be 6 KC or even 5.6 KC but both overlap at the output of the IF strip or whatever has replaced it, which will cause audible interference between radios on adjacent channels.  But remember that the effective bandwidth of the front end isn’t that tight.  Which although you may not be able to hear much from the adjacent channel, the receivers may be desensitized by the wider signal getting into the front end.  Remember that we are talking about DSBAM, not SSBSC.  And in fact, I would question the viability of 8.333 KC spacing.



On another subject, I thought that the whole numbers of a flight level were the altitude in thousands of feet.  I don’t know of anything except unmanned vehicles in at least the unclassified inventories at present capable of reaching FL 195 except for some Russian launch vehicles.  Unless I’m mistaken, that is almost  37 miles.



Robert Downs

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/arc5/attachments/20180712/50dbb46f/attachment-0001.html>