View Full Version : PowerFLARM Core secondary FLARM antenna
September 29th 14, 06:41 PM
I was really surprised to see this in the PowerFLARM Core manual:
'CORE has two separate FLARM radio transceivers FLARM A and FLARM B. FLARM A is used to receive and transmit and must always be connected to an antenna. FLARM B is only used to receive, an optional antenna may be used for better reception performance. Usage of FLARM B requires purchase of the respective feature licence.'
Feature licence? Turns out it's a 44EUR charge http://www.air-avionics.com/support/airstore_bestellung_powerflarm_lic.pdf to enable this feature. My understanding is that this fee is just a software activation; the hardware (antenna and cables) seems to be extra.
Later in the manual:
'The primary antenna (FLARM A) should have good view into the direction of flight. FLARM B (if used) should be placed to complement the field of view of FLARM A.'
... So, if you're following the recommended install, the secondary FLARM B antenna should be configured solely to reduce your radio reception blind spot.
Ramy[_2_]
September 30th 14, 08:29 AM
On Monday, September 29, 2014 10:41:45 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> I was really surprised to see this in the PowerFLARM Core manual:
>
>
>
> 'CORE has two separate FLARM radio transceivers FLARM A and FLARM B. FLARM A is used to receive and transmit and must always be connected to an antenna. FLARM B is only used to receive, an optional antenna may be used for better reception performance. Usage of FLARM B requires purchase of the respective feature licence.'
>
>
>
> Feature licence? Turns out it's a 44EUR charge http://www.air-avionics.com/support/airstore_bestellung_powerflarm_lic.pdf to enable this feature. My understanding is that this fee is just a software activation; the hardware (antenna and cables) seems to be extra.
>
>
>
> Later in the manual:
>
>
>
> 'The primary antenna (FLARM A) should have good view into the direction of flight. FLARM B (if used) should be placed to complement the field of view of FLARM A.'
>
>
>
> .. So, if you're following the recommended install, the secondary FLARM B antenna should be configured solely to reduce your radio reception blind spot.
>
>
>
> From the description, it looks like this functionality is entirely safety related; assuming you follow the recommended install, it won't provide any real advantage for the more frivolous functions of FLARM (ie being able to track traffic way ahead of you)
>
>
>
> Hopefully I've completely misunderstood the situation, because this seems like a really odd decision by FLARM. What's a feature charge going to do except actively discourage users from fitting the ideal antenna configuration for their aircraft?
I am also surprised to hear about it, especially that I just installed a Flarm B antenna. I agree it doesn't sound right to charge for this, and I dont recall reading anything about an additional charge or a way to enable this in the original manual which came with the original brick. Perhaps this does not apply to the original units?
Ramy
Dan Daly[_2_]
September 30th 14, 11:28 AM
The Canadian dealer asked me to post the price list on the Soaring Association of Canada FORUM classified pages in March 2014, with the list date Feb 1 2014 (I had attachment posting privileges, he didn't)... Additional charges for 2nd FLARM radio, audio output (new style CORE), IGC, ENL, and Garmin TIS output. This also had the CORE Pure (FLARM only, not transponder/ADS-B) announcement, and a price increase in the Portable (though 2nd FLARM radio and audio-out were included).
I see Paul Remde posted about this here on Jan 25: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.aviation.soaring/powerflarm$20pure/rec.aviation.soaring/KepsmmJns0U/VV7n_Mr1MJMJ There is a link to his webpage, where the actual costs of the licences is... (I did a ras search on "PowerFLARM Pure" and this popped up).
I was in the middle of a group buy for my club when all this happened, and it increased the complexity (some new model COREs, some old, different features and prices).
I am surprised that no one has submitted the new, non-IGC flarms to be position recorders, good up to Gold badges, to save the $US 92 licence fee...
I am happy with the range of my original PowerFLARM CORE using only the FLARM A antenna (I get an average of about 4 km according to the FLARM RF Range analysis page at http://www.flarm.com/support/analyze/index_en.html ), but my SZD-55 is not carbon...
2D
September 30th 14, 03:31 PM
On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:12:36 AM UTC+1, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
> Not so surprising really. I can think of one Flight Recorder straight
>
> away which is fitted with ENL hardware, but requires a licence key to
>
> enable it, for which there is a charge.
