PowerFLARM updates and installation notes

[Dave Nadler]

Hi All - I've posted some notes about
PowerFLARM at Mifflin, and encourage
pilots to post their experiences here:
http://powerflarm.us/2012/05/powerflarm-results-from-mifflin-and-elswehere/

Also, I posted some notes on installations,
including the "Hall of Shame" which you may
find entertaiing. Hopefully this will answer
some of the ~100 emailed questions I have been
unable to personally respond to yet...
http://powerflarm.us/powerflarm-installation-notes/

Hope you find these helpful,
Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"

[Three Uniform]

Good news !!
And good initiative about the "Hall of Shame". It cannot be expected
that everybody has a reasonable understanding of radio wave
propagation. So, the illustrations of "How Not To" are very usefull.

Now the most important question: What about Brick delivery schedule
(for non-contest folks that often fly together in close proximity on
convergence lines) ?

3U

[Matt McKrell]

On May 31, 2:50*pm, Three Uniform > wrote:
> Good news !!
> And good initiative about the "Hall of Shame". It cannot be expected
> that everybody has a reasonable understanding of radio wave
> propagation. So, the illustrations of "How Not To" are very usefull.
>
> Now the most important question: What about Brick delivery schedule
> (for non-contest folks that often fly together in close proximity on
> convergence lines) ?
>
> 3U

It looks to me that we're about 6 weeks or more from delivery. My
vendor
just sent out a note to his customers confirming which display they
were
ordering, but he hasn't asked for the up-front payment yet.

I've got a question. It looks like the top of the glare shield is the
best spot.
However, in my plane (ASW-19) the glare shield ejects with the canopy.
If I ever have to bail out installing the antenna up there will keep
the canopy
from coming loose. Is there some kind of breakaway connector I can
use in the antenna cable? Alternately, is there a rubber duck kind of
antenna I can use instead that would poke through a hole in the glare
shield, like Bill Elliot did in this install: http://www.gliderpilot.org/FlarmInstallation

Thanks,
-- Matt

[Tim Taylor]

On May 31, 1:32*pm, Matt McKrell > wrote:
> On May 31, 2:50*pm, Three Uniform > wrote:
>
> > Good news !!
> > And good initiative about the "Hall of Shame". It cannot be expected
> > that everybody has a reasonable understanding of radio wave
> > propagation. So, the illustrations of "How Not To" are very usefull.
>
> > Now the most important question: What about Brick delivery schedule
> > (for non-contest folks that often fly together in close proximity on
> > convergence lines) ?
>
> > 3U
>
> It looks to me that we're about 6 weeks or more from delivery. *My
> vendor
> just sent out a note to his customers confirming which display they
> were
> ordering, but he hasn't asked for the up-front payment yet.
>
> I've got a question. *It looks like the top of the glare shield is the
> best spot.
> However, in my plane (ASW-19) the glare shield ejects with the canopy.
> If I ever have to bail out installing the antenna up there will keep
> the canopy
> from coming loose. *Is there some kind of breakaway connector I can
> use in the antenna cable? *Alternately, is there a rubber duck kind of
> antenna I can use instead that would poke through a hole in the glare
> shield, like Bill Elliot did in this install:http://www.gliderpilot.org/FlarmInstallation
>
> Thanks,
> -- Matt

Matt,

I helped install many different FLARM units at Mifflin. On the AS and
LS planes we would attach the antenna from under the glare screen and
use Velcro or similar so that it would pull loose if you need to
eject. There should be no metal interference under the glare screen
like in a SH, so you can just put the top half of the antenna up
through the screen and have the wire just below. We did this on an
LS-6 and I believe it worked fine. The alternative is to cut a hole
large enough for the entire antenna to come through but still attach
it on the underside so it will pull loose.

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On May 31, 4:04*pm, Tim Taylor > wrote:
> On May 31, 1:32*pm, Matt McKrell > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 2:50*pm, Three Uniform > wrote:
>
> > > Good news !!
> > > And good initiative about the "Hall of Shame". It cannot be expected
> > > that everybody has a reasonable understanding of radio wave
> > > propagation. So, the illustrations of "How Not To" are very usefull.
>
> > > Now the most important question: What about Brick delivery schedule
> > > (for non-contest folks that often fly together in close proximity on
> > > convergence lines) ?
>
> > > 3U
>
> > It looks to me that we're about 6 weeks or more from delivery. *My
> > vendor
> > just sent out a note to his customers confirming which display they
> > were
> > ordering, but he hasn't asked for the up-front payment yet.
>
> > I've got a question. *It looks like the top of the glare shield is the
> > best spot.
> > However, in my plane (ASW-19) the glare shield ejects with the canopy.
> > If I ever have to bail out installing the antenna up there will keep
> > the canopy
> > from coming loose. *Is there some kind of breakaway connector I can
> > use in the antenna cable? *Alternately, is there a rubber duck kind of
> > antenna I can use instead that would poke through a hole in the glare
> > shield, like Bill Elliot did in this install:http://www.gliderpilot.org/FlarmInstallation
>
> > Thanks,
> > -- Matt
>
> Matt,
>
> I helped install many different FLARM units at Mifflin. *On the AS and
> LS planes we would attach the antenna from under the glare screen and
> use Velcro or similar so that it would pull loose if you need to
> eject. *There should be no metal interference under the glare screen
> like in a SH, so you can just put the top half of the antenna up
> through the screen and have the wire just below. *We did this on an
> LS-6 and I believe it worked fine. *The alternative is to cut a hole
> large enough for the entire antenna to come through but still attach
> it on the underside so it will pull loose.

For Schleicher (I'm not familiar with LS gliders), I strongly
recommend supporting the antenna from something other than the glare
shield. I suggest a non-conductive (plastic, G-10, phenolic
laminate...) rail mounted to the canopy/instrument panel supporting
structure below the glare shield, with a hole in the glare shield that
allows positioning the tip of the dipole antenna close to but not
touching the canopy. I did this on my ASW-20 such that I can easily
remove and replace the canopy without disturbing the flarm antenna.
I'd go nuts if I had to mess with that antenna every time I pulled the
canopy off... and even more so if I forgot about the antenna and
damaged something.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On May 31, 11:07*am, Dave Nadler > wrote:
> Hi All - I've posted some notes about
> PowerFLARM at Mifflin, and encourage
> pilots to post their experiences here:http://powerflarm.us/2012/05/powerflarm-results-from-mifflin-and-elsw...
>
> Also, I posted some notes on installations,
> including the "Hall of Shame" which you may
> find entertaiing. Hopefully this will answer
> some of the ~100 emailed questions I have been
> unable to personally respond to yet...http://powerflarm.us/powerflarm-installation-notes/
>
> Hope you find these helpful,
> Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"

You have to admit that the huge honking dipole antenna, coax cable,
and mount, right in the middle of where you want to look on the
glareshield amounts to Chinese torture. Or at least will not make for
any cool industrial design awards.

http://powerflarm.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FLARM_good_dipole_SH.jpg

I hope to heaven you guys can work out a prettier antenna and
installation.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 5:17:17 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
>
> You have to admit that the huge honking dipole antenna, coax cable,
> and mount, right in the middle of where you want to look on the
> glareshield amounts to Chinese torture. Or at least will not make for
> any cool industrial design awards.
>
> http://powerflarm.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FLARM_good_dipole_SH.jpg
>
> I hope to heaven you guys can work out a prettier antenna and
> installation.


Thanks to Dave and PowerFLARM US for the hard work at Perry and Mifflin to improve the PowerFLARM range issue. However I totally agree with John regarding the uglyness and size of the dipole antenna in the above URL. Forgive me for being reckless with my opinion but that installation sucks and is just not acceptable in the middle of one's vision field. My PowerFLARM order is "on hold" until a "no restricted vision" antenna is available. Please, please come up with something better.

[Ramy]

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:47:46 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Thursday, May 31, 2012 5:17:17 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> >
> > You have to admit that the huge honking dipole antenna, coax cable,
> > and mount, right in the middle of where you want to look on the
> > glareshield amounts to Chinese torture. Or at least will not make for
> > any cool industrial design awards.
> >
> > http://powerflarm.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FLARM_good_dipole_SH.jpg
> >
> > I hope to heaven you guys can work out a prettier antenna and
> > installation.
>
>
> Thanks to Dave and PowerFLARM US for the hard work at Perry and Mifflin to improve the PowerFLARM range issue. However I totally agree with John regarding the uglyness and size of the dipole antenna in the above URL. Forgive me for being reckless with my opinion but that installation sucks and is just not acceptable in the middle of one's vision field. My PowerFLARM order is "on hold" until a "no restricted vision" antenna is available. Please, please come up with something better.

