FLARM antenna mounts for ASG-29

[Sean F (F2)]

I have seen some beautiful setups with nice antenna holders for the powerflarm brick. Where do you buy these or are they built by the owners? Any tips would be welcomed.

Happy Labor Day!

Sean

[bumper[_4_]]

On Monday, September 2, 2013 6:13:15 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> I have seen some beautiful setups with nice antenna holders for the powerflarm brick. Where do you buy these or are they built by the owners? Any tips would be welcomed.
>
>
>
> Happy Labor Day!
>
>
>
> Sean

First find out if the nose on your ship is reinforced with CF . . .

Rex Mayes has been installing the small center fed dipole antennas inside the nose on the ASH26E. That works very well, as the wall of the nose is fiberglass. Unfortunately, on the 31Mi there is a course weave of carbon, that you can easily see looking from the inside with strong light outside, which precludes that location due to the carbon. Not sure about the ASG-29.

Anyway, with the carbon reinforced nose you have fewer options. I've seen a couple of installs with the dipoles mounted under the glareshield with the upper radiator poking through a hole in the shield. Sub-optimal due to the metal bits and equipment blocking the RF, but I'm guessing it still works.

bumper

[Sean F (F2)]

Used a cardboard temp and it works right out of the box. Impressive. The oudie shows me riding my bike around the airport with a portable. Will build (wish this was commercially available) a nicer one this winter when able.

Thanks!!

Sean

[Richard[_9_]]

On Monday, September 2, 2013 6:13:15 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> I have seen some beautiful setups with nice antenna holders for the powerflarm brick. Where do you buy these or are they built by the owners? Any tips would be welcomed. Happy Labor Day! Sean

Sean,

Some other antenna options that are cleaner and work. I believe the 2.3" will fit in the 29. Measure the height available, if you can fit the 3.4 use it. They also have a 18" cable length so less loss.

http://www.craggyaero.com/cables_&_antennas.htm

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[SteveB_Z5]

I know someone who made antenna holders with a 3D printer.

On Monday, September 2, 2013 6:13:15 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> I have seen some beautiful setups with nice antenna holders for the powerflarm brick. Where do you buy these or are they built by the owners? Any tips would be welcomed.
>

[[email protected]]

On Monday, September 2, 2013 1:39:02 PM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
> On Monday, September 2, 2013 6:13:15 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote: > I have seen some beautiful setups with nice antenna holders for the powerflarm brick. Where do you buy these or are they built by the owners? Any tips would be welcomed. Happy Labor Day! Sean Sean, Some other antenna options that are cleaner and work. I believe the 2.3" will fit in the 29. Measure the height available, if you can fit the 3.4 use it. They also have a 18" cable length so less loss. http://www.craggyaero.com/cables_&_antennas.htm Richard www.craggyaero.com

There are photos on the ASW-27 group site showing PF installation using above antenna.
UH

[Morgan[_2_]]

I have had really good results building mounts from plexiglass. You can buy inexpensive 1/8" sheets at any hardware store and easily cut it with a fine jigsaw. With a heat gun you can bend, twist and form it to a variety of shapes and it remains clear and strong once it cools.

May be worth trying out for your needs.



On Monday, September 2, 2013 3:09:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Monday, September 2, 2013 1:39:02 PM UTC-4, Richard wrote:
>
> > On Monday, September 2, 2013 6:13:15 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote: > I have seen some beautiful setups with nice antenna holders for the powerflarm brick. Where do you buy these or are they built by the owners? Any tips would be welcomed. Happy Labor Day! Sean Sean, Some other antenna options that are cleaner and work. I believe the 2.3" will fit in the 29. Measure the height available, if you can fit the 3.4 use it. They also have a 18" cable length so less loss. http://www.craggyaero.com/cables_&_antennas.htm Richard www.craggyaero.com
>
>
>
> There are photos on the ASW-27 group site showing PF installation using above antenna.
>
> UH

[Craig R.]

Consider the "what if" if you have to jettison your canopy. You don't want the antenna wires restricting the canopy ejection during an emergency.
Craig

[Dan Marotta]

It's doubtful those flimsy cables/mounts would retain a canopy against the
relative wind.


"Craig R." > wrote in message
...
> Consider the "what if" if you have to jettison your canopy. You don't want
> the antenna wires restricting the canopy ejection during an emergency.
> Craig

[Craig R.]

Dan, some of the top pilots in the world flying 29's will disagree with you and have taken precautions for their antenna installation.


On Thursday, September 5, 2013 7:02:51 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
It's doubtful those flimsy cables/mounts would retain a canopy against the
relative wind.

[Dan Marotta]

Oh? Have any of them attempted to jettison their canopies in flight and had
it remain attached by that coax cable and/or mount?

I only expressed doubts due to the forces expected by the huge drag of the
jettisoned canopy. I can't control what "some of the top pilots in the
world" think or do. It's up to them to decide for themselves. I stand by
my doubt.

