Dreaming of a BETTER PowerFLARM antenna

[[email protected]]

I hold the PowerFLARM supplied center fed vertical dipole antenna in the same likeness to Apple providing a 6V HD "brick" lantern battery to power a new Apple watch. IMO, the CFVDA is distracting, cumbersome, and most unsightly. Surprisingly, USA users have accepted them and happily butcher glare shields and let them distract forward view in order to place them where they can be effective.

Lets get them off the glareshield. Double E antenna engineers come out, come out, wherever you are and design/market something BETTER. How about a bottom fed "whisker" antenna mounted to both sides of the canopy rail. They would parallel just behind the canopy window vent and bend to follow the curvature of the canopy. They would be held by a snap-in clip fixed to the canopy rail so they could be removed for canopy cleaning. No bulky connectors at the antenna...hardwired with the only connector at the "brick" end. "Whisker" antenna wire would be as small gauge as possible.

My OCD is so bad I'd pay twice the price of the typical center fed vertical dipole antenna to have these. Please step up YO!

[[email protected]]

A step in the right direction. Antenna needs to be tuned for USA frequencies and the "whisker" needs to be a smaller gauge. The suction cup holder is "slick" but only one should be required at the base.

http://www.air-store.eu/epages/AIRStore-LuftfahrtbedarfundAvionik.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/AIRStore-LuftfahrtbedarfundAvionik/Products/1.0.0.0017

[Ramy[_2_]]

As a strong advocate of power flarm I can't agree more. Every time I see those stock dipole antennas on a top of a glare shield it disturbs me. Our forward visibility is already restricted and those antennas are so awkward. Mine are in the nose of the glider since the early 27a do not have carbon on the nose. Works great. I recommended those with carbon nose to put the antennas below the glare shield with only the top sticking out. Looks much better and still working well enough. There are other solutions.

Ramy

[JS]

Craggy Aero has a few antenna options...
Jim

[jfitch]

On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 9:36:35 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> As a strong advocate of power flarm I can't agree more. Every time I see those stock dipole antennas on a top of a glare shield it disturbs me. Our forward visibility is already restricted and those antennas are so awkward. Mine are in the nose of the glider since the early 27a do not have carbon on the nose. Works great. I recommended those with carbon nose to put the antennas below the glare shield with only the top sticking out. Looks much better and still working well enough. There are other solutions.
>
> Ramy

If you don't put it on the glare shield, how are you going to cover it with a tin foil hat when those awful leachers are about? ;)

[[email protected]]

Well, this is an old discussion.
I already published my home built bottom fed Flarm (and ADSB) dipole antennas 2 years ago.
https://sites.google.com/site/threeuniform/powerflarm/powerflarm-antennas
By now, my antennas are painted black.

I personally did not like the bulkiness of the standard center fed dipoles either.
That's why I build my own thin "whisker" ones.
However, it has been discussed here in the past also already that the fact that humans have stereoscopic vision, means that an object like a Flarm antenna at 2-3 ft distance does not limit / obstruct the human field of view.

I cannot subscribe to Ramy's recommendation to put the antenna under the glareshield without knowing what is under your glareshield.
On my carbon ship, there is metal tubing structure right under the glareshield. Putting the antennas down in between that structure would significantly impact the performance.
In general, placing an antenna close to metal structures, like frames or metal housing of electronics boxes (radios, transponders, varios, flarm boxes, etc.) is a bad idea.
I needed to raise the antennas as high as possible above the glareshield
See images in the link above.
On other ships like modern gliders with a panel attached to a glass composite bottom shelf, this might be a viable option.

With respect to placing antennas on the side rails, you have to keep in mind that while the Flarm systems have an option for 2 receive antenna, there is only 1 Flarm transmit (and receive) antenna. And then there is of course the single ADSB receive antenna.
So, if you would place the Flarm Tx/Rx antenna on one side and the ADSB receive antenna on the other side of the canopy frame, you would get a skewed range diagram.
Difficult to say how skewed. Would be worth while an experiment with the Flarm range evaluation tool.

3U

[[email protected]]

To be a bit clearer on the side rail mounting:
If you use both Flarm antennas (A and B) on either side of the canopy then your Flarm reception should be well balanced.
However, your Flarm transmission would be skewed to one side as only the Flarm A antenna transmits. The Flarm B antenna is receive only.

Mounting the ADSB/PCAS antenna on either side rail should not be an issue as the transponders are transmitting at very high power levels (150-250 Watts)
So, you will be receiving more than enough signal from a transponder equipped aircraft a few miles away.