I second that. As much as I am advocating for powerflarm, I did not envision having to look through something like that, nor even through 2 rubber duckies that going all the way to the canopy. I sure hope there is less intrusive solution, even if it will reduce the range a little. BTW, I flew with my MRX PCAS antenna horizontally for years from the same reason and there was no noticable reduction in range, but I understand that powerflarm is much more sensitive to antenna installation. I sure hope a clean installation which does not interfere with visibility is available. After all, a powerflarm is no good if it reduces forward visibility.

Ramy

[Tim Taylor]

On May 31, 6:21*pm, Ramy > wrote:
> On Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:47:46 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 31, 2012 5:17:17 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
>
> > > You have to admit that the huge honking dipole antenna, coax cable,
> > > and mount, right in the middle of where you want to look on the
> > > glareshield amounts to Chinese torture. Or at least will not make for
> > > any cool industrial design awards.
>
> > >http://powerflarm.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FLARM_good_dipole_SH.jpg
>
> > > I hope to heaven you guys can work out a prettier antenna and
> > > installation.
>
> > Thanks to Dave and PowerFLARM US for the hard work at Perry and Mifflin to improve the PowerFLARM range issue. However I totally agree with John regarding the uglyness and size of the dipole antenna in the above URL. Forgive me for being reckless with my opinion but that installation sucks and is just not acceptable in the middle of one's vision field. My PowerFLARM order is "on hold" until a "no restricted vision" antenna is available. Please, please come up with something better.
>
> I second that. As much as I am advocating for powerflarm, I did not envision having to look through something like that, nor even through 2 rubber duckies that going all the way to the canopy. I sure hope there is less intrusive solution, even if it will reduce the range a little. BTW, I flew with my MRX PCAS antenna horizontally for years from the same reason and there was no noticable reduction in range, but I understand that powerflarm is much more sensitive to antenna installation. I sure hope a clean installation which does not interfere with visibility is available. After all, a powerflarm is no good if it reduces forward visibility.
>
> Ramy

I was involved with installing about seven units and all were much
more elegant than what you see on the web page. Mine is installed
about 4" in front on my compass that is on top of the glare screen. I
only see the top 1.5 inches of the antenna which is very small and
narrow. Many others put the bulk below the glare screen with only
the top 1.5 inches showing.

It would be nice to see the antenna have the cable come in from one
end rather than at the middle. Remember what you see so far were done
in a loaned hanger on a rainy day in the midst of a contest. Evan's
is installed below and mine is very unobtrusive in flight.

[kirk.stant]

You guys are kidding, right? An antenna that size on your instrument panel is invisible when you are focused at infinity, where you have to be to see anything out the window!

Try holding up your finger (your choice of finger, I've got a suggestion...) at arm's length in front of your face, then look at something in the distance. If your finger blocks your vision, you are an alien!

Seriously, get the PF and mount the antennas as cleanly as you can (so it looks cool, of course) and I bet you won't even notice it inflight.

Kirk
66

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On May 31, 8:52*pm, Tim Taylor > wrote:
> On May 31, 6:21*pm, Ramy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:47:46 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 31, 2012 5:17:17 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
>
> > > > You have to admit that the huge honking dipole antenna, coax cable,
> > > > and mount, right in the middle of where you want to look on the
> > > > glareshield amounts to Chinese torture. Or at least will not make for
> > > > any cool industrial design awards.
>
> > > >http://powerflarm.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FLARM_good_dipole_SH..jpg
>
> > > > I hope to heaven you guys can work out a prettier antenna and
> > > > installation.
>
> > > Thanks to Dave and PowerFLARM US for the hard work at Perry and Mifflin to improve the PowerFLARM range issue. However I totally agree with John regarding the uglyness and size of the dipole antenna in the above URL. Forgive me for being reckless with my opinion but that installation sucks and is just not acceptable in the middle of one's vision field. My PowerFLARM order is "on hold" until a "no restricted vision" antenna is available. Please, please come up with something better.
>
> > I second that. As much as I am advocating for powerflarm, I did not envision having to look through something like that, nor even through 2 rubber duckies that going all the way to the canopy. I sure hope there is less intrusive solution, even if it will reduce the range a little. BTW, I flew with my MRX PCAS antenna horizontally for years from the same reason and there was no noticable reduction in range, but I understand that powerflarm is much more sensitive to antenna installation. I sure hope a clean installation which does not interfere with visibility is available. After all, a powerflarm is no good if it reduces forward visibility.
>
> > Ramy
>
> I was involved with installing about seven units and all were much
> more elegant than what you see on the web page. *Mine is installed
> about 4" in front on my compass that is on top of the glare screen. I
> only see the top 1.5 inches of the antenna which is very small and
> narrow. * Many others put the bulk below the glare screen with only
> the top 1.5 inches showing.
>
> It would be nice to see the antenna have the cable come in from one
> end rather than at the middle. Remember what you see so far were done
> in a loaned hanger on a rainy day in the midst of a contest. *Evan's
> is installed below and mine is very unobtrusive in flight.

In a Schleicher installation, about 50% of the dipole will be below
the glare shield. What's visible in my case may not be pretty, but I
don't find it distracting or obstructing, any more so than my yaw
string. I'll get some pics next opportunity. This really isn't a big
deal, imo. If you think it might be a big deal, please keep an open
mind until you see a good installation in a cockpit similar to what
ever you fly.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Ramy]

Ok, that's sound better, having only part of the antenna sticking out. But it is kind of contradicting what I read in Dave's link. And I understand that since focusing on infinity it is less of a problem, but still annoying and unaesthetic to have the hole dipol antenna in front of your eyes all the time.
I would like to see more photos of brick antenna and remote display installations.
Also, what about external antennas near the gear similar to transponder antennas?

Ramy

[bumper[_4_]]

That first "good" installation photo shows the coax feed rounted down alongside the lower driven element. From my old Navy ET days*, a normal center fed dipole coax wants to be routed at 90 degrees away from the antenna for as far as possible, otherwise the coax braid (outer conductor) becomes a parasitic element and increases SWR losses.

*Course that was almost 50 years ago and much has changed since then (g).

bumper

[Hagbard Celine]

Much as I like the idea of PowerFLARM and think it could really
contribute to safety I have to say that even the "good" installations
shown look like the work of Red Green.

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On May 31, 8:42*pm, Ramy > wrote:
> Ok, that's sound better, having only part of the antenna sticking out. But it is kind of contradicting what I read in Dave's link. And I understand that since focusing on infinity it is less of a problem, but still annoying and unaesthetic to have the hole dipol antenna in front of your eyes all the time.
> I would like to see more photos of brick antenna and remote display installations.
> Also, what about external antennas near the gear similar to transponder antennas?
>
> Ramy

I talked to Dave about this at Mifflin.

Like you guys, mounting the coax and center part under the instrument
panel with one end of the dipole sticking through a hole seemed like a
sensible compromise. It also addresses the issue that you Will Not
Install anything that is stuck to a Schleicher glareshield, otherwise
the canopy will not release in an emergency. This is a serious issue,
Sailplane and Gliding reported a fatal crash a while ago because a
pilot could not release the canopy to jump out, with pda wires holding
the canopy on.

At Mifflin, Dave said no, no, no -- the antenna needs to be higher
than that. Some more official confirmation would be nice -- we really
need to try that kind of installation and see what the range is. One
of Dave's issues is that a lower antenna will be blocked by instrument
cases and all the other metal that is behind the glareshield. A good
point.

And as the other say...c'mon guys, surely there is a better solution
somewhere at Antennas R Us.

I plan to install the brick with this silly antenna, and hope that if
we all keep complaining flarm will come up with something more
acceptable. Replacing antenna will be easy.

John Cochrane

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Jun 1, 8:54*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> On May 31, 8:42*pm, Ramy > wrote:
>
> > Ok, that's sound better, having only part of the antenna sticking out. But it is kind of contradicting what I read in Dave's link. And I understand that since focusing on infinity it is less of a problem, but still annoying and unaesthetic to have the hole dipol antenna in front of your eyes all the time.
> > I would like to see more photos of brick antenna and remote display installations.
> > Also, what about external antennas near the gear similar to transponder antennas?
>
> > Ramy
>
> I talked to Dave about this at Mifflin.
>
> Like you guys, mounting the coax and center part under the instrument
> panel with one end of the dipole sticking through a hole seemed like a
> sensible compromise. It also addresses the issue that you Will Not
> Install anything that is stuck to a Schleicher glareshield, otherwise
> the canopy will not release in an emergency. This is a serious issue,
> Sailplane and Gliding reported a fatal crash a while ago because a
> pilot could not release the canopy to jump out, with pda wires holding
> the canopy on.
>
> At Mifflin, Dave said no, no, no -- the antenna needs to be higher
> than that. Some more official confirmation would be nice -- we really
> need to try that kind of installation and see what the range is. One
> of Dave's issues is that a lower antenna will be blocked by instrument
> cases and all the other metal that is behind the glareshield. A good
> point.
>
> And as the other say...c'mon guys, surely there is a better solution
> somewhere at Antennas R Us.
>
> I plan to install the brick with this silly antenna, and hope that if
> we all keep complaining flarm will come up with something more
> acceptable. Replacing antenna will be easy.
>
> John Cochrane

The antennas supplied with PowerFlarm appear to be off the shelf
commercial stuff. They're functional, but hardly ideal.

