Is anyone using the ICOM IC-A220 transceiver as a receiver? If so, how does it perform compared to the aircraft bands on the typical scanner radio? I know in some ways it's limited, but does it do what it does any better than most other options?
ICOM IC-A220 Transceiver...anyone have one?
- Thread starter iMONITOR
- Start date
- Status
Just a curiosity question . . . why would you want a panel-mount transceiver that - as far as I know - doesn't scan?
Sure it would be a great receiver, because it is designed to be installed in an aircraft, but seems a bit much to just use as a receiver.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Sure it would be a great receiver, because it is designed to be installed in an aircraft, but seems a bit much to just use as a receiver.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
krazybob
Member
Depending on what you're listening to an A220 would be an excellent receiver even if intended for panel mount. All of my radios and scanners are currently rack-mounted so it's not a big deal for me. It's scanning is important you're better off getting the Icom A120 that as I recalled holds 100 channels but 20 channels that may be scanned. They run about $900 new and are not rack-mounted. They have a 1uV sensitivity.
Living in the San Bernardino National Forest as I do, and very well accustomed to forest fires, I would use it to listen specifically to Helitack on one side (133.000) and Air Attack (169.1125 on IA) on the other side. I could care less about transmit. It still has a 1uV receive compared to scanners that usually have a 2uV receive. That's the same as the AM receiver in most cars. Compared to FM, that sucks!
The average aircraft transceiver has a 16 watt output (about 26 watts EIRP) and it seems to me that by limiting the receiver sensitivity it better matches the range of the transmitter so that you don't out talk the receiver. That's just a guess because I'd rather have really big ears! Remember that an aircraft at 30,000 feet has a distance to the horizon of about 212 miles and a radio signal that goes about 20% further due to refraction and the curvature of the Earth. Thus, in theory an aircraft over Las Vegas can easily talk to Los Angeles Center on direct rather than on a high altitude sector.
Before becoming disabled I was a private pilot and I'm more than familiar to listening to the aircraft band but from a different perspective. I'm usually told by ATC to switch to ground and taxi or do this or do that. I don't usually scan around. In fact, I normally have 121.5 on the right side of the radio so if I need to call for help I just have to push the flip flop button.
I would put a bandpass filter on it with a 20dB preamp. That should get it down to about .25uV and the bandpass cavities would keep the FM broadcast band out. If I had the money I would buy a second A220. I'd run one antenna, a Sinclair 3dBd gain collinear, into the bandpass cavities and then into a a coupler with zero gain since the bandpass cavities would already have one. I would have 169.1125 Initial Attack and Cal Fires 151.310. But this would not be an inexpensive undertaking!
I used to have a Bendix King air band HT and sold it. It didn't hear any better than a scanner. But my ham radio FT-8900 kicks butt on the aircraft band with a 2 meter antenna. Wonder how it would do with a discone?
Living in the San Bernardino National Forest as I do, and very well accustomed to forest fires, I would use it to listen specifically to Helitack on one side (133.000) and Air Attack (169.1125 on IA) on the other side. I could care less about transmit. It still has a 1uV receive compared to scanners that usually have a 2uV receive. That's the same as the AM receiver in most cars. Compared to FM, that sucks!
The average aircraft transceiver has a 16 watt output (about 26 watts EIRP) and it seems to me that by limiting the receiver sensitivity it better matches the range of the transmitter so that you don't out talk the receiver. That's just a guess because I'd rather have really big ears! Remember that an aircraft at 30,000 feet has a distance to the horizon of about 212 miles and a radio signal that goes about 20% further due to refraction and the curvature of the Earth. Thus, in theory an aircraft over Las Vegas can easily talk to Los Angeles Center on direct rather than on a high altitude sector.
Before becoming disabled I was a private pilot and I'm more than familiar to listening to the aircraft band but from a different perspective. I'm usually told by ATC to switch to ground and taxi or do this or do that. I don't usually scan around. In fact, I normally have 121.5 on the right side of the radio so if I need to call for help I just have to push the flip flop button.
I would put a bandpass filter on it with a 20dB preamp. That should get it down to about .25uV and the bandpass cavities would keep the FM broadcast band out. If I had the money I would buy a second A220. I'd run one antenna, a Sinclair 3dBd gain collinear, into the bandpass cavities and then into a a coupler with zero gain since the bandpass cavities would already have one. I would have 169.1125 Initial Attack and Cal Fires 151.310. But this would not be an inexpensive undertaking!