>
A licence key scheme for additional features isn't unusual or surprising. What surprises me is that it's being applied to functionality that only seems relevant to FLARM's most basic feature as an electronic conspicuity aid. If one antenna transmitting in the forward arc with another antenna covering the blind spot is the ideal install, why make it more expensive and more hassle to adopt that configuration?
Dan Daly[_2_]
September 30th 14, 03:52 PM
On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 10:31:36 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:12:36 AM UTC+1, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
>
> > Not so surprising really. I can think of one Flight Recorder straight
>
> >
>
> > away which is fitted with ENL hardware, but requires a licence key to
>
> >
>
> > enable it, for which there is a charge.
>
> >
>
>
>
> A licence key scheme for additional features isn't unusual or surprising. What surprises me is that it's being applied to functionality that only seems relevant to FLARM's most basic feature as an electronic conspicuity aid.. If one antenna transmitting in the forward arc with another antenna covering the blind spot is the ideal install, why make it more expensive and more hassle to adopt that configuration?
I was surprised that when mine came, supposedly IGC approved, that it was not calibrated. Paying the extra licence fee and then having to spend another additional charge for calibration would be even worse.
2D
September 30th 14, 08:28 PM
On Monday, September 29, 2014 10:41:45 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> From the description, it looks like this functionality is entirely safety related; assuming you follow the recommended install, it won't provide any real advantage for the more frivolous functions of FLARM (ie being able to track traffic way ahead of you)
>
> Hopefully I've completely misunderstood the situation, because this seems like a really odd decision by FLARM. What's a feature charge going to do except actively discourage users from fitting the ideal antenna configuration for their aircraft?
Having done extensive testing with both 'A' and 'B' antennas of various types in various locations and combinations I have come to the conclusion that the 'B' antenna is mostly for extending range at the limit. Very few gliders have blind spots that are so directional that a 'B' antenna will add materially to collision avoidance functionality. To the extent that they do have very specific blinds spots it is likely due to poor placement of the 'A' antenna and/or RFI in the cockpit which can be remedied without a 'B' antenna. I conclude the 'B' antenna is mostly for pilots who want the absolute maximum range limit for better tactical situational awareness in contests or buddy flying.
As to pricing models - it's a software world where much, most, or even all of the value of products is attributable to the intellectual property that goes into a product (embodied in software), rather than means of delivering that intellectual property - including the hardware. You should expect that pricing will increasingly be based on customer value, rather than COGS (Cost of Goods Sold). Deleting ADS-B, PCAS, the 'B' antenna and other features are what allowed Flarm to dramatically reduce the price to reach new customers who don't value the full-featured version to the tune of $1500. Price elasticity of demand and market segmentation, pure and simple.
Even calibration - which is expensive because it is labor-intensive - is a feature that you can argue some customers don't need. In 12 years of flying and racing gliders I have never (0 times total) needed a logger calibration. If I could pay $25 or $50 less for an uncalibrated product I probably would - that's just me of course - other's might pay extra to have it included and it may not be the best strategy to have too many different versions of a product floating around just for inventory reasons and making the customers who want it have to send a product back out to get what they need (calibration) may not be the best approach.
9B
jfitch
September 30th 14, 10:08 PM
On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:28:46 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Monday, September 29, 2014 10:41:45 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> > From the description, it looks like this functionality is entirely safety related; assuming you follow the recommended install, it won't provide any real advantage for the more frivolous functions of FLARM (ie being able to track traffic way ahead of you)
>
> >
>
> > Hopefully I've completely misunderstood the situation, because this seems like a really odd decision by FLARM. What's a feature charge going to do except actively discourage users from fitting the ideal antenna configuration for their aircraft?
>
>
>
> Having done extensive testing with both 'A' and 'B' antennas of various types in various locations and combinations I have come to the conclusion that the 'B' antenna is mostly for extending range at the limit. Very few gliders have blind spots that are so directional that a 'B' antenna will add materially to collision avoidance functionality. To the extent that they do have very specific blinds spots it is likely due to poor placement of the 'A' antenna and/or RFI in the cockpit which can be remedied without a 'B' antenna. I conclude the 'B' antenna is mostly for pilots who want the absolute maximum range limit for better tactical situational awareness in contests or buddy flying.