Here http://www.linxtechnologies.com/products/antennas/dipole/vdp-series-stick-on-dipole-antenna/

is a 900 MHz dipole that although a bit long (4.5") is at least very
thin one way (3/16") and locates the coax feed on the end. With just
a little bit of sailplane application specific engineering, much less
obnoxious designs are surely possible.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[C-FFKQ (42)]

Seems to be my week for obviously dumb questions, but I'll venture forth, nonetheless...

If the cockpit has no carbon, is it possible to mount the PF antenna behind the pilot's head?

My Kestrel 19 has an utility shelf behind my head, with clear canopy above that. Seems to me that there's a clear view of the sky and only fibreglass behind it, so should get good reception all around.

- John
(PF is next on my wish list)

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Jun 1, 8:31*am, Evan Ludeman > wrote:
> On Jun 1, 8:54*am, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 8:42*pm, Ramy > wrote:
>
> > > Ok, that's sound better, having only part of the antenna sticking out.. But it is kind of contradicting what I read in Dave's link. And I understand that since focusing on infinity it is less of a problem, but still annoying and unaesthetic to have the hole dipol antenna in front of your eyes all the time.
> > > I would like to see more photos of brick antenna and remote display installations.
> > > Also, what about external antennas near the gear similar to transponder antennas?
>
> > > Ramy
>
> > I talked to Dave about this at Mifflin.
>
> > Like you guys, mounting the coax and center part under the instrument
> > panel with one end of the dipole sticking through a hole seemed like a
> > sensible compromise. It also addresses the issue that you Will Not
> > Install anything that is stuck to a Schleicher glareshield, otherwise
> > the canopy will not release in an emergency. This is a serious issue,
> > Sailplane and Gliding reported a fatal crash a while ago because a
> > pilot could not release the canopy to jump out, with pda wires holding
> > the canopy on.
>
> > At Mifflin, Dave said no, no, no -- the antenna needs to be higher
> > than that. Some more official confirmation would be nice -- we really
> > need to try that kind of installation and see what the range is. One
> > of Dave's issues is that a lower antenna will be blocked by instrument
> > cases and all the other metal that is behind the glareshield. A good
> > point.
>
> > And as the other say...c'mon guys, surely there is a better solution
> > somewhere at Antennas R Us.
>
> > I plan to install the brick with this silly antenna, and hope that if
> > we all keep complaining flarm will come up with something more
> > acceptable. Replacing antenna will be easy.
>
> > John Cochrane
>
> The antennas supplied with PowerFlarm appear to be off the shelf
> commercial stuff. *They're functional, but hardly ideal.
>
> Herehttp://www.linxtechnologies.com/products/antennas/dipole/vdp-series-s....
>
> is a 900 MHz dipole that although a bit long (4.5") is at least very
> thin one way (3/16") and locates the coax feed on the end. *With just
> a little bit of sailplane application specific engineering, much less
> obnoxious designs are surely possible.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

Evan:
Your website has all sorts of bottom-connected dipole antennas. Dave,
are you on frequency? At least a dipole with a connector and
attachment hardware on the bottom would seem to make a whole lot of
sense here!
John Cochrane

[Darryl Ramm]

On Friday, June 1, 2012 10:58:10 AM UTC-7, C-FFKQ (42) wrote:
> Seems to be my week for obviously dumb questions, but I'll venture forth, nonetheless...
>
> If the cockpit has no carbon, is it possible to mount the PF antenna behind the pilot's head?
>
> My Kestrel 19 has an utility shelf behind my head, with clear canopy above that. Seems to me that there's a clear view of the sky and only fibreglass behind it, so should get good reception all around.
>
> - John
> (PF is next on my wish list)

Obscuring the antenna, especially its forward view with a fat head is probably not a good idea. Get those antennas up front on top of the glareshield....

Darryl

[RAS56]

Hmmm...let's see now.

Months behind schedule.

Expensive.

Very picky about installation.

Features that don't work or aren't turned on yet.

Documentation and manuals that may leave you with more questions than answers.

Programming and continual updating required.

Primary tech support located in another continent.

Another battery draw.

My retired-USAF-Avionics-tech Dad's advice given to me years ago circling in my head to "never drive, buy or fly the "A" model of anything mechanical, electrical or both."

-Insert your own concern here-

WOW! Who wouldn't want one???


I've got a "Brick" model (it DOES kinda make you wonder if it's appropriately named, no?) reserved in my name...but right now I'm 90% certain I'll forgo the promised discount, cancel my order and wait for Version B, C, D...or whatever when all the bugs are finally worked out and everything is turned on and operational. For the time being, I'll start using the Zaon PCAS that I just ordered for less than 1/3 the cost of the PF to at least keep me clear of the squawkers.

Sure wish the version used in Europe could just have been used here. Understand that was not in the cards for the USA, still...the hassle-factor of this device has crossed my (admittedly low) pain threshold and I believe I'll join the late bloomers and technology Luddites.

RS

[Matt Herron Jr.]

For a product specifically designed for gliders, the designers don't
seem to have paid much attention to the form factor of either the
brick or the antenna as relates to gliders. Maybe a shorter antenna
with less gain would be better than a long antenna with no place to
install properly. Also (Darryl may correct me on this) a dual antenna
configuration on the brick (not the dipole) will be very directional,
with most of the signal radiating fore an aft of the plane of the
antennas. So be careful how you orient them. I will eventually get
flarm, but this is just another reason to wait until the bugs are
shaken out. Incorrect polarization of the butterfly display is
another one.

[C-FFKQ (42)]

> Obscuring the antenna, especially its forward view with a fat head is probably not a good idea. Get those antennas up front on top of the glareshield....
>
> Darryl

Thanks, Darryl... I'll assume that you're not calling me a fat-head :D

[[email protected]]

I won't disagree with the criticisms leveled by RAS56, and I have noticed with irritation while waiting for tow the two rubber duckie antenna sticking up in my field of view (even though I focus beyond them in flight) are unsightly. But after only three flights with Power FLARM I have to say it has alerted three times on traffic I had not seen, one of which could well have been a collision threat. That is to say, the glider was off to my right at my altitude and apparently decided to try my thermal. The PF got my attention and I found the threat in mere seconds and was able to turn out of the way. We'll never know if I would have seen it without the PF, of course, but I'm happy with the alert. That said, I'd still like to see the antenna put somewhere other than the to of my glareshield.

[Dave Nadler]

Hi All - I've added more installation info:
http://powerflarm.us/powerflarm-installation-notes/

Also, a few pilots have posted notes about their
PowerFLARM experiences (and we encourage you to
do likewise) here:
http://powerflarm.us/2012/05/powerflarm-results-from-mifflin-and-elswehere/

Hope you find these helpful,
Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"

[Steve Koerner]

Hey Ras56:

My guess is that you haven't been present to hear the god-awful wailing of a woman who has just been told that her husband was killed in a mid-air. Trust me, it's worth a lot of battery drain and lousy documentation and ugly antennas to not have that experience again. Get a PowerFlarm.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Friday, June 1, 2012 3:18:55 PM UTC-7, RAS56 wrote:
> Hmmm...let's see now.
>
> Months behind schedule.
>
> Expensive.

Compared to what? Amortized over several years? Compered to one or more deaths in mid-air collisions? Installing ADS-B data-out? Writing off a glider in an accident? Full cost of attending one contest? Cost of a season of tows?

> Very picky about installation.
>
> Features that don't work or aren't turned on yet.

That was always expected and is a very good thing vs. waiting for some arbitrary 'feature complete' product. We need the primary flarm-flarm collision avoidance deployed as widely as possible in the USA fleet now, especially in key contests and at busy glider locations and especially to have experience with this before key events like the World contest in Texas. Having extra features like IGC logging is a nice to have, but not something ever to hold the product up for.

> Documentation and manuals that may leave you with more questions than
> answers.

I agree the product documentation could be better, but it you have questions ask them and hopefully they will get answered. Web site content including the stuff Dave recently put up is a big help.

> Programming and continual updating required.

That is a good thing with any advanced technology product and software/firmware/(and even protocol) fixes and feature updates is something that Flarm has managed fairly well over their history, the other extreme is you have no updates or vendor support and a dead product.

> Primary tech support located in another continent.

Oops except you have...

Product experts like Dave Nadler hand holding folks at contests. And Dave has experience as a early/beta tester and data-port software developer and is able to get to whoever he needs at Flarm. As experience grows folks seem to be helping each other out with install related things.