I used to have a Bendix King air band HT and sold it. It didn't hear any better than a scanner. But my ham radio FT-8900 kicks butt on the aircraft band with a 2 meter antenna. Wonder how it would do with a discone?
The panel mount it something I like because I may eventually stack a couple of these. They do sell an optional mobile mount, and also a base enclosure with a power supply and speaker, but it only accommodates one radio. I'd rather make my own. The radio's audio output is 5w, so I'll be able to hear clearly from just about anywhere in my home. The OLED display is very bright and large, so it would be viewable from across the room. I'm not concerned about scanning ability. I want to program it
for two 'civilian' frequencies for Selfridge Air National Guard Base, approach and departure.
That's a pretty expensive option for simply monitoring!
I won't argue that! You know how many people talk about how much better commercial two-way radios like a Motorola or Harris work so much better than an inexpensive scanner. I'm just curious if the same holds true for aircraft radios, especially being analog and AM no less, the quality and clarity of the signal leaves a lot to be desired.
Retired avionics engineer here. You can thank the FAA and the TSO process. Aviation requires a metric ****load of paperwork for everything. Every design, every requirement written, every test, every line of code you write (for avionics) and execute on that part needs to be documented and peer reviewed. For hardware that includes Electromagnetic Interference and environmental tests. That includes temperature, moisture, mold, vibration. Those documents need to be peer reviewed and are required to be kept for 100 years. The FAA then doesn't like the tool you use to track changes and makes you change everything or adds an additional layer of QA to ensure all the process is complied with.
It's...extremely tiresome. I spent most of my time documenting what I did or documenting a proposed change and then meetings to approve that change and make sure every little thing is tracked and recorded. 90% of my time is dealing with the process of doing 10% of the work.
That and it's a niche market. So all those engineering hours spent documenting needs to be recouped by the company. If this was a car part, you can spread those engineering costs across a million+ cars. An aircraft? Maybe a few hundred or thousand if you're on a big airline.
Since retirement I've been working for a company that specializes in designing 3d models, systems and avionics for the professional flight simulator market. We also market "slightly dumbed down" versions to the hobby flight simulator market to include Microsoft Flight Simulator X, Laminar Research X-Plane and Lockheed-Martin Prepar3D. The (mostly) same version of our products sell for between $10,000 and $30,000 per seat while the hobby versions are anywhere from $39 to $69 per seat...
You can blame the FAA as well as the other reasons cited above for this as well.
It's...extremely tiresome. I spent most of my time documenting what I did or documenting a proposed change and then meetings to approve that change and make sure every little thing is tracked and recorded. 90% of my time is dealing with the process of doing 10% of the work.
That and it's a niche market. So all those engineering hours spent documenting needs to be recouped by the company. If this was a car part, you can spread those engineering costs across a million+ cars. An aircraft? Maybe a few hundred or thousand if you're on a big airline.
Since retirement I've been working for a company that specializes in designing 3d models, systems and avionics for the professional flight simulator market. We also market "slightly dumbed down" versions to the hobby flight simulator market to include Microsoft Flight Simulator X, Laminar Research X-Plane and Lockheed-Martin Prepar3D. The (mostly) same version of our products sell for between $10,000 and $30,000 per seat while the hobby versions are anywhere from $39 to $69 per seat...
You can blame the FAA as well as the other reasons cited above for this as well.
krazybob
Member
AF6D here: if you read my reply above I speculated that one reason the sensitivity is limited to 2uV is so that the radio can't out hear it's range to talk. You know, what we call an alligator? Little ears and a big mouth. I do know the difference between AM and FM. Of course on FM those of us especially that own repeaters do our best to eek out every single bit of receive. I'm down to .11uV.Retired avionics engineer here. You can thank the FAA and the TSO process. Aviation requires a metric ****load of paperwork for everything. Every design, every requirement written, every test, every line of code you write (for avionics) and execute on that part needs to be documented and peer reviewed. For hardware that includes Electromagnetic Interference and environmental tests. That includes temperature, moisture, mold, vibration. Those documents need to be peer reviewed and are required to be kept for 100 years. The FAA then doesn't like the tool you use to track changes and makes you change everything or adds an additional layer of QA to ensure all the process is complied with.