>
>
>
> As to pricing models - it's a software world where much, most, or even all of the value of products is attributable to the intellectual property that goes into a product (embodied in software), rather than means of delivering that intellectual property - including the hardware. You should expect that pricing will increasingly be based on customer value, rather than COGS (Cost of Goods Sold). Deleting ADS-B, PCAS, the 'B' antenna and other features are what allowed Flarm to dramatically reduce the price to reach new customers who don't value the full-featured version to the tune of $1500. Price elasticity of demand and market segmentation, pure and simple.
>
>
>
> Even calibration - which is expensive because it is labor-intensive - is a feature that you can argue some customers don't need. In 12 years of flying and racing gliders I have never (0 times total) needed a logger calibration. If I could pay $25 or $50 less for an uncalibrated product I probably would - that's just me of course - other's might pay extra to have it included and it may not be the best strategy to have too many different versions of a product floating around just for inventory reasons and making the customers who want it have to send a product back out to get what they need (calibration) may not be the best approach.
>
>
>
> 9B
How much extra range do you typically expect with the B antenna?
This would be to enhance its primary value to me, which is as an inflight entertainment system. If the range enhancement is substantial, it would be well worth it.
Ramy[_2_]
October 1st 14, 12:23 AM
I am pretty sure that the original brick did not require additional fee for flarm B antenna. how do you enable this feature anyway once you purchase a license?
Ramy
jfitch
October 1st 14, 12:43 AM
On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 4:23:43 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> I am pretty sure that the original brick did not require additional fee for flarm B antenna. how do you enable this feature anyway once you purchase a license?
>
>
>
> Ramy
I think it is like the ENL - they give you a code, you put it in the config file, and it is supposed to be good for the duration. Code is hashed to the unit ID so only works on that one.
Have you noticed any difference since you installed it? I really want greater leeching range....
On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 4:43:29 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 4:23:43 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
>
> I think it is like the ENL - they give you a code, you put it in the config file, and it is supposed to be good for the duration. Code is hashed to the unit ID so only works on that one.
That's correct - I've done it. The higher-price variants have more features enabled then the newer, lower-price variants like PF Core Pure. Pay more, get more capability.
> Have you noticed any difference since you installed it? I really want greater leeching range....
No. For more than a year I've run multiple antenna types beyond the standard quarter-wave dipole and at multiple locations and a second antenna didn't seem to help nearly as much as getting the 'A' antenna up high and away from the instruments and other metal/carbon clutter.
Maybe it would help in the situation where you have a strongly asymmetric radiation pattern AND a place to mount a second antenna to specifically fill the gap. I suppose mounting in the tail could help seeing behind you - but I don't know many pilots who worry a lot about range on overtaking scenarios. Also, keep in mind that Flarm recommends keeping multiple Flarm antennae well separated.
Load some log files into the Flarm range analysis tool to find out where your coverage gaps are: http://www.flarm.com/support/analyze/index_en.html
I'd be curious to know if others have tried two antennae - where they mounted them and to what effect.
9B
>... didn't seem to help nearly as much as getting the 'A' antenna up high and >away from the instruments and other metal/carbon clutter.
Does "carbon clutter" include the pilot?
On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 7:21:18 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> >... didn't seem to help nearly as much as getting the 'A' antenna up high and >away from the instruments and other metal/carbon clutter.
>
>
> Does "carbon clutter" include the pilot?
On too many days, yes.
9B
On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:28:46 PM UTC+1, wrote:
> Having done extensive testing with both 'A' and 'B' antennas of various types in various locations and combinations I have come to the conclusion that the 'B' antenna is mostly for extending range at the limit. Very few gliders have blind spots that are so directional that a 'B' antenna will add materially to collision avoidance functionality. To the extent that they do have very specific blinds spots it is likely due to poor placement of the 'A' antenna and/or RFI in the cockpit which can be remedied without a 'B' antenna.
Can't argue with practical testing, but I can't reach the same conclusion. If there are attenuating items in the aircraft, a single antenna must have diminished performance in their direction, just as individuals lit by a single candle in the middle of a room must throw a shadow. Moving the antenna away from the attenuating items may reduce the areas affected, but there will still be specific areas of reduced performance. A second antenna should bring the coverage closer to the ideal.
