<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type" />
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<p style="margin: 0px;">I use Mic-E airmobile and it works fine.</p>
<p style="margin: 0px;">I have the path change with altitude. IIRC, under 1,000 feet is WIDE 2-2 and over is WIDE 2-1 or maybe WIDE 2-1 and direct. I don't have the config in front of me. I get decent range with 5 watts and a rubber duck suction-cupped on a window.</p>
<p style="margin: 0px;">73</p>
<p style="margin: 0px;">Joe N3HGB</p>
<p style="margin: 0px;"><a href="http://www.dellabarba.com">www.dellabarba.com</a></p>
<p style="margin: 0px;"><span></span></p>
<p style="margin: 0px;"></p>
<p> </p>
<div style="margin: 5px 0px 5px 0px; font-family: monospace;">
On June 2, 2011 at 9:28 AM Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu> wrote:<br />
<br />
> >>> Mic-E generally works fine...<br />
> >> For terrestrial, sure, but I can't agree in<br />
> >> the case of aeronautical mobile due to its<br />
> >> limited usage vs. the ease of troubleshooting ASCII.<br />
> >><br />
> > Assuming a Mic-E packet is about 20 characters shorter...<br />
> > The gained channel time could be small when compared<br />
> > to tuning rates and paths, but it comes cheap...<br />
><br />
> I think the real value of shorter Mic-E packets is not in the 10 seconds per<br />
> mission of saved air time, but in the improved reliability of -each- packet.<br />
> Look at it as 20% shorter. This means 20% improved reliability (20% smaller<br />
> chance of something else colliding with one's packets!)...<br />
><br />
> Bob, WB4APR<br />
><br />
><br />
> _______________________________________________<br />
> aprssig mailing list<br />
> aprssig@tapr.org<br />
> https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
</div>
</body>
</html>