[ICOM] Icom IC-208

[D C Macdonald]

I don't think I'll bother to worry about it.  I intend
to follow Cliff Holland's course of action within the
next six or seven months.

73  ---  Mac, K2GKK/5


----Original Message Follows----
From: "William Lambing" <w0lpq9 at msn.com>
Reply-To: ICOM Reflector <icom at mailman.qth.net>
To: "ICOM Reflector" <icom at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [ICOM] Icom IC-208
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:09:44 -0500

Mac, ICAO spent over 5 years coming up with the 8.33khz spacing.  They 
thought about 12.5 (which would seem logical....!) but opted instead for 
8.33.  This really screwed up manufacturers of comm radios for airplanes, as 
you could imagine.  That also meant that the older mechanical units were ... 
out..!  We could not make a mod for the mechanical ones.  Digital controls 
however were ... able to be accommodated, albeit it was not easy.  Starting 
from scratch would have been better, but when you have thousands of digital 
controls (Collins, Honeywell, Bendix and others) starting over was not an 
option.  However, for new radios coming on line, new design was not that big 
of a deal.  Plus, with the advent of digital "stuff" for comms, this gave us 
(and others) the option of making the control head functional for the new 
digital modes.

ICAO did "their thing" to the Comm controls as they did with their 
"requirement" for Collision Avoidance, aka TCAS/TCAS-II (or ACAS as some 
call it) and the new RVSM (Reduced Vertical Separation Mode).

The US is still 25khz for Comm spacing on the VHF spectrum.  When the UHF 
end will change, who knows.  Only ICAO, but they do not control the military 
end of things...fortunately.

73

Bill, W0LPQ
Collins Avionics Field Service, Retired
----