As for the significance of attenuated areas / blind spots: I think I recall FLARM using the example of the steady-state collision course scenario where both aircraft maintain constant heading, speed and climb rate. In this situation there is effectively no movement of the conflicting aircraft against the background, so it's difficult to spot the conflicting traffic visually. Since the relative bearing to the conflicting aircraft will be nearly constant in this scenario, even a narrow area of attenuation can be potentially significant if it happens to lie in the right (wrong?) direction.
>I conclude the 'B' antenna is mostly for pilots who want the absolute maximum range limit for better tactical situational awareness in contests or buddy flying.
I don't see how the configuration suggested in the manual would provide extra range, and I haven't seen high-gain directional antennas being marketed by FLARM or its suppliers. I have to conclude the B antenna function is intended to cover blind spots, as the documentation suggests.
> As to pricing models - it's a software world where much, most, or even all of the value of products is attributable to the intellectual property that goes into a product (embodied in software), rather than means of delivering that intellectual property - including the hardware. You should expect that pricing will increasingly be based on customer value, rather than COGS (Cost of Goods Sold). Deleting ADS-B, PCAS, the 'B' antenna and other features are what allowed Flarm to dramatically reduce the price to reach new customers who don't value the full-featured version to the tune of $1500. Price elasticity of demand and market segmentation, pure and simple.
I understand the rationale behind making various features on the Core Plus chargeable, and I have no objection to the other features which have only secondary relevance to electronic conspicuity. I still find it difficult to understand why the capability of increased antenna coverage has apparently been categorised as an additional, chargeable 'feature', discouraging users from fitting a second antenna.
jfitch
October 1st 14, 06:46 PM
On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 5:20:33 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 4:43:29 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 4:23:43 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I think it is like the ENL - they give you a code, you put it in the config file, and it is supposed to be good for the duration. Code is hashed to the unit ID so only works on that one.
>
>
>
> That's correct - I've done it. The higher-price variants have more features enabled then the newer, lower-price variants like PF Core Pure. Pay more, get more capability.
>
>
>
> > Have you noticed any difference since you installed it? I really want greater leeching range....
>
>
>
> No. For more than a year I've run multiple antenna types beyond the standard quarter-wave dipole and at multiple locations and a second antenna didn't seem to help nearly as much as getting the 'A' antenna up high and away from the instruments and other metal/carbon clutter.
>
>
>
> Maybe it would help in the situation where you have a strongly asymmetric radiation pattern AND a place to mount a second antenna to specifically fill the gap. I suppose mounting in the tail could help seeing behind you - but I don't know many pilots who worry a lot about range on overtaking scenarios. Also, keep in mind that Flarm recommends keeping multiple Flarm antennae well separated.
>
>
>
> Load some log files into the Flarm range analysis tool to find out where your coverage gaps are: http://www.flarm.com/support/analyze/index_en.html
>
>
>
> I'd be curious to know if others have tried two antennae - where they mounted them and to what effect.
>
>
>
> 9B
"but I don't know many pilots who worry a lot about range on overtaking scenarios"
I was in just such a scenario this last summer. Flying a local friendly contest run as a Grand Prix handicap type of task (parallel start and handicap applied at far turn point, first glider back wins) I was comfortably entrenched in 2nd place with no hope of catching the leader and two gliders trailing some distance behind on final glide. I flew a 60 mile final glide at a leisurely 80 knots, arriving about 4,000 ft above pattern and took second place. That evening looking at the log files, I noted that the two gliders behind were flying the final glide at 120 knots and had closed within a couple of miles by their minimum altitude finish. I was watching Flarm and had not seen them, as they were well below and behind, the worst direction for my Flarm pattern. Normally fine, since overtaking speeds are low and not generally a collision concern. Had I seen them on Flarm, I would certainly have sped up a bit to make sure they didn't pass!!
Richard[_9_]
October 1st 14, 07:30 PM
On Monday, September 29, 2014 10:41:45 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> I was really surprised to see this in the PowerFLARM Core manual:
>
>
>
> 'CORE has two separate FLARM radio transceivers FLARM A and FLARM B. FLARM A is used to receive and transmit and must always be connected to an antenna. FLARM B is only used to receive, an optional antenna may be used for better reception performance. Usage of FLARM B requires purchase of the respective feature licence.'