BTW, there is absolutely NOTHING connected to my canopy. It will float
freely away should I pull the handle.


"Craig R." > wrote in message
...
> Dan, some of the top pilots in the world flying 29's will disagree with
> you and have taken precautions for their antenna installation.
>
>
> On Thursday, September 5, 2013 7:02:51 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> It's doubtful those flimsy cables/mounts would retain a canopy against the
> relative wind.

[Ramy]

There was a fatality few years ago in Europe where the pilot did not successfully bail out after a midair where the PDA wires connected to the canopy where suspected as contributing factor.

Ramy

[joesimmers[_2_]]

Currently my flarm antenna is mounted to where the cable would indeed
interfere in case of canopy jettison.

Fixing this is at the very top of my to do list for sure, I believe if you
grabbed that antenna wire with your bare hands and pulled it may take more force to break than what you may think.

[Dan Marotta]

Suspected...? Show me the pictures and/or official report. Was the canopy
still tied to the wreck as found on the ground? I just don't believe it
unless the cables used were much heavier than the normal PDA cables and were
retained via adel clamps or some such. In all likelihood, connectors would
simply separate or the wires would pull out of the connectors, or the cables
would simply break.

Accident reports, it seems, often blame some unproveable happening and, if
the pilot doesn't survive, he usually gets more than his fair share of the
blame. My objection here is simply to the blind belief that something bad
will happen if you don't do what the "top pilots in the world" do.

Did you note in my previous reply that there is NOTHING connecting my canopy
to the fuselage other than the retention hook? That's not because I'm
afraid of bad things, it's simply for convenience.

I helped a local pilot with her FLARM installation on her new -29 and she
had the antennae mounted to the glare shield. To me the mounts looked
flimsy and would easily separate should the canopy be jettisoned in flight.
The down side was the extra long cable lengths needed to remove the canopy
and set it on the ground so that she could disconnect the cables. Same for
reinstallation of the canopy.

In writing this it occurs to me that those long cables would allow the
difference in velocity of the canopy and airframe to increase sufficiently
to easily snap the cables or mounts.


"Ramy" > wrote in message
...
> There was a fatality few years ago in Europe where the pilot did not
> successfully bail out after a midair where the PDA wires connected to the
> canopy where suspected as contributing factor.
>
> Ramy

[Darryl Ramm]

A Google search away. http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/special_bulletins/s8_2006_scheibe_sf27_glider__hgm_and_schleicher_as w_19b_glider__gdp.cfm

The onus is really not on people to prove doing things are unsafe, the onus is really more on doing things that might be unsafe and proving they are indeed, contrary to obvious concerns, safe.

Like many other owners/pilots I observed, I have installed systems in multiple gliders that have cable connector breakaways (e.g. with telco connectors with the retaining tab mostly removed) and tested as best I can on the ground to make sure the separation works with very little force. etc. to allow easy canopy jettison. I also woudl not want long pieces of cable coming back at the pilot, maybe flailing around in the wind etc. while the pilot is tryign to undo their harness and deal with everything else going on. If you have installed cables fixed to a canopy and think the cable will break and allow straightforward canopy jettison maybe you could share your calculations/design and any testing you did here.

[Dan Marotta]

For the third and final time, there is NOTHING attached to my canopy. And
my opinion is just that - my opinion.


"Darryl Ramm" > wrote in message
...
A Google search away.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/special_bulletins/s8_2006_scheibe_sf27_glider__hgm_and_schleicher_as w_19b_glider__gdp.cfm

The onus is really not on people to prove doing things are unsafe, the onus
is really more on doing things that might be unsafe and proving they are
indeed, contrary to obvious concerns, safe.

Like many other owners/pilots I observed, I have installed systems in
multiple gliders that have cable connector breakaways (e.g. with telco
connectors with the retaining tab mostly removed) and tested as best I can
on the ground to make sure the separation works with very little force. etc.
to allow easy canopy jettison. I also woudl not want long pieces of cable
coming back at the pilot, maybe flailing around in the wind etc. while the
pilot is tryign to undo their harness and deal with everything else going
on. If you have installed cables fixed to a canopy and think the cable will
break and allow straightforward canopy jettison maybe you could share your
calculations/design and any testing you did here.

[Dan Marotta]

OK, I read the accident report and I can't agree with their findings. The
following was lifted directly from the report:

"A section of canopy of the ASW 19B was found at the top of Sutton Bank, and
the rest of the canopy was found in close proximity to the glider's
fuselage, some 500 m away. Examination of the glider confirmed that the
jettison procedure had been initiated, but not completed, before
impact with the ground. The forward section of the canopy frame had been
released from the 'lifting arm' prior to ground impact, but the canopy
locking pins were in the 'LOCkeD' position."

Part of the canopy was found quite a ways off (it seems) and the rest was
found some 500m from the wreck. I doubt it would have bounced that far
following the crash. The report mentions the cables apparently being quite
securely fastened to the canopy frame so I've just gotta ask, "How long were
those cables?" 500m? Or did they break loose?