Board level repairs and mods are done in the USA.

Folks like Rex Mayes (and maybe other folks) manufacturing installation mounts/kits and supporting them in the USA.

The CEO of FLARM lives in the USA. Some work is done here (if nothing else Urs looks at issues himself), some overseas.

Given all that I don't care where a developer is located, as long as they are good and have access to the data and tools they need and are focused on the right thing.


> Another battery draw.

Yes no surprise these advanced technology products run on electricity. But its another battery draw that should be easily manageable for most gliders. As with any new device, you have to look at the total power consumption. If it does turn out to be a problem then adding/upgrading batteries or adding solar panels are options.

> My retired-USAF-Avionics-tech Dad's advice given to me years ago
> circling in my head to "never drive, buy or fly the "A" model of
> anything mechanical, electrical or both."

There are >ten thousand of Flarm products flying world wide. While PowerFLARM is a significant technology step it is built on a very solid foundation. The company and their partners like Butterfly has very impressive history at developing advanced technology and shipping products.

One of the reasons PowerFLARM has been delayed is the development of the brick unit, which was in response to feedback from USA glider pilots. Again seeing that happen is a good thing, even though all of us wish they had been here sooner. Other delays have been less expected but its clear FLARM is has been busy working issues like range concerns.

And finally there is a rental program for portable units up and running in the USA (that is impressive to see), for folks not sure this seems a great way of trying out the technology. But yes getting the portable unit installed for a one off rental does take some work. Nothing comes for free.


> -Insert your own concern here-
>
> WOW! Who wouldn't want one???

I don't know, but hundreds of USA glider pilots seem to understand delivering advanced new technology products can unfortunately involve delays and hassles at times and still want to get their hands on a PowerFLARM as soon as they can.

> I've got a "Brick" model (it DOES kinda make you wonder if it's
> appropriately named, no?) reserved in my name...but right now I'm 90%
> certain I'll forgo the promised discount, cancel my order and wait for
> Version B, C, D...or whatever when all the bugs are finally worked out
> and everything is turned on and operational. For the time being, I'll
> start using the Zaon PCAS that I just ordered for less than 1/3 the cost
> of the PF to at least keep me clear of the squawkers.
>
> Sure wish the version used in Europe could just have been used here.
> Understand that was not in the cards for the USA, still...the
> hassle-factor of this device has crossed my (admittedly low) pain
> threshold and I believe I'll join the late bloomers and technology
> Luddites.

Unfortunately the exiting Flarm devices just were not an option due to lack of FCC certification.

Darryl

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

On Jun 3, 11:45*pm, Steve Koerner > wrote:
> Hey Ras56:
>
> My guess is that you haven't been present to hear the god-awful wailing of a woman who has just been told that her husband was killed in a mid-air. *Trust me, it's worth a lot of battery drain and lousy documentation and ugly antennas to not have that experience again. *Get a PowerFlarm.

I second that. Collisions are mercifully rare, and the chances are
that any individual pilot will not have one, but the tiny chance that
it will happen, multiplied by the awfulness of the event, if it does,
makes it a hazard worth taking steps to avoid.

Another point is that “the best is the enemy of the good”. I am a
strong advocate of both Flarm and PCAS, but I do not regard either as
a perfect solution. They are, however, good enough for the time being,
and the best that I could reasonably afford and in practice install in
my UK glider at the time, and will serve until the best, or at least
something better, is available.

I do not know the long-term USA collision fatality rate. I do
understand that it is not the most common type of fatal accident in
the USA. But there have been several recent high-profile collisions,
including some fatal that I have seen reported on this forum.

In the UK, when I started working on this topic, it was one of the
three big killers of glider pilots. I hope with the introduction of
Flarm, our reduced incidence of the past two years in fatal collisions
will prove to be more than a temporary downward blip, but it is too
early to tell. What we do know is that more than a quarter of UK
gliders now have Flarm, and the percentage is still increasing. I hope
it does the same in the USA.

Chris N

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Jun 1, 6:18*pm, RAS56 > wrote:

> WOW! Who wouldn't want one???

The pilot that hasn't tried one.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[RAS56]

Folks,

I am glad there are those who want to slog thru the teething problems of a newly introduced electronic device...frankly, I know I'm just not one of them. Honestly with the type of glider flying I do, my risk of mid-air is exceedingly low and is much more likely due to some kind of powered traffic than another glider (a threat which a currently installed PF unit would still do me absolutely no good and which I've decided to address with the PCAS)

But c'mon now...for those of us who don't like to spend our time off upside down in our cockpits chasing wires, fussing with antennas, seeing if maybe the re-programming took "this" time or wondering if I just "smoked" my new gizmo in an install error ...if the list of problems I ticked off had come from a product issued by someone like say Microsoft (it did sound amazingly similar to my complaints about the buggy Windows ME platform) the howling by users about a product brought a little too early in development to market would have been long and loud and justified.

Kudos to all who are trying to sort through all the teething problems and help find a system that's easy to install, use and maintain, especially Mr. Nadler.

Still, Mr. Nadler cannot make housecalls to all of us who won't trek to a contest and/or are probably less technologically savvy types than many early adapters. So...those of us like me will patiently wait for the "B" model of PF to show up that will bear the fruit of what to me on the outside appears to be having current users doing too much "in the field" operational testing and evaluation on.

Now, to the bawling spouse...I agree, one of those is too many!! But interestingly, in my flying career (encompassing 35+ years of GA, military and airline) I have lost a number of friends and peers in accidents over the years. Mid-airs have been on the very low side of where those losses occurred....Pilot error and mechanical failure has been a much, much greater threat...but if PF someday helps drive down the few that happen in glider flying (and primarily in the even smaller segment flying contests)...Great! Then maybe the community can turn its attention to the other very-worthy-of-attention-reasons that flying a glider has a 1 in 2000 chance of killing you...vs. only a 1 in 6000 chance of it happening on the drive to the airport. Not just focusing on stopping the mid-airs.

http://www.streckenflug.at/news/tom_knauff_a_ten.pdf

PowerFlarm someday in all it's glory will be a great product if it delivers all that's promised...and when it does, I'll likely purchase and install one. But for now, for me, in it's current incarnation...it's a "pass".

Regards to all,

RAS56

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sunday, June 3, 2012 6:51:34 PM UTC-7, RAS56 wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I am glad there are those who want to slog thru the teething problems of a newly introduced electronic device...frankly, I know I'm just not one of them. Honestly with the type of glider flying I do, my risk of mid-air is exceedingly low and is much more likely due to some kind of powered traffic than another glider (a threat which a currently installed PF unit would still do me absolutely no good and which I've decided to address with the PCAS)

Its perfectly fine to prefer not to want to adopt new technology, even if I think you were inflating the concerns/issues, and of course its great to make decisions based on your own risk assessments, and you have have more experience than many pilots and therefore likely knowledgeable on doing that. But its another thing to make these decisions that may be clouded by technical confusion, and there seems some confusion here, of maybe you can clarify/explain what you meant about PCAS.

PowerFLARM does PCAS today -- so your claim that a "a threat which a currently installed PF unit would still do me absolutely no good" does not make sense--a PowerFLARM would perform the same PCAS functions as whatever PCAS only unit you have decided to install instead. And you get all the other benefits (or in an extreme case of early adopter concern you could even decide to ignore/disable Flarm now, which I'd not recommend, and just use it as PCAS (with another benefit of 1090ES data-in also working today so you get high-precision directional information about 1090ES data-out adopters like many airliners (and PowerFLARM deduplicates that so you also don't get a non-directional PCAS threat for the same target).

Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Friday, June 1, 2012 3:25:27 PM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> For a product specifically designed for gliders, the designers don't
> seem to have paid much attention to the form factor of either the
> brick or the antenna as relates to gliders. Maybe a shorter antenna
> with less gain would be better than a long antenna with no place to
> install properly. Also (Darryl may correct me on this) a dual antenna
> configuration on the brick (not the dipole) will be very directional,
> with most of the signal radiating fore an aft of the plane of the
> antennas. So be careful how you orient them. I will eventually get
> flarm, but this is just another reason to wait until the bugs are
> shaken out. Incorrect polarization of the butterfly display is
> another one.

Hi Matt

I suspect the Flarm developers have a good understanding of antenna gain and radiation pasterns (remember the more on-axis gain the less off axis gain and Flarm has to optimize all this to detect threats that may be on the horizon or significantly angled below or above the glider) to optimize their product. The lower gain stubby little antenna of a Zaon MRX by comparison only has to receive relatively powerful transponder signals (compared to the flarm-flarm signals) and how PCAS operates means its only really interesting to work at relatively short range whereas the 1090ES data-in capability of the PowerFLARM means you probalby want higher antenna gain PCAS/1090ES antenna than just for a PCAS only device).