>
>
>
> Feature licence? Turns out it's a 44EUR charge http://www.air-avionics.com/support/airstore_bestellung_powerflarm_lic.pdf to enable this feature. My understanding is that this fee is just a software activation; the hardware (antenna and cables) seems to be extra.
>
>
>
> Later in the manual:
>
>
>
> 'The primary antenna (FLARM A) should have good view into the direction of flight. FLARM B (if used) should be placed to complement the field of view of FLARM A.'
>
>
>
> .. So, if you're following the recommended install, the secondary FLARM B antenna should be configured solely to reduce your radio reception blind spot.
>
>
>
> From the description, it looks like this functionality is entirely safety related; assuming you follow the recommended install, it won't provide any real advantage for the more frivolous functions of FLARM (ie being able to track traffic way ahead of you)
>
>
>
> Hopefully I've completely misunderstood the situation, because this seems like a really odd decision by FLARM. What's a feature charge going to do except actively discourage users from fitting the ideal antenna configuration for their aircraft?
For all interested I have a variety of Powerflarm antennas.
http://www.craggyaero.com/cables_&_antennas.htm
Richard
www.craggyaero.com
Some people use a directional yagi antenna on the canopy and a omnidirectional one behind the main gear. This combination seems to work very well with otherwise problematic carbon fuselages.
On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 6:05:28 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> I understand the rationale behind making various features on the Core Plus chargeable, and I have no objection to the other features which have only secondary relevance to electronic conspicuity. I still find it difficult to understand why the capability of increased antenna coverage has apparently been categorised as an additional, chargeable 'feature', discouraging users from fitting a second antenna.
I like your use of 'conspicuity'.
While it is theoretically possible to have really good coverage in one direction and basically none in another direction, my experience with a number of different gliders is once you get the 'A' antenna right with a good view out the front to cover converging traffic you generally have more than enough coverage out the back (or along the wings, or wherever the "dead spots" are). The speeds for overtaking traffic are such that you are more than fine if you can get half a mile to a mile. That's why I say that the "B" antenna seems most useful to extend the blind spot range from "fine for collision avoidance" to "good for full tactical coverage" (for cases like jfitch mentioned - the leeches were never collision threats, just competitive ones).. You just don't get situations where you have good coverage everywhere except a narrow corridor that is basically zero range and therefore a collision threat. The physics of radiated energy declining with R-squared just doesn't allow it and gliders are too thin and delicate to block a signal that completely.
At US$54, it is hardly a bank-breaker for anyone who owns a glider. I think forcing everyone to pay $54 extra for a feature that less than 10 percent might use seems like the wrong call.
9B
JS
October 2nd 14, 04:22 AM
Wasn't the original "brick" which is now called "core" supposed to include the use of both FLARM antennas and the logger?
Aren't only the less expensive ones limited in functionality, requiring paid permissions?
Jim
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
October 2nd 14, 06:07 AM
wrote, On 10/1/2014 1:13 PM:
> At US$54, it is hardly a bank-breaker for anyone who owns a glider. I
> think forcing everyone to pay $54 extra for a feature that less than
> 10 percent might use seems like the wrong call.
If they made the other 90% pay for it, they'd only have to charge
everyone $5.40 to make the same amount of money. And, no irritated
customers, either. They are probably smart enough to know that, so
perhaps there are other factors, or a higher percentage taking it.
--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
Bob Caldwell (BC)
October 2nd 14, 04:50 PM
On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 1:43:06 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> Some people use a directional yagi antenna on the canopy and a omnidirectional one behind the main gear. This combination seems to work very well with otherwise problematic carbon fuselages.
How is the secondary antenna placed? The one I received is flat but is supposed to be in a vertical attitude. I can't find a place that works in my mostly carbon Ventus. I think the blind spot issue is significant. My main dipole is mounted on the glare shield and I get good performance when the line of sight doesn't go through the carbon fuselage. It is easily noticed while thermalling when an alert disappears and reappears depending on the obstruction.
On Thursday, October 2, 2014 5:50:30 PM UTC+2, Bob Caldwell (BC) wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 1:43:06 PM UTC-6, wrote:
>
> > Some people use a directional yagi antenna on the canopy and a omnidirectional one behind the main gear. This combination seems to work very well with otherwise problematic carbon fuselages.