It's...extremely tiresome. I spent most of my time documenting what I did or documenting a proposed change and then meetings to approve that change and make sure every little thing is tracked and recorded. 90% of my time is dealing with the process of doing 10% of the work.
That and it's a niche market. So all those engineering hours spent documenting needs to be recouped by the company. If this was a car part, you can spread those engineering costs across a million+ cars. An aircraft? Maybe a few hundred or thousand if you're on a big airline.
Since retirement I've been working for a company that specializes in designing 3d models, systems and avionics for the professional flight simulator market. We also market "slightly dumbed down" versions to the hobby flight simulator market to include Microsoft Flight Simulator X, Laminar Research X-Plane and Lockheed-Martin Prepar3D. The (mostly) same version of our products sell for between $10,000 and $30,000 per seat while the hobby versions are anywhere from $39 to $69 per seat...
You can blame the FAA as well as the other reasons cited above for this as well.
But on AM a commercial/professional radio such as the Icom A220 has a 2uV sensitivity for 6dB S/N. I further speculated that by adding a 20dB preamp in front of it as well as a bandpass selector one could improve the sensitivity down to about 0.25 or maybe .50uV.
What's the deal with such poor sensitivity with AM band radios whether commercial or a scanner? Even the Icom A120 has a 1uV sensitivity. My FT-8900 blows away is scanner on airband receive.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
I think I can answer this - and why unless you have specific needs, the airband transceiver is not really the best option for what you are trying to do. Handheld, or mobile versions. Unless you like paying more for less. I surely don't use my Icom backup airband handheld at home for scanning.
What? Sure, they have great front end filtering. But no, they are not as sensitive as you would think since they are designed for *local* airport communications, be it on ground, or in air. So great sensitivity is a waste. And up in the air, hearing CTAFs on the same frequency from 100 miles away can be annoying too. Dangerous even.
Need blasting audio out on the tarmac? Sure these can provide that. But do you need that in the shack? Not likely.
Scanning features? Usually slower, and quite frankly, too cumbersome to use for most pilots - unless they are also avid RR members or scannists. Pre-programming banks for various airports - ok, but scanning - yeah, not so much.
This is a long way of saying you'd be much happier, and your wallet much heavier (first of all by not paying for a transmit section you'll never use) by using something like a Uniden BC355C, programmed with a few of your desired channels in the "private bank", and possibly a vhf-airband bandpass filter. Good antenna of course.
I know - it looks tempting, and for some they *have* to have it for some desirable qualities, but overall it is a poor choice for scanner or even casual airband listening when compared overall to a scanner with an airband filter and good antenna.
What? Sure, they have great front end filtering. But no, they are not as sensitive as you would think since they are designed for *local* airport communications, be it on ground, or in air. So great sensitivity is a waste. And up in the air, hearing CTAFs on the same frequency from 100 miles away can be annoying too. Dangerous even.
Need blasting audio out on the tarmac? Sure these can provide that. But do you need that in the shack? Not likely.
Scanning features? Usually slower, and quite frankly, too cumbersome to use for most pilots - unless they are also avid RR members or scannists. Pre-programming banks for various airports - ok, but scanning - yeah, not so much.
This is a long way of saying you'd be much happier, and your wallet much heavier (first of all by not paying for a transmit section you'll never use) by using something like a Uniden BC355C, programmed with a few of your desired channels in the "private bank", and possibly a vhf-airband bandpass filter. Good antenna of course.
I know - it looks tempting, and for some they *have* to have it for some desirable qualities, but overall it is a poor choice for scanner or even casual airband listening when compared overall to a scanner with an airband filter and good antenna.
@[U]hertzian[/U] in his post hit the salient reasons for limiting the sensitivity. I would add that any General Aviation aircraft (which is what these units are designed for) typically are at or above 2,500' and rarely above 8,000'. With such antenna heights, both receive and transmit ranges remain fairly well balanced, so no "gator mouth..."