Please understand that I'm not promoting connecting anything to a
jettisonable part of the aircraft. I'm just saying that, if you do, it
likely won't kill you.

And BTW, I used to own an ASW-19b and, if I recall correctly, there was no
spring action to positively jettison the canopy and there was the definite
risk of getting hit in the head by the thing when it did decide to leave.

"Dan Marotta" > wrote in message
...
> For the third and final time, there is NOTHING attached to my canopy. And
> my opinion is just that - my opinion.
>
>
> "Darryl Ramm" > wrote in message
> ...
> A Google search away.
> http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/special_bulletins/s8_2006_scheibe_sf27_glider__hgm_and_schleicher_as w_19b_glider__gdp.cfm
>
> The onus is really not on people to prove doing things are unsafe, the
> onus is really more on doing things that might be unsafe and proving they
> are indeed, contrary to obvious concerns, safe.
>
> Like many other owners/pilots I observed, I have installed systems in
> multiple gliders that have cable connector breakaways (e.g. with telco
> connectors with the retaining tab mostly removed) and tested as best I can
> on the ground to make sure the separation works with very little force.
> etc. to allow easy canopy jettison. I also woudl not want long pieces of
> cable coming back at the pilot, maybe flailing around in the wind etc.
> while the pilot is tryign to undo their harness and deal with everything
> else going on. If you have installed cables fixed to a canopy and think
> the cable will break and allow straightforward canopy jettison maybe you
> could share your calculations/design and any testing you did here.
>

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 19:15:13 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:

> OK, I read the accident report and I can't agree with their findings.
> The following was lifted directly from the report:
>
> "A section of canopy of the ASW 19B was found at the top of Sutton Bank,
> and the rest of the canopy was found in close proximity to the glider's
> fuselage, some 500 m away. Examination of the glider confirmed that the
> jettison procedure had been initiated, but not completed, before impact
> with the ground. The forward section of the canopy frame had been
> released from the 'lifting arm' prior to ground impact, but the canopy
> locking pins were in the 'LOCkeD' position."
>
> Part of the canopy was found quite a ways off (it seems) and the rest
> was found some 500m from the wreck. I doubt it would have bounced that
> far following the crash. The report mentions the cables apparently
> being quite securely fastened to the canopy frame so I've just gotta
> ask, "How long were those cables?" 500m? Or did they break loose?
>
With respect, I think you misread that. I read it as saying that part of
the canopy was at the top of Sutton Bank. The rest of the canopy *and the
fuselage* were close together and about 500m from the detached portion.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Dan Marotta]

If I did misread it, then I stand corrected. Even though we speak the same
language across the pond, it's not always received the same way.


"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 19:15:13 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
>> OK, I read the accident report and I can't agree with their findings.
>> The following was lifted directly from the report:
>>
>> "A section of canopy of the ASW 19B was found at the top of Sutton Bank,
>> and the rest of the canopy was found in close proximity to the glider's
>> fuselage, some 500 m away. Examination of the glider confirmed that the
>> jettison procedure had been initiated, but not completed, before impact
>> with the ground. The forward section of the canopy frame had been
>> released from the 'lifting arm' prior to ground impact, but the canopy
>> locking pins were in the 'LOCkeD' position."
>>
>> Part of the canopy was found quite a ways off (it seems) and the rest
>> was found some 500m from the wreck. I doubt it would have bounced that
>> far following the crash. The report mentions the cables apparently
>> being quite securely fastened to the canopy frame so I've just gotta
>> ask, "How long were those cables?" 500m? Or did they break loose?
>>
> With respect, I think you misread that. I read it as saying that part of
> the canopy was at the top of Sutton Bank. The rest of the canopy *and the
> fuselage* were close together and about 500m from the detached portion.
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 09:47:39 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:

> If I did misread it, then I stand corrected. Even though we speak the
> same language across the pond, it's not always received the same way.
>
The wording could have been improved.

I'd have written it as:
"A section of canopy of the ASW 19B was found at the top of Sutton Bank,
and the rest of the canopy was found in 500m away in close proximity to
the glider's fuselage. Examination of the glider confirmed that the
jettison procedure had been initiated, but not completed, before impact
with the ground. The forward section of the canopy frame had been
released from the 'lifting arm' prior to ground impact, but the canopy
locking pins were in the 'LOCkeD' position."

I remember reading the AAIB report when it came out.

I presume that by 'the locking pins' they mean the two pins at the rear
that hold the canopy closed. With the front of the canopy freed from the
lifting arm that normally acts as the front pivot but restrained by the
PDA cables after the front had lifted a foot or two, those two pins and
the cable would certainly keep the canopy attached and prevent egress.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Steve Koerner]

I'm late to this discussion but I can point out that there is a push-on style RF connector designated as SMB. That's what I used to provide an assured breakaway at minor load.