>
>
>
> How is the secondary antenna placed? The one I received is flat but is supposed to be in a vertical attitude. I can't find a place that works in my mostly carbon Ventus. I think the blind spot issue is significant. My main dipole is mounted on the glare shield and I get good performance when the line of sight doesn't go through the carbon fuselage. It is easily noticed while thermalling when an alert disappears and reappears depending on the obstruction.
The planes I have seen with dual antennas have the yagi from Dolba (http://dolba.de/htm/loesung_bd8.html) which is sticked to the canopy and a normal "toothpick" antenna placed vertically outside of the fuselage behind the main gear box. However I don't know which is the primary and which the secondary.
On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 10:07:17 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> If they made the other 90% pay for it, they'd only have to charge
> everyone $5.40 to make the same amount of money. And, no irritated
> customers, either. They are probably smart enough to know that, so
> perhaps there are other factors, or a higher percentage taking it.
>
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>
In a bundle like PF Core vs unbundled PF Core Pure you need to look at whether the price elasticities for the features are positively correlated, negatively correlated, or uncorrelated. As you point out it's more subtle than charge $54 vs. $5.40 for a single feature. Part of the idea is to establish the value of the bundle as at least as good a deal as rolling up the individual features, otherwise everyone would buy the minimum configuration plus the individual features they want, which erodes overall revenues. Then you can serve the different market segments at prices they are willing to pay.
On Thursday, October 2, 2014 11:03:16 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > Some people use a directional yagi antenna on the canopy and a omnidirectional one behind the main gear. This combination seems to work very well with otherwise problematic carbon fuselages.
>
I tried a Yagi and other directional/high gain antennas. The goal with this concept is to increase forward range out to 10+ miles with the directional antenna and use the second antenna as a complement for 360-degree closer-in collision avoidance. The directional antenna didn't seem to help nearly as much as getting the standard dipole in a good location right up at the high point under the canopy. Go figure.
Of course antenna design and placement is a bit of a black art. The range results from any flight are also dependent on the antenna arrangements of the other gliders you are flying with. A large number of gliders to generate contacts and consistent flying partners help in gauging your antenna performance. I did most of my testing during long contests where there was some consistency in this regard. Needless to say, my time would have been better spent focusing on the flying part. :-)
9B
Ramy[_2_]
October 3rd 14, 03:50 AM
On Thursday, October 2, 2014 2:39:05 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Thursday, October 2, 2014 11:03:16 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > Some people use a directional yagi antenna on the canopy and a omnidirectional one behind the main gear. This combination seems to work very well with otherwise problematic carbon fuselages.
>
> >
>
> I tried a Yagi and other directional/high gain antennas. The goal with this concept is to increase forward range out to 10+ miles with the directional antenna and use the second antenna as a complement for 360-degree closer-in collision avoidance. The directional antenna didn't seem to help nearly as much as getting the standard dipole in a good location right up at the high point under the canopy. Go figure.
>
>
>
> Of course antenna design and placement is a bit of a black art. The range results from any flight are also dependent on the antenna arrangements of the other gliders you are flying with. A large number of gliders to generate contacts and consistent flying partners help in gauging your antenna performance. I did most of my testing during long contests where there was some consistency in this regard. Needless to say, my time would have been better spent focusing on the flying part. :-)
>
>
>
> 9B
Looks like my memory served me right. I found the following in the manual:
RFB: Second FLARM antenna connector
Devices sold prior to Software version 3.00 have pre-installed 'grandfather' licences for the features they were sold with (e.g., devices sold in the US prior to 2013 have IGC, TIS and RFB).
Ramy
RFB -
bumper[_4_]
October 3rd 14, 08:02 AM
On Thursday, October 2, 2014 2:39:05 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Thursday, October 2, 2014 11:03:16 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > Some people use a directional yagi antenna on the canopy and a omnidirectional one behind the main gear. This combination seems to work very well with otherwise problematic carbon fuselages.
