Anyone using the Whistler WS1065 for monitoring VHF and UHF aircraft? If so how is performance and have you compared it to Uniden's various scanners?
WS1065: AIR BANDS (VHF/UHF)?
- Thread starter iMONITOR
- Start date
- Status
I have used the Whistler WS1065 for monitoring VHF/UHF aircraft. It did okay. I've also used the BCT15X and it did okay. I wasn't disappointed but I wasn't overly impressed with either one. Switched back to a PRO-2004 that I refurbished. Your Mileage May Vary 
Just out of curiosity, does anyone use a commercial radio for airband monitoring like Bendex King?
Last edited:
Haven't done that. I did try an Icom and Yaesu Aircraft transceiver and was not impressed at all. I used to have several Sporty's JD-100's but sold all of them like a crazy man
I have used the Whistler WS1065 for monitoring VHF/UHF aircraft. It did okay. I've also used the BCT15X and it did okay. I wasn't disappointed but I wasn't overly impressed with either one. Switched back to a PRO-2004 that I refurbished. Your Mileage May Vary
Yes the oldies were goodies for sure!
I think a lot of people are disappointed when monitoring aircraft due to it being AM instead of FM or Digital. They have that "full quieting" expectation that you don't get on AM. I've used just about all the Unidens ever made, right on up to the SDS200 SDR scanner. I tried a Whistler TRX-2 awhile back and was really impressed with it on the air bands. The audio seemed much clearer and sharper, not down in the mud like the Uniden's produced. I think Whistler and GRE/Radio Shack scanners have always performed better on VHF due to being more sensitive.
My interest in the WS-1065 is a less expensive alternative to dedicate it to aircraft monitoring so I don't tie up the TRX-2 which will be dedicated to P25 digital. I know about the possible issues with simulcast but that's not an issue at my home 20 thankfully.
...........
I used the predecessor radios to the 1065, the GRE PSR-600 and the Radio Shack Pro-197 radios that both developed reception problems so I bought a WS-1065. It has developed the same problem (reduced sensitivity which I suspect is a cracked solder joint on the BNC connector). When they were working properly I thought they had superior reception to the TRX-2 I'm not using. I monitor both civil and military VHF and UHF bands and I had very good luck with them. I also monitor railroads and these radios did a better job with that band as well.
I'm getting ready to send the Radio Shack radio in for repair. I miss using them....
I'm getting ready to send the Radio Shack radio in for repair. I miss using them....
What are you using for an antenna? Have you tried the attenuation?
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 2,408
Haven't done that. I did try an Icom and Yaesu Aircraft transceiver and was not impressed at all. I used to have several Sporty's JD-100's but sold all of them like a crazy man
I have talked to pilots who have scanners and amateur radios. They agree, performance on the aircraft transcievers is not better and perhaps worse than the scanners and amateur receivers. But I have not verified that myself.
I was surprised when someone on RR told me that brand name aircraft transceivers to not have impressive receive specifications intentionally. They said they don't them operating out of what is considered normal/practical range. I was surprised, brands including ICOM, and some others back that up. Needless to say I didn't buy one.
I have a BC125AT and use it mostly for airband. It is a smaller radio and covers most of the military as well as civilian and commercial frequencies. My IC-R30 does fairly well but I get better air reception with an old vhf ht antenna than the extendable Icom antenna.
If your handheld scanner can barely here ATIS 8 miles away from an airport with a small antenna you're airband portion is working well. My BC75XLT really does well. Heck even multiband radios like Eton elite Executive and C.Crane Skywave SSB do a good job receiving ATIS from my location with just their telescoping whips.
ATIS antennas have a intentional high angle of take off for pilot's to hear it well in advanced for possible flight plan changes. They are not meant for ground stations other than the close range vicinity for example...pilots needing to know which runway(s) are in use, if a taxiway is closed, wind direction, wind speed and so forth.
ATIS antennas have a intentional high angle of take off for pilot's to hear it well in advanced for possible flight plan changes. They are not meant for ground stations other than the close range vicinity for example...pilots needing to know which runway(s) are in use, if a taxiway is closed, wind direction, wind speed and so forth.
I am confused by this, although now I"m glad I haven't yet spent money on a commercial aircraft receiver. In any event, why on earth would any company not try to build a radio with the best receive specifications reasonably possible?
The only thing I could think of, and they may have even said this too...with all the air traffic in the air, with many using the same frequencies it would not be a good thing to be hearing more of them then necessary at the same time. Almost like simulcast only they'd all be saying something different.? Isn't almost all air traffic line-of-sight?
Exactly right. Too much receive sensitivity and an aircraft a few thousand feet up (even a few hundred feet up) would be hearing far more than they want/need to hear.
AM is still used because FM takes up more bandwidth, and because multiple transmissions can be heard at the same time on AM; with the capture effect on FM on the strongest signal would be heard.
moonbounce
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2002
- Messages
- 1,416
I think the ATIS at an airport should be a good measuring stick as to how good your radio will be for listening to the commercial air band and hence the military band. For example, on a good day my Pro 2006 can pickup the local airport ATIS that is 9 miles away with reasonable signal strength. Some days the signal will be crystal clear other days it won't even come, some days it will be scratchy. On the days that it doesn' t come in I will use an extension cord with the radio so I can walk around my apartment. You would be amazed at how well the signal comes in at different locations, even the height from the floor makes a difference. I find that for some reason having the radio at head height will bring the signal in very nicely where when at table height there is no signal. This is all using the telescopic antenna. Just my 2 cents worth.
- Status