I am not sure what you mean by the "dual antenna configuration on the brick". But maybe I can try to see if I can cover that.

Both the PowerFLARM portable and brick units have connectors for Flarm A and Flarm B antennas. The Flarm A antenna transmits an receives flarm messages, the Flarm B antenna only receives flarm messages. The Flarm B antenna is really intended for mounting in a location to give improved reception in directions that would be largely shielded today when using a single Flarm A antenna (ideally located on top of the glareshield). That shielded direction is mostly rearward (and also below the glider), with areas shielded by the pilot's body and carbon fiber fuselage etc. I see a Flarm B antenna mounted in future under or on top of my glider tail boom (on top to potentially avoid being too close to the transponder antenna). In a configuration like this overall signal sensitivity may or may not be that directional. It might be much more isotropic than a single antenna blocked to the rear by a pilots body and carbon fuselage.

The 1090ES/PCAS antenna next to the Flarm A antenna on the PF Portable will result in some directionality of both antennas (weaker signal towards the otehr antenna -- I'd wild guess several 10% signal reduction) but I am sure that is all well understood as a part of many tradeoffs the developers have to live with.

Or am I missing what you meant?

Darryl

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 6/3/2012 6:51 PM, RAS56 wrote:
> But c'mon now...for those of us who don't like to spend our time off
> upside down in our cockpits chasing wires, fussing with antennas,
> seeing if maybe the re-programming took "this" time or wondering if I
> just "smoked" my new gizmo in an install error .

But c'mon now ... the stuff you mention, and what I've seen in Dave's
pictures and in person, comes from not following the simple directions
for placement of the portable PowerFlarm, which basically are "put it on
top of the glare shield". There is only one cable (power) - how hard is
that?

My portable PF would not quite fit directly on top of the glare shield,
so I built a simple bracket out of aluminum that holds it just aft of
the glare shield, and 1/2" lower. The PCAS works as well as my Zaon PCAS
did, I get the airliners' ADS-B, and an hour long encounter with another
PF equipped glider convinced me it enough range for collision avoidance
(about 1 NM), about 2 NM of range for "buddy flying" purposes
(intermittent loss of the other glider, but still easy to track), and
about 3 NM range if we within 1000' vertically. He also had a PF mounted
on the top of the glares shield.

I expect all those ranges to improve with ongoing changes; until then,
I'm hoping _everyone_ I thermal with has one, because it was a very
comfortable, stress-free experience compared to the usual neck-craning
and radio chit-chat, trying to keep tabs on each other in thermals and
when flying close to each other.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[noel.wade]

On Jun 3, 6:51*pm, RAS56 > wrote:
> But c'mon now...for those of us who don't like to spend our time off upside down in our cockpits chasing wires, fussing with antennas

RAS56 - Sounds like you're worrying about alot without even
investigating things. You want to keep it simple?

STEP 1: Buy a Portable PowerFLARM
STEP 2: Stick it on top of your glareshield
STEP 3: Make sure the antennas are pointed straight up.
STEP 4: (Optional?) Run a wire from your power-bus/battery to the
PowerFLARM.

How hard is that?

--Noel

[Dan Marotta]

"Evan Ludeman" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 1, 6:18 pm, RAS56 > wrote:

> WOW! Who wouldn't want one???

The pilot that hasn't tried one.

-Evan Ludeman / T8


....Or the pilot just faced with a $2,500 expense for a new parachute.

Yeah, yeah... I know... How much is my life worth?

I have eyes and ears, but I don't have wings.

But, to be positive, I've had pilots whith FLARM installed tell me that they
see my Trig TT22 transponder (which I just installed a few months back) on
their screen. That's impressive!

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Jun 4, 1:59*am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> On Jun 3, 6:51*pm, RAS56 > wrote:
>
> > But c'mon now...for those of us who don't like to spend our time off upside down in our cockpits chasing wires, fussing with antennas
>
> RAS56 - Sounds like you're worrying about alot without even
> investigating things. *You want to keep it simple?
>
> STEP 1: Buy a Portable PowerFLARM
> STEP 2: Stick it on top of your glareshield
> STEP 3: Make sure the antennas are pointed straight up.
> STEP 4: (Optional?) Run a wire from your power-bus/battery to the
> PowerFLARM.
>
> How hard is that?
>
> --Noel

I think most people will find that the brick is an easier, more
cockpit friendly install. I would recommend against buying a portable
unless you are 100% confident that you have a good place to put it.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Dan Marotta]

The optimum FLARM antenna installation:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/c12-huron/images/4-rc-12-aircraft.jpg

Sorry, couldn't help myself.


"Darryl Ramm" > wrote in message
...
On Friday, June 1, 2012 3:25:27 PM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> For a product specifically designed for gliders, the designers don't
> seem to have paid much attention to the form factor of either the
> brick or the antenna as relates to gliders. Maybe a shorter antenna
> with less gain would be better than a long antenna with no place to
> install properly. Also (Darryl may correct me on this) a dual antenna
> configuration on the brick (not the dipole) will be very directional,
> with most of the signal radiating fore an aft of the plane of the
> antennas. So be careful how you orient them. I will eventually get
> flarm, but this is just another reason to wait until the bugs are
> shaken out. Incorrect polarization of the butterfly display is
> another one.

Hi Matt

I suspect the Flarm developers have a good understanding of antenna gain and
radiation pasterns (remember the more on-axis gain the less off axis gain
and Flarm has to optimize all this to detect threats that may be on the
horizon or significantly angled below or above the glider) to optimize their
product. The lower gain stubby little antenna of a Zaon MRX by comparison
only has to receive relatively powerful transponder signals (compared to the
flarm-flarm signals) and how PCAS operates means its only really interesting
to work at relatively short range whereas the 1090ES data-in capability of
the PowerFLARM means you probalby want higher antenna gain PCAS/1090ES
antenna than just for a PCAS only device).

I am not sure what you mean by the "dual antenna configuration on the
brick". But maybe I can try to see if I can cover that.

Both the PowerFLARM portable and brick units have connectors for Flarm A and
Flarm B antennas. The Flarm A antenna transmits an receives flarm messages,
the Flarm B antenna only receives flarm messages. The Flarm B antenna is
really intended for mounting in a location to give improved reception in
directions that would be largely shielded today when using a single Flarm A
antenna (ideally located on top of the glareshield). That shielded direction
is mostly rearward (and also below the glider), with areas shielded by the
pilot's body and carbon fiber fuselage etc. I see a Flarm B antenna mounted
in future under or on top of my glider tail boom (on top to potentially
avoid being too close to the transponder antenna). In a configuration like
this overall signal sensitivity may or may not be that directional. It might
be much more isotropic than a single antenna blocked to the rear by a pilots
body and carbon fuselage.

The 1090ES/PCAS antenna next to the Flarm A antenna on the PF Portable will
result in some directionality of both antennas (weaker signal towards the
otehr antenna -- I'd wild guess several 10% signal reduction) but I am sure
that is all well understood as a part of many tradeoffs the developers have
to live with.

Or am I missing what you meant?

Darryl

[CLewis95]

> ....
> .....You want to keep it simple?
>
> STEP 1: Buy a Portable PowerFLARM
> STEP 2: Stick it on top of your glareshield
> STEP 3: Make sure the antennas are pointed straight up.
> STEP 4: (Optional?) Run a wire from your power-bus/battery to the
> PowerFLARM.
>
> How hard is that?
>
> --Noel

This (Noel's comment) is what I "planned/hoped" to do in my Genesis.

Interested if there have been any reports of interference between a CAI Model 20 mounted near Portable Flarm(?). My Model 20 is mounted behind instrument pod with antenna ~flush with top. The portable would be about 10" ahead on top of pod (so antenna bases would be ~1" above GPS-20 antenna). Flarm antennas can easily stand vertical.

Any comments appreciated!

Curt - 95

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Jun 3, 1:53*pm, Dave Nadler > wrote:
> Hi All - I've added more installation info:http://powerflarm.us/powerflarm-installation-notes/
>
> Also, a few pilots have posted notes about their
> PowerFLARM experiences (and we encourage you to
> do likewise) here:http://powerflarm.us/2012/05/powerflarm-results-from-mifflin-and-elsw...
>
> Hope you find these helpful,
> Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"

Quoting from Dave's website:

Suggestion for Glare-Shields that Jettison with Canopy [i.e.
Schleicher -JC]

Make an antenna mount with a large base shaped to match glare-shield
(hint: lay up a fiberglass base on top of the glare-shield). Cut a
small hole through the glare-shield for the antenna and cable. Fasten
the base of the mount to the underside of the glare-shield with a
small amount of velcro. This makes it easy to remove the canopy/glare-
shield, and safe in a bail-out.

Comment: C'mon Dave. This is supposed to be a consumer product ready
for release to the glider market. And you really are suggesting that
half this market needs to go lay up fiberglass to install it? That's
beyond half-baked.