>
> >
>
> I tried a Yagi and other directional/high gain antennas. The goal with this concept is to increase forward range out to 10+ miles with the directional antenna and use the second antenna as a complement for 360-degree closer-in collision avoidance. The directional antenna didn't seem to help nearly as much as getting the standard dipole in a good location right up at the high point under the canopy. Go figure.
>
>
>
> Of course antenna design and placement is a bit of a black art. The range results from any flight are also dependent on the antenna arrangements of the other gliders you are flying with. A large number of gliders to generate contacts and consistent flying partners help in gauging your antenna performance. I did most of my testing during long contests where there was some consistency in this regard. Needless to say, my time would have been better spent focusing on the flying part. :-)
>
>
>
> 9B
Using a directional antenna for "Flarm A" is not a good idea as your transmitted position info will mostly be sent with strength in only one direction.. This means that other ship's Flarm will not "see you" well if they are without that transmission lobe.
bumper
On Thursday, October 2, 2014 11:50:30 AM UTC-4, Bob Caldwell (BC) wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 1:43:06 PM UTC-6, wrote:
>
> > Some people use a directional yagi antenna on the canopy and a omnidirectional one behind the main gear. This combination seems to work very well with otherwise problematic carbon fuselages.
>
>
>
> How is the secondary antenna placed? The one I received is flat but is supposed to be in a vertical attitude. I can't find a place that works in my mostly carbon Ventus. I think the blind spot issue is significant. My main dipole is mounted on the glare shield and I get good performance when the line of sight doesn't go through the carbon fuselage. It is easily noticed while thermalling when an alert disappears and reappears depending on the obstruction.
I have a carbon Ventus 2B in France. I have a dipole antenna on the instrument panel cover and a second larger antenna installed projecting about forty five degrees downward from the exterior fuselage on the right,just ahead of the gear doors. I paid professionals to do the mounting of my powerflarm and antennae(as well as the Butterfly vario and sensor box; its great!). This arrangement, I was told, was the best solution for the flarm in the ventus. I must say, it has never failed me. Where I fly in France, the glider traffic is very dense (some days like rush hour traffic) and it has never failed me. BTW, in the glider dense area of the Alps, Flarm is required by law. Tow planes must have it also.
On Friday, October 3, 2014 12:02:53 AM UTC-7, bumper wrote:
> On Thursday, October 2, 2014 2:39:05 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, October 2, 2014 11:03:16 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Some people use a directional yagi antenna on the canopy and a omnidirectional one behind the main gear. This combination seems to work very well with otherwise problematic carbon fuselages.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > I tried a Yagi and other directional/high gain antennas. The goal with this concept is to increase forward range out to 10+ miles with the directional antenna and use the second antenna as a complement for 360-degree closer-in collision avoidance. The directional antenna didn't seem to help nearly as much as getting the standard dipole in a good location right up at the high point under the canopy. Go figure.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Of course antenna design and placement is a bit of a black art. The range results from any flight are also dependent on the antenna arrangements of the other gliders you are flying with. A large number of gliders to generate contacts and consistent flying partners help in gauging your antenna performance. I did most of my testing during long contests where there was some consistency in this regard. Needless to say, my time would have been better spent focusing on the flying part. :-)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 9B
>
>
>
> Using a directional antenna for "Flarm A" is not a good idea as your transmitted position info will mostly be sent with strength in only one direction. This means that other ship's Flarm will not "see you" well if they are without that transmission lobe.
>
>
>
> bumper
Yup - always use the dipole for "A" and place it for best all-around coverage.
RuudH
October 7th 14, 01:53 PM
Op maandag 29 september 2014 19:41:45 UTC+2 schreef :
> 'CORE has two separate FLARM radio transceivers FLARM A and FLARM B. FLARM A is used to receive and transmit and must always be connected to an antenna. FLARM B is only used to receive, an optional antenna may be used for better reception performance. Usage of FLARM B requires purchase of the respective feature licence.'
> Feature licence? Turns out it's a 44EUR charge http://www.air-avionics.com/support/airstore_bestellung_powerflarm_lic.pdf to enable this feature. My understanding is that this fee is just a software activation; the hardware (antenna and cables) seems to be extra.
>
I agree that it is ridiculous to charge extra money for the license that activates the second Flarm RF antenna (reception only).
Flarm has primarily been designed to enhance flight safety, so you should not have to pay extra for a second antenna.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.