As for scanning, that is specifically forbidden for use in any aircraft's COM/NAV radios. They are required to remain on their assigned frequency if they are flying an IFR flight plan, flying VFR and request "Flight Following" or are going to transition into controlled airspace. If they have a second radio, they will typically use it to tune ATIS (or weather broadcasts), otherwise they monitor the emergency frequency.
krazybob
Member
As a one-time Private Pilot grounded by disability I would never dream of scanning! I would usually have whatever area I was working on the left side and 121.5 on the other side. Not always. If I had flight follow I might not have the emergency channel on the other side.@[U]hertzian[/U] in his post hit the salient reasons for limiting the sensitivity. I would add that any General Aviation aircraft (which is what these units are designed for) typically are at or above 2,500' and rarely above 8,000'. With such antenna heights, both receive and transmit ranges remain fairly well balanced, so no "gator mouth..."
As for scanning, that is specifically forbidden for use in any aircraft's COM/NAV radios. They are required to remain on their assigned frequency if they are flying an IFR flight plan, flying VFR and request "Flight Following" or are going to transition into controlled airspace. If they have a second radio, they will typically use it to tune ATIS (or weather broadcasts), otherwise they monitor the emergency frequency.
But my speculation is confirmed by two of you that the received sensitivity is deliberately restricted so as not to out talk ones transmit range as well as to potentially talk into another area. Not so likely.
You're absolutely correct at those altitudes their range is considerable. My distance to the radio Horizon is 121 miles not counting refraction that may vary. With one watt I can talk into repeater 120 miles away because I live at 6300 feet over Southern California. I've even taken the antenna off of my Bendix King and was able to hit the same repeater, albeit scratchy. That just proves the point that altitude and a low sensitivity on the repeater as well as my end makes for effective communication.
I also pointed out that if you're on a long trip and you're being told to go here and go there depending on where you're located, the FAA has sites located within its areas from which to receive and transmit from terminal, en route and flight advisory air-to-ground (A/G) remote radio communications facilities. Examples include: Backup Emergency Communications system (BUEC), Remote Center Air/Ground (RCAG), Remote Communications Outlet (RCO), Emergency Communications System (ECS), and Remote Transmitter/Receiver (RTR).
Now if I'm talking to the local tower of course that's all there is. Regardless of my altitude, I still want receivers they can hear. I want receivers that can rival the FAA. My bank account says otherwise.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
I recently purchased an Icom A-24 portable. The receiver is great, audio is excellent, and scan speed is amazing. The reason for *my* purchase was three-fold . . .
1) I do not have a pilot's license (yet), but fly General Aviation aircraft quite a bit. Having a portable radio along (in my opinion) is like having a spare tire - you never plan to use it, but if the need ever arises you're thankful it's there.
2) I am a soon-to-be-graduating student in an Avionics program. We use portables during flight-line testing, and it's nice to have my own radio. Considering the cost, although I'll probably never use the Nav features, it was a good investment for me as I transition into a position in a new career field.
3) I have been a scanner enthusiast for thirty years (has it really been that long?!?) and I like to keep radio chatter in the background.
Having said all that . . . and having been authorized to transmit on various business, public safety, and amateur radio frequencies over the years . . . I will always have a wee bit of concern when I hear someone express interest in purchasing a transceiver, "just to listen." Sure, that equipment is designed (and type-accepted) for specific frequencies . . . but as others have mentioned, there are more cost-efficient ways to hear the same thing. The OP wants to be able to hear the audio well, so I suggest an external speaker. If there are only two frequencies of interest (the OP didn't seem interested in scanning), then being able to see the display is not important. In my opinion, the most vital parts of the entire system are the antenna and the feedline. Buy a quality VHF antenna, and the best coax you can afford.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
1) I do not have a pilot's license (yet), but fly General Aviation aircraft quite a bit. Having a portable radio along (in my opinion) is like having a spare tire - you never plan to use it, but if the need ever arises you're thankful it's there.
2) I am a soon-to-be-graduating student in an Avionics program. We use portables during flight-line testing, and it's nice to have my own radio. Considering the cost, although I'll probably never use the Nav features, it was a good investment for me as I transition into a position in a new career field.
3) I have been a scanner enthusiast for thirty years (has it really been that long?!?) and I like to keep radio chatter in the background.