We really need to see one decent Shleicher install picture!

Again -- the world is full of dipole antennas with physical and
electrical connectors at the base. Why oh why are you not using such
an antenna in this most obvious place for it?

John Cochrane

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Jun 4, 9:46*am, CLewis95 > wrote:
>
> This (Noel's comment) is what I "planned/hoped" to do in my Genesis.
>
> Interested if there have been any reports of interference between a CAI Model 20 mounted near Portable Flarm(?). *My Model 20 is mounted behind instrument pod with antenna ~flush with top. *The portable would be about 10" ahead on top of pod (so antenna bases would be ~1" above GPS-20 antenna).. *Flarm antennas can easily stand vertical.
>
> Any comments appreciated!
>
> Curt - 95

Curt,
I have a Model 20 located under the glareshield of my Nimbus 3. It is
less than a foot ahead of and below the portable FLARM mounted on top
of the glare shield. Only time I had a problem was at the end of one
day, when pushing back to the tiedown spot, the FLARM came loose from
it velcro mount and slide to the front of the glareshield. The GPS
location in the Cambridge took a big jump away from Garner Field
(during the Open Nationals last year, at Uvalde). Seemed to have as
good a FLARM reception and transmit as anyone else there.

I also have a flight with the portable installed on top of the panel
on my BS1. Cambridge Model 20 secured to the top of the panel,
probably not more than 2-3 inches between the boxes. No problems with
the Cambrigde log. Not sure of the FLARM performance with that
installation. Couldn't get my antenna vertical and there was only one
other FLARM equipped plane flying, so I need to make a different
mount. Anyone interested in making cables in standard lengths (6 inch
increments, maybe?) to go from the portable to a base mount for the
supplied antenna? Yes, YO, I am working on getting more seperation of
the two.

If the prefered antenna seems to be the dipole with a simple plastic
angle bracket for mounting, are we going to see this become the
standard antenna shipped with FLARM units at some point in the
future? Less m ounting height required than the rubber duckie that
had to be mounted at the top of the portable because of the batter
box. Just a thought.

Steve Leonard
ZS, VJS, KN, PN, and a few others.

[noel.wade]

On Jun 4, 7:25*am, Evan Ludeman > wrote:

> I think most people will find that the brick is an easier, more
> cockpit friendly install. *I would recommend against buying a portable

Evan - I was specifically responding to RAS56's complaints about
complexity. The Portable is (by definition) a self-contained unit
with no worries about an external display or other wiring.

--Noel

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 6/4/2012 7:46 AM, CLewis95 wrote:
>> .... .....You want to keep it simple?
>>
>> STEP 1: Buy a Portable PowerFLARM STEP 2: Stick it on top of your
>> glareshield STEP 3: Make sure the antennas are pointed straight
>> up. STEP 4: (Optional?) Run a wire from your power-bus/battery to
>> the PowerFLARM.
>>
>> How hard is that?
>>
>> --Noel
>
> This (Noel's comment) is what I "planned/hoped" to do in my Genesis.
>
> Interested if there have been any reports of interference between a
> CAI Model 20 mounted near Portable Flarm(?). My Model 20 is mounted
> behind instrument pod with antenna ~flush with top. The portable
> would be about 10" ahead on top of pod (so antenna bases would be ~1"
> above GPS-20 antenna). Flarm antennas can easily stand vertical.
>
> Any comments appreciated!

I've been told about 12" separation in GPS antennas is adequate, and
your situation sounds like it qualifies. In practice, I've had no
trouble with GPS antennas only 8" apart and at the same height.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Jun 4, 4:21*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> On Jun 4, 7:25*am, Evan Ludeman > wrote:
>
> > I think most people will find that the brick is an easier, more
> > cockpit friendly install. *I would recommend against buying a portable
>
> Evan - I was specifically responding to RAS56's complaints about
> complexity. *The Portable is (by definition) a self-contained unit
> with no worries about an external display or other wiring.
>
> --Noel

I understand that Noel... but in practice the "simplicity" of the
portable is a huge farking liability w.r.t. successful installation in
at least half the single place glider fleet.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[JS]

Evan's point remains the main reason there is so much reluctance to install this thing: If you've never used the technology, it's bad!
Groups who would like to experience without buying can probably rent some during a time period there is no contest running, and fly together.
When the Nimbus 3 (now Steve Leonard's) was in Australia, it had a stick-on antenna in the front right corner of the canopy for the OzFLARM. The placement wasn't perfect (a dead spot down to the left) and the antenna is hard to move after it's stuck on. Before that I used the standard antenna on the set-top box but

replaced the black cover of the antenna with clear tubing.

This really made the thing disappear. If the visual bothers you, perhaps try that.
Nice installation images and reviews, Dave.
Jim

> > WOW! Who wouldn't want one???
>
> The pilot that hasn't tried one.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

[Bob Gibbons[_2_]]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 09:53:48 -0700 (PDT), John Cochrane
> wrote:

.... text deleted
>Again -- the world is full of dipole antennas with physical and
>electrical connectors at the base. Why oh why are you not using such
>an antenna in this most obvious place for it?
>
>John Cochrane

Per T8's suggestion, I looked at the VDP series 1/2 wave dipole
antennas from Linx;
http://www.linxtechnologies.com/products/antennas/dipole/vdp-series-stick-on-dipole-antenna/

comparing with what appears to be the standard PowerFlarm brick
dipole;
http://www.linxtechnologies.com/products/antennas/dipole/mhw-series-stick-on-dipole-antenna/

the VDP is about 0.7 inch longer, and maybe 10% worse VSWR. Otherwise
the datasheet specs look identical. Both cost under $10.

The big plus is that the very thin flat antenna (with a bottom mount
coax) will be much easier to integrate into our ships. And it will
look much more attractive.

I cut out a cardboard facsimile and was able to fit it to the front
cowling of both a Ventus 2cx and a Ventus C. Not much clearance in the
Ventus 2, but it cleared the canopy by mayb 1/2 inch..

I notice on the Butterfly site that they have a bottom fed antenna
that is cited to have "high performance" with the PowerFlarm.
http://www.butterfly-store.de/en/External+antenna+with+cable+high+performance+FLARM ,i7.htm
Unfortunately, no indication of how tall this antenna is.

To echo John's comment, there has to be a better solution than the
current fat dipole with the center feed coax.

We've come too far and fought too hard to get Flarm into the US
sailplane fleet to let this antenna issue stall widespread acceptance.
If PowerFlarm is to really impact collision statistics, we need to get
nearly 100% fleet penetration. I fear this will not happen with the
fat center-fed dipole. It may work the best, but if it looks ugly or
is difficult to install, we will not get wide fleet penetration.

This is an important issue for the full acceptance of PowerFlarm in
the US !

Bob

[kirk.stant]

Looking on this site (http://www.butterfly-store.de/en/Collision+Avoidance/PowerFLARM/Antennas/) it appears there are a lot of antenna options available. In particular, I like the high-performance external antenna - I could see mounting it on the top of the fuselage aft of the canopy, where it should have a really good field of view and not clutter up the cockpit - and I really don't care about the drag (probably about the same as a transponder antenna).

Sure would be cool if someone came up with a faired streamlined external antenna - for both the ads-b and flarm - that could be externally mounted.

For Dave Nadler: Will this antenna work with a US PF brick?: http://www.butterfly-store.de/en/External+antenna+with+cable+high+performance+FLARM .htm

Kirk
66

[Frank Whiteley]

On Monday, June 4, 2012 11:49:42 AM UTC-6, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Jun 4, 9:46*am, CLewis95 > wrote:
> >
> > This (Noel's comment) is what I "planned/hoped" to do in my Genesis.
> >
> > Interested if there have been any reports of interference between a CAI Model 20 mounted near Portable Flarm(?). *My Model 20 is mounted behind instrument pod with antenna ~flush with top. *The portable would be about 10" ahead on top of pod (so antenna bases would be ~1" above GPS-20 antenna). *Flarm antennas can easily stand vertical.
> >
> > Any comments appreciated!
> >
> > Curt - 95
>
> Curt,
> I have a Model 20 located under the glareshield of my Nimbus 3. It is
> less than a foot ahead of and below the portable FLARM mounted on top
> of the glare shield. Only time I had a problem was at the end of one
> day, when pushing back to the tiedown spot, the FLARM came loose from
> it velcro mount and slide to the front of the glareshield. The GPS
> location in the Cambridge took a big jump away from Garner Field
> (during the Open Nationals last year, at Uvalde). Seemed to have as
> good a FLARM reception and transmit as anyone else there.
>
> I also have a flight with the portable installed on top of the panel
> on my BS1. Cambridge Model 20 secured to the top of the panel,
> probably not more than 2-3 inches between the boxes. No problems with
> the Cambrigde log. Not sure of the FLARM performance with that
> installation. Couldn't get my antenna vertical and there was only one
> other FLARM equipped plane flying, so I need to make a different
> mount. Anyone interested in making cables in standard lengths (6 inch
> increments, maybe?) to go from the portable to a base mount for the
> supplied antenna? Yes, YO, I am working on getting more seperation of
> the two.
>
> If the prefered antenna seems to be the dipole with a simple plastic
> angle bracket for mounting, are we going to see this become the
> standard antenna shipped with FLARM units at some point in the
> future? Less m ounting height required than the rubber duckie that
> had to be mounted at the top of the portable because of the batter
> box. Just a thought.
>
> Steve Leonard
> ZS, VJS, KN, PN, and a few others.

