Channel Width

Jim Macklin wrote:
government assigns the channels, we are stuck with it.

An airport may request a different frequency assignment, it is not
that big of a deal... just fill out some forms. Of course FAA must
be in the loop as well.

The bigger possible PIA for the airport is that it must then modify
any equipment involved in pilot controlled runway/VASI/PAPI/approach lighting.

"Jose" wrote in message
. net...
Can you explain me please how this(meaning increase of channels by
reducing their width) will increase the number of available
frequencies
for the increasing number of VOR stations.

It means you can put channels in between existing channels. If done
right, there is no interference. It requires that existing
transmitters be modified (if they are not already "narrow" enough) so
that there in fact is no interference.

Actually the biggest limiting factor is the receivers. I'm not sure
what was done during the VOR changeover, but I can say that when the FAA
went from 50Khz to 25Khz spacing for voice channels, the only change to
the ground equipment was to change the bandpass of the receivers. Older
receivers were less sensative and had to have a wider bandpass. As
receiver technology progressed, the bandpass could be made more narrow.

RST Engineering wrote:
You can buy legal 1, 6, 90, and 360 channel radios.

Agreed.. But who sells new ones nowadays that are ok to transmit with?
(that are only 1, 6, 90 and 360 channels, respectively)

Didn't see the "new" word in the OP. I s'pose I could round up enough parts
to make a 541 (single channel) and 542 (6 channel) and if I dug deep enough
into the obsolete parts bin I might even be able to do a 571 (360 channel).
The type certificate approval never runs out, just like a pilot certificate.

Jim



"Dave S" wrote in message
ink.net...
RST Engineering wrote:
You can buy legal 1, 6, 90, and 360 channel radios.

Agreed.. But who sells new ones nowadays that are ok to transmit with?
(that are only 1, 6, 90 and 360 channels, respectively)