Having said all that . . . and having been authorized to transmit on various business, public safety, and amateur radio frequencies over the years . . . I will always have a wee bit of concern when I hear someone express interest in purchasing a transceiver, "just to listen." Sure, that equipment is designed (and type-accepted) for specific frequencies . . . but as others have mentioned, there are more cost-efficient ways to hear the same thing. The OP wants to be able to hear the audio well, so I suggest an external speaker. If there are only two frequencies of interest (the OP didn't seem interested in scanning), then being able to see the display is not important. In my opinion, the most vital parts of the entire system are the antenna and the feedline. Buy a quality VHF antenna, and the best coax you can afford.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Rest assured I have no intentions of transmitting on aircraft frequencies. I've used countless transceivers over the years, particularly amateur (ham) transceivers. I've never been tempted to key one up, no have I had any desire to obtain a license. It's not my thing. My days of talking on radio ended back in the 70's when CB was all the rage. What chased me away back then has kept me away from amateur radio today. Right now I have an ICOM IC-7600 transceiver sitting next to me, and again for reception only. I don't even have a microphone connected to it.
I might re-think the ICOM aircraft radio. I wasn't away that they were deliberately crippled as some of you implied. I've always found professional communication gear to be far superior to what's avaiable to the general hobbyist.
I might re-think the ICOM aircraft radio. I wasn't away that they were deliberately crippled as some of you implied. I've always found professional communication gear to be far superior to what's avaiable to the general hobbyist.
This radio isn't even designed to be used onboard aircraft. It's meant for a Ground-to-Air station, like an FBO or such. Yes, they do have a certified model for primary VHF, but it was never designed for that.
If I recall, the 2uv and 6 dB S/N is referenced as a minimum, by the FAA/RTCA/ICAO. I don't have the documents off-hand but there are minimum specs. Most go with the minimum, because as everybody else noted, if you're on the ground you're either dealing with aircraft in close proximity or aircraft that are really high, or in the air, you're dealing with the ground or other aircraft. Everyone will be heard.
Of course the much better systems on commercial jets are going to have better specs. They have higher output, better sensitivity, etc., since the stakes are obviously a little higher.
If I recall, the 2uv and 6 dB S/N is referenced as a minimum, by the FAA/RTCA/ICAO. I don't have the documents off-hand but there are minimum specs. Most go with the minimum, because as everybody else noted, if you're on the ground you're either dealing with aircraft in close proximity or aircraft that are really high, or in the air, you're dealing with the ground or other aircraft. Everyone will be heard.
Of course the much better systems on commercial jets are going to have better specs. They have higher output, better sensitivity, etc., since the stakes are obviously a little higher.
Um, it absolutely is correct. You're looking at the TSO version, which as I mentioned above is certified for primary VHF aboard aircraft.
The standard and original version is not Part 23 certified, and was absolutely 100% NOT designed to be used on board aircraft, because is was never certified for such.
You're looking at the TSO version, which as I mentioned above is certified for primary VHF aboard aircraft. The standard and original version is not Part 23 certified, and was absolutely 100% NOT designed to be used on board aircraft, because is was never certified for such.
I would submit that it is not "deliberately crippled" but rather is engineered to be balanced in xmit/receive ranges. But, it is most definitely not ideal for use solely as a receiver. Why spend 75% more for a transmitter that will never be used?
Also bear in mind that AM is not limited to "line of sight" but is quite susceptible to "skip" range as well. That is the primary reason why the transmit power is limited to 8 watts.
In the beginning of time when CB was just coming into its own, I could frequently talk cross-country from Arlington, Virginia to San Diego, California on -get this- 100mW walkie-talkie!
And by the way, did you even read the 2nd sentence of the description you posted from Icom? Might want to do that.
Still not correct. The first highlighted quote came from the non-TSO'd version's description, which is, as quoted, a "popular fit with experimental and light sport pilots." Avionics used in such aircraft do not require Part 93 TSO certification.Um, it absolutely is correct.
As I've stated previously, I used to design avionics for both Bendix-King and Icom at separate times...
Of course I read it. The TSO'd version can be used with Part 93 certified aircraft. The non-TSO'd version is designed for experimental and light sport aircraft that don't require that level of certification. The only real and practical difference is the user's cost, and that is mostly engendered by the amount of testing and paperwork required! Otherwise they are absolutely identical.And by the way, did you even read the 2nd sentence of the description you posted from Icom? Might want to do that.
It can be used as a ground station. So what? One could similarly install and use a Bendix-King KA 155A as a ground station in an FBO.
- Status