I'd recommend 3M Dual-Lock, much stronger than Velcro or other hook and loop fasteners for your delicate electronic gear, especially if movable between your mistresses. Typically 5X stronger.
http://tinyurl.com/7u7t6q5

Frank Whiteley

Frank Whiteley

[Morgan[_2_]]

Good to finally see some installation examples of both the good and bad.

As an early adopter and a staunch supporter of PowerFlarm and a contributor to the rental fund I do hope that we see better instructions, recommendations and antenna replacements for the early adopters. The Hall of Shame examples may not be great, but they are all logical attempts at wedging the admittedly oversized portable into the cockpit.

I say oversized only because a good portion of the glider fleet (most if not all Schleichers I think) don't have sufficient room for the portable unit in the optimal place. Even in a DG with a relatively low pedestal, the portable flarm and antenna really get in the way of your over the nose view.

I think most pilots will be really happy with the brick given a little attention to the install. I will likely brickify one or more installations of the portable with an external display and antenna improvement when they are available.

Most of all, once you fly with one you'll start wishing everyone had one. Range limitations from questionable installs and all, the beep of a nearby glider raising your awareness is really slick.

[RAS56]

On Monday, June 4, 2012 2:59:08 PM UTC+9, noel.wade wrote:
> On Jun 3, 6:51*pm, RAS56 > wrote:
> > But c'mon now...for those of us who don't like to spend our time off upside down in our cockpits chasing wires, fussing with antennas
>
> RAS56 - Sounds like you're worrying about alot without even
> investigating things. You want to keep it simple?
>
> STEP 1: Buy a Portable PowerFLARM
> STEP 2: Stick it on top of your glareshield
> STEP 3: Make sure the antennas are pointed straight up.
> STEP 4: (Optional?) Run a wire from your power-bus/battery to the
> PowerFLARM.
>
> How hard is that?
>
> --Noel

Mr. Wade, I have investigated it probably more than the average glider pilot in the USA, seeing as how my name was one the list for a delivery until I ask it to be removed. I've probably missed an update or two as my interest has waned as the system has entered service with the problems it's had.

I have modeled the PF portable in the recommended position of my ASW glider and my take was
that it would be a major problem getting the antennas vertical between the glare shield and the
canopy.

Also, with it there I was very concerned with the amount of sky immediately in front of the aircraft blocked by an installation like this. With "see and avoid" STILL the main way to avoid a collision, doesn't it seem obvious to not install something that blocks your ability to effectively clear immediately in front of your glider? I have a large amount of time in the back seat of a T-38 trainer. You wouldn't believe how a simple thing like placement of the whiskey compass (upper RH side of front canopy bow) complicated a simple thing like runway aim point from back there when you had a left crosswind. It could cover a large section of what you were hoping was the touchdown zone on a 300' wide runway! Sticking a PF portable up there can have the same effect, in effect creating a large blind spot right where the threat is highest.

Since the vast majority of the USA glider fleet will not have any Flarm equipment ( I would be the only adopter in my 50+ member central US glider operation for example) reducing my ability to clear would be a net decrease, not increase in safety at my location. Others I'm sure would think likewise.

For those reasons, I decided to put my dollars into the brick version, which with antennas protruding still creates a clearing problem, just not one as severe as with the portable. However, when I began to hear the aforementioned problems getting the brick working correct, I decided to step off the technology treadmill and wait for NextGen Flarm to arrive. One with all the promised features working, that doesn't affect me seeing the bogie and is user -friendly in install, use and maintenance. I am confident, if the system delivers as promised, that that future version will arrive, and when it does I will be happy to plunk down my hard-earned dollars for one.

Regards,

RAS56

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Jun 4, 10:42*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
> I'd recommend 3M Dual-Lock, much stronger than Velcro or other hook and loop fasteners for your delicate electronic gear, especially if movable between your mistresses. *Typically 5X stronger.http://tinyurl.com/7u7t6q5
>
> Frank Whiteley
>

Just to be contrary, Frank, I do NOT like the Dual-Lock. It takes
considerably more pressure to engage than regualr velcro. And more
pressure over a larger area (the strip they supply with the portable
takes considerable force to engage if you put it on two, flat, firm
surfaces) means you have to push down pretty hard on the top of the
case of that device to get the stuff to engage. More than once, I had
it come loose and slide down the slope of the glareshield of the
Nimbus. Installation for the one flight so far in the BS1 was with
black electrical tape over the top of it. It never even thought of
trying to move. This is not a good, permanent solution for my
portable, but mine won't get held down with Dual-Lock. I am looking
in to brackets and using the small, threaded mounting holes for each
installation.

Steve Leonard

[Bill D]

This thread is part of a larger picture - general antenna
installations. This involves all the radio devices in a modern
sailplane. The problem is the cockpit is a lousy place for antennas
since there's little room, it's full of RF noise and absorbing/
reflecting stuff like the pilot. External antennas are way too
draggy. A good guess is this problem is going to get worse as new
gadgets are added.

Long ago a solution was found for the Com antenna by mounting it in
the fin. If that works for the com antenna, why not PowerFlarm,
transponers etc? The obvious objection is access - the fin is a
sealed box. However, this sport has a lot of very clever people who
have solved worse problems.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 8:50:22 AM UTC-5, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Jun 4, 10:42*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> >
> > I'd recommend 3M Dual-Lock, much stronger than Velcro or other hook and loop fasteners for your delicate electronic gear, especially if movable between your mistresses. *Typically 5X stronger.http://tinyurl.com/7u7t6q5
> >
> > Frank Whiteley
> >
>
> Just to be contrary, Frank, I do NOT like the Dual-Lock. It takes
> considerably more pressure to engage than regualr velcro. And more
> pressure over a larger area (the strip they supply with the portable
> takes considerable force to engage if you put it on two, flat, firm
> surfaces) means you have to push down pretty hard on the top of the
> case of that device to get the stuff to engage. More than once, I had
> it come loose and slide down the slope of the glareshield of the
> Nimbus. Installation for the one flight so far in the BS1 was with
> black electrical tape over the top of it. It never even thought of
> trying to move. This is not a good, permanent solution for my
> portable, but mine won't get held down with Dual-Lock. I am looking
> in to brackets and using the small, threaded mounting holes for each
> installation.
>
> Steve Leonard

When I flew with a portable last year at Region 10 I built a little shelf that extended from the left canopy rail in front of the instrument panel. Picture of the shelf here: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-VGy3ltq8qsU/TlKsrKMmpCI/AAAAAAAAFY0/W3Cq_lv2wUE/s651/110819_P1180476_CherokeeIIYYYCockpit.JPG

I have no idea what the range was with this but it was good enough that I saw Frank a few times during the contest and got a collision alert once or twice in the start cylinder when he was nearby. We were the only ones with PowerFlarm...

I don't have a glareshield in the Cherokee so that is as good as it gets for placement, unless I want to mount it outside in front of the canopy and build a fairing around that...

Eventually I suppose there will be a brick in my future, but for now I'll probably keep borrowing/renting a portable for contests.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jun 5, 7:29*am, Bill D > wrote:
>the fin is a sealed box.

I hope not! Limited access maybe, but certainly not sealed.

Andy

[Ramy]

On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 10:10:25 AM UTC-7, Andy wrote:
> On Jun 5, 7:29*am, Bill D > wrote:
> >the fin is a sealed box.
>
> I hope not! Limited access maybe, but certainly not sealed.
>
> Andy

While the antennas installation issues get sorted out (hopefully) what about the display installation? I am hoping for a simple attachment of the remote display somewhere near the top of the instrument panel without obscuring instruments nor forward view and without interfering with canopy ejection in my ASW27. Alternatively I can invest an extra $75(?) for the in panel display to replace my winter mechanical vario which I never needed in 15 years (and maybe sell it for couple of hundred bucks to cover some of the powerflarm cost) but I have a feeling I may regret it one day. Thoughts?

Ramy

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 6/5/2012 7:29 AM, Bill D wrote:
> External antennas are way too
> draggy.

It depends very much on the antenna; e.g., the dirty looking transponder
3" stubby rod with a ball on top has insignificant drag on an 18 meter
glider. Probably for a 15 meter glider, too, but I don't recall the
numbers. Blade style transponder antennas are even sleeker.

