Hand held Radio
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) how common are comms failures? I mean actual failures not just the muppet on board has dialed the volume down ( yes I've done it!), given that I have two radios on board, should a backup hand held be a priority?
2) If I do get one, what features am I looking for. I've browsed a bit online and all I can see difference-wise is that some are more expensive than others. What are the must haves? Nice to haves? avoid at all costs?
I did change my Icom A24E (never used the VOR function) for an A6E, due to 833 and raise of antenna power from 3.6 to 5 Watts, lately and I feel it is a nice device. I also changed headset to one with Bluetooth and built in power, to have another option in case of.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Oz
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Howard Long
Not sure how you were intending to do this. If you we're simply thinking of getting a BNC T piece, and plumbing the handheld in with your regular com/nav stack coax, please read the following...
Speaking as an RF Comms engineer and designer, there are a whole bunch of reasons not to do this.
The most important one is that when you transmit with either radio, you will almost certainly blow up the front end of the receiver in the other one. This will happen in a very short time (sub second).
Secondly, whether or not you've blown up at least one of your receivers, using a simple T connector will ruin the impedance matching to the antenna, and quite possibly blow up your transmitter's PA stage too. Even if it doesn't blow up your transmitter, protection circuits possibly in existence in the transmitter on the unit may well fold back output power when detecting the mismatch, limiting the effectiveness of your transmitter.
Either or both scenarios could most certainly mean a bad day at the office.
I apologise if I've misunderstood what you were suggesting, but that's how I interpreted it.
Many thanks, Howard
Speaking as an RF Comms engineer and designer, there are a whole bunch of reasons not to do this.
The most important one is that when you transmit with either radio, you will almost certainly blow up the front end of the receiver in the other one. This will happen in a very short time (sub second).
Secondly, whether or not you've blown up at least one of your receivers, using a simple T connector will ruin the impedance matching to the antenna, and quite possibly blow up your transmitter's PA stage too. Even if it doesn't blow up your transmitter, protection circuits possibly in existence in the transmitter on the unit may well fold back output power when detecting the mismatch, limiting the effectiveness of your transmitter.
Either or both scenarios could most certainly mean a bad day at the office.
I apologise if I've misunderstood what you were suggesting, but that's how I interpreted it.
Many thanks, Howard
Antenna direct to radio only pls. Only other option is a RF switch with dummy load.
Source: Instrument Tech and Electrical Engineer with RF experience.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See the bottom of page 24. http://goo.gl/Y4ygdL
I have a handheld and use it regularly.
Absolutely fantastic for requesting clearances/engine start etc.
Ie all the calls (and 'please standby') time where otherwise everything is whirring away on the battery but the engine not running.
Never used it in flight, but nice to have if you need it.
Safe flights, Sam.
Absolutely fantastic for requesting clearances/engine start etc.
Ie all the calls (and 'please standby') time where otherwise everything is whirring away on the battery but the engine not running.
Never used it in flight, but nice to have if you need it.
Safe flights, Sam.
From the CAA:
So I called them, and it seems they'll "have a certificate on their website within the next couple of days".
"I believe that Yaesu are happy to make a formal statement that their airband models FTA-550 and FTA750 also meet the requirements of LA301075 in full."
The Yaesu 230 clearly states that TX is 25KHz channels only, selecting 8.33 spacing disables Tx. The 750 Manual Spec says 25/8.33 but doesn't say whether that includes TX and then only describes selection of 25KHz channels in the operation section, and not how to select 8.33 mode.
I would stick with the ICOM products, which do have 8.33 TX and RX.
I would stick with the ICOM products, which do have 8.33 TX and RX.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This from the FTA 750/550 user manual seems to confirm Fitter2's suspicion:
The adjacent channel selectivity will be slightly degraded while receiving using 8.33 kHz channel steps.
Another quick call to Yaesu - the 550 will both transmit and receive on 8.33 spacings.
I would have expected more crosstalk on an 8.33 spacing - laws of physics after all... There have been problems with microphone impedances on the Icoms so swings and roundabouts.
I would have expected more crosstalk on an 8.33 spacing - laws of physics after all... There have been problems with microphone impedances on the Icoms so swings and roundabouts.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If that's the case, then they are already there. LA301075 requires compliance in 8.33 kHz spacing with certain clauses in ETSI EN300 676-1 and those two models comply with the later EN300 676-2 V1.5.1
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/...02v010501p.pdf
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/...02v010501p.pdf
I was informed (erroneously) by Yaesu UK when the FTA 210 was first announced that it would transmit on 8.33 spacing frequencies.
The manufacturer's handbook for the FTA550 is rather less certain.
Caveat emptor.
The manufacturer's handbook for the FTA550 is rather less certain.
Caveat emptor.
Well, the certificate of compliance still isn't on Yaesu's website (or the radio, for that matter) so I phoned them and they Emailed it to me.
I haven't used it in earnest yet, but so far I'm impressed with it - a lot of functionality in a small package and the model I bought came with accessories such as an adapter for my headset. Seems reasonably usable. To my surprise there is an ILS function, but it only gives you a glideslope on the 750... I'm not sure how useful that sounds, but for a VFR permit aircraft it's not a major concern!
One interesting fact I have noticed so far is that when you're scrolling through the channels, the squelch settings are quite different for the 8.33 channels compared to the 25khz channels. A few months and I should be able to test it in the air.
I haven't used it in earnest yet, but so far I'm impressed with it - a lot of functionality in a small package and the model I bought came with accessories such as an adapter for my headset. Seems reasonably usable. To my surprise there is an ILS function, but it only gives you a glideslope on the 750... I'm not sure how useful that sounds, but for a VFR permit aircraft it's not a major concern!
One interesting fact I have noticed so far is that when you're scrolling through the channels, the squelch settings are quite different for the 8.33 channels compared to the 25khz channels. A few months and I should be able to test it in the air.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) how common are comms failures? I mean actual failures not just the muppet on board has dialed the volume down ( yes I've done it!), given that I have two radios on board, should a backup hand held be a priority?
Having had both ICOM and Yaesu, I would say the Yaesu is much better value for money as it includes all the extras, desk charger, AA battery pack, car charger, headset adapter etc etc.
Performance wise I couldn't tell the difference.