Com antennas are much larger than the 900-1090 MHz antennas we are
talking about, and can have significant drag, but it's a mistake to rule
out external antennas for the higher frequencies.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Jun 5, 9:47 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> It depends very much on the antenna; e.g., the dirty looking transponder
> 3" stubby rod with a ball on top has insignificant drag on an 18 meter
> glider. Probably for a 15 meter glider, too, but I don't recall the
> numbers. Blade style transponder antennas are even sleeker.
>
> Com antennas are much larger than the 900-1090 MHz antennas we are
> talking about, and can have significant drag, but it's a mistake to rule
> out external antennas for the higher frequencies.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> email me)

Guess it sort of depends on what you consider to be "insignificant",
Eric. 15 or 18 meter ship, dry, at best L/D only has maybe 20 lbs
TOTAL drag. 1 lbs may not seem like much, but it is 5%. In contest
terms, 50 points. Per day. If there was a really good, really
accurate TE system without using a probe (Schuemann B Box comes to
mind), the really hot pilots would all think just a bit more about
finding a way to put one of those in their plane and do away with the
now seemingly very draggy TE probe. The vertical portion of it is
about the same length as the transponder antenna, but bigger in
diameter.

It may seem like fly specs in the pepper, but over time, it adds up.
So, why do we have TE probes? Because they work, and nobody else has
come up with something that works as well. At least, not as far as I
know.

Steve Leonard

[Ramy]

Hopefully not hijacking this thread, but electronic compensation such as the one my 302 is using seem to be as good as the TE compensation my winter is using, so looks like I could get rid of the TE probe (except that in many cases it is also the pitot).

Ramy

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 6/5/2012 9:20 PM, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Jun 5, 9:47 pm, Eric > wrote:
>> It depends very much on the antenna; e.g., the dirty looking transponder
>> 3" stubby rod with a ball on top has insignificant drag on an 18 meter
>> glider. Probably for a 15 meter glider, too, but I don't recall the
>> numbers. Blade style transponder antennas are even sleeker.
>>
>> Com antennas are much larger than the 900-1090 MHz antennas we are
>> talking about, and can have significant drag, but it's a mistake to rule
>> out external antennas for the higher frequencies.
>>
>> --
>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>> email me)
>
> Guess it sort of depends on what you consider to be "insignificant",
> Eric. 15 or 18 meter ship, dry, at best L/D only has maybe 20 lbs
> TOTAL drag. 1 lbs may not seem like much, but it is 5%. In contest
> terms, 50 points. Per day. If there was a really good, really
> accurate TE system without using a probe (Schuemann B Box comes to
> mind), the really hot pilots would all think just a bit more about
> finding a way to put one of those in their plane and do away with the
> now seemingly very draggy TE probe. The vertical portion of it is
> about the same length as the transponder antenna, but bigger in
> diameter.
>
> It may seem like fly specs in the pepper, but over time, it adds up.
> So, why do we have TE probes? Because they work, and nobody else has
> come up with something that works as well. At least, not as far as I
> know.

I recall it being ounces, not pounds, but I can't find my notes. Here's
a number from Rami Antennas for their transponder antenna:

"The AV-22 is a rod style transponder antenna utilizing its BNC
connector for mounting to the airframe. The antenna is designed to
operate at speeds up to 350 mph and altitudes up to 50,000 feet. It has
a drag force of 0.41 lbs @ 250 mph."

At 125 mph (108 knots), the drag would be 0.1 lbs; at best l/d of 54
knots, it would 0.025 lbs, or 0.125% of your 20 lb drag, rather than 5%.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 6/5/2012 10:15 PM, Ramy wrote:
> Hopefully not hijacking this thread, but electronic compensation
> such as the one my 302 is using seem to be as good as the TE
> compensation my winter is using, so looks like I could get rid of the
> TE probe (except that in many cases it is also the pitot).

Works for me! It's particularly valuable for a motorglider like I have,
because the prop wash drives the TE nutty. My glider uses the nose pitot
for the airspeed indicator, not the one on the TE probe, and I think
that is common.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Jun 5, 12:10*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jun 5, 7:29*am, Bill D > wrote:
>
> >the fin is a sealed box.
>
> I hope not! *Limited access maybe, but certainly not sealed.
>
> Andy

I recently looked really hard at the ASW27 tail, to try to put the
transponder antenna in there. So far, I've concluded it can't be done
without cutting holes. The closest I came was putting small antennas
like flarm and transponder in the tail battery compartment and fishing
the coax down where the TE tube goes, but the tail is sealed off from
the fuselage boom so I couldn't see how to get the coax through
without cutting holes. Of course if you're willing to cut holes, it's
easier.

If anyone figures out how to retrofit antennas in the tail without
major surgery, pass it on!

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

I can't help noticing that the portable has two not too obtrusive rubber ducky antennas. Why is the same solution not provided for the brick?

Mark

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 6/5/2012 11:09 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 6/5/2012 10:15 PM, Ramy wrote:
>> Hopefully not hijacking this thread, but electronic compensation
>> such as the one my 302 is using seem to be as good as the TE
>> compensation my winter is using, so looks like I could get rid of the
>> TE probe (except that in many cases it is also the pitot).
>
> Works for me! It's particularly valuable for a motorglider like I have,
> because the prop wash drives the TE nutty. My glider uses the nose pitot
> for the airspeed indicator, not the one on the TE probe, and I think
> that is common.

Possibly, those of us that no longer use the fin-mounted TE probe could
mount our PowerFlarm antennas in it's place. Held out in front of the
fin, the two antennas would have an excellent view of the world, and the
coax could be run beside the TE probe tubing and through the same holes
it uses.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Vaughn]

On 6/6/2012 6:25 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:

>the two antennas would have an excellent view of the world, and the
> coax could be run beside the TE probe tubing and through the same holes
> it uses.

Yes that's all true, but that sounds like a long coax run. Have you
considered coaxial cable loss at that frequency?

Vaughn

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 6/6/2012 6:37 PM, Vaughn wrote:
> On 6/6/2012 6:25 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>> the two antennas would have an excellent view of the world, and the
>> coax could be run beside the TE probe tubing and through the same holes
>> it uses.
>
> Yes that's all true, but that sounds like a long coax run. Have you
> considered coaxial cable loss at that frequency?
>
> Vaughn

The long run requires very good coax to keep the signal low. That
usually means the easy to pull skinny coax can't be used; also, the
tubing might be tied glued in a few places, so it's not obvious the idea
is practical.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 6/6/2012 7:33 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 6/6/2012 6:37 PM, Vaughn wrote:
>> On 6/6/2012 6:25 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>
>>> the two antennas would have an excellent view of the world, and the
>>> coax could be run beside the TE probe tubing and through the same holes
>>> it uses.
>>
>> Yes that's all true, but that sounds like a long coax run. Have you
>> considered coaxial cable loss at that frequency?
>>
>> Vaughn
>
> The long run requires very good coax to keep the signal low. That
> usually means the easy to pull skinny coax can't be used; also, the
> tubing might be tied glued in a few places, so it's not obvious the idea
> is practical.

That should be "to keep the signal losses low".


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Bill D]

On Jun 6, 10:23*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> On 6/6/2012 7:33 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/6/2012 6:37 PM, Vaughn wrote:
> >> On 6/6/2012 6:25 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> >>> the two antennas would have an excellent view of the world, and the
> >>> coax could be run beside the TE probe tubing and through the same holes
> >>> it uses.
>
> >> Yes that's all true, but that sounds like a long coax run. Have you
> >> considered coaxial cable loss at that frequency?
>
> >> Vaughn
>
> > The long run requires very good coax to keep the signal low. That
> > usually means the easy to pull skinny coax can't be used; also, the
> > tubing might be tied glued in a few places, so it's not obvious the idea
> > is practical.
>
> That should be "to keep the signal losses low".
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> email me)

This prompted me to Google "low drag antennas" and "conformal
antennas". There's a lot to choose from but I can't say which is
best.

It occurs to me that the actual conductors inside a "rubber ducky"
antenna is extremely fine. Could these fine wires be attached to the
inside of a canopy and be essentially invisible?

[Mike the Strike]

Years ago, I fabricated an antenna out of stick-on aluminum foil that was about the same thickness as vinyl letters. It worked great on my fiberglass fuselage and adjusting the length to get a good SWR reading was a snap.

You might have a challenge finding somewhere on a modern glider that doesn't have carbon fiber, which is too conducting for this to work. (A colleague suggested that cutting a slot antenna in the fuselage might be an alternative!)

Mike

[Kimmo Hytoenen]

>colleague suggested that cutting a slot antenna in the fuselage
might be an
>alternative!)
>
>Mike
>

That was a good one! Thanks :)