[Richard[_9_]]

On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 1:56:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> To be a bit clearer on the side rail mounting:
> If you use both Flarm antennas (A and B) on either side of the canopy then your Flarm reception should be well balanced.
> However, your Flarm transmission would be skewed to one side as only the Flarm A antenna transmits. The Flarm B antenna is receive only.
>
> Mounting the ADSB/PCAS antenna on either side rail should not be an issue as the transponders are transmitting at very high power levels (150-250 Watts)
> So, you will be receiving more than enough signal from a transponder equipped aircraft a few miles away.

I am getting 4 nm to 8 nm range with my antennas. 1/2 wave dipole on the panel and the standard T antenna in the nose.

Analysis on this page at the bottom.

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


Richard

[bumper[_4_]]

I'm offering new covert, semi-low drag mounts.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/FuG_220_and_FuG_202_radar_of_Me_110_1945.jpg

[jfitch]

On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 2:28:43 PM UTC-7, bumper wrote:
> I'm offering new covert, semi-low drag mounts.
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/FuG_220_and_FuG_202_radar_of_Me_110_1945.jpg

And, with that on your glider, you probably won't have to worry about the leachers as they will be well in front!

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 4:21:12 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Well, this is an old discussion.
> I already published my home built bottom fed Flarm (and ADSB) dipole antennas 2 years ago.
> https://sites.google.com/site/threeuniform/powerflarm/powerflarm-antennas
> By now, my antennas are painted black.
>
Thanks 3U for contributing. Yes I'm familiar with your work and website. I wish you would expand your article to include "how to" details so DIY guys like me could fabricate their own antennas.

Regarding PowerFLARM antenna A, what amount of signal degradation would be experienced if there were two "A" antennas by means of some sort of splitter?

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 15:28:07 -0700, bensoaring wrote:

> On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 4:21:12 PM UTC-4,
> wrote:
>> Well, this is an old discussion.
>> I already published my home built bottom fed Flarm (and ADSB) dipole
>> antennas 2 years ago.
>> https://sites.google.com/site/threeuniform/powerflarm/powerflarm-
antennas
>> By now, my antennas are painted black.
>>
> Thanks 3U for contributing. Yes I'm familiar with your work and
> website. I wish you would expand your article to include "how to"
> details so DIY guys like me could fabricate their own antennas.
>
> Regarding PowerFLARM antenna A, what amount of signal degradation would
> be experienced if there were two "A" antennas by means of some sort of
> splitter?

A thought: you can pick up nylon-covered steel trace (1.3mm OD, the steel
trace is 1.0mm diameter from eBay (10m for $8.95) and good fishing shops
also stock it. Crimp the end over and add a blob of epoxy for eye
protection and there's a very thin antenna. On a glare shield one of
these would be almost invisible. The older Swiss FLARMs, used antennae
which were just a 1/4 wave length of what looked like 0.8mm (1/32") music
wire mounted at the centre of a circular 80mm diameter metal ground
plane.

The fox-hunting crowd, i.e. orienteers who run XC in search of a hidden
radio beacon) make Yagi DF antennae from steel tape-measures and plastic
plumbing pipe which seem to work pretty well, so would this nylon-coated
steel trace be any good for making up PowerFLARM dipoles or bottom-fed
antennae?

I'd be interested to hear what somebody who understands antennae thinks
about using this stuff or even thinner trace material: it is available
down to 20 lb breaking strain.


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

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 6:56:02 PM UTC-4, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 15:28:07 -0700, bensoaring wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 4:21:12 PM UTC-4,
> > wrote:
> >> Well, this is an old discussion.
> >> I already published my home built bottom fed Flarm (and ADSB) dipole
> >> antennas 2 years ago.
> >> https://sites.google.com/site/threeuniform/powerflarm/powerflarm-
> antennas
> >> By now, my antennas are painted black.
> >>
> > Thanks 3U for contributing. Yes I'm familiar with your work and
> > website. I wish you would expand your article to include "how to"
> > details so DIY guys like me could fabricate their own antennas.
> >
> > Regarding PowerFLARM antenna A, what amount of signal degradation would
> > be experienced if there were two "A" antennas by means of some sort of
> > splitter?
>
> A thought: you can pick up nylon-covered steel trace (1.3mm OD, the steel
> trace is 1.0mm diameter from eBay (10m for $8.95) and good fishing shops
> also stock it. Crimp the end over and add a blob of epoxy for eye
> protection and there's a very thin antenna. On a glare shield one of
> these would be almost invisible. The older Swiss FLARMs, used antennae
> which were just a 1/4 wave length of what looked like 0.8mm (1/32") music
> wire mounted at the centre of a circular 80mm diameter metal ground
> plane.
>
> The fox-hunting crowd, i.e. orienteers who run XC in search of a hidden
> radio beacon) make Yagi DF antennae from steel tape-measures and plastic
> plumbing pipe which seem to work pretty well, so would this nylon-coated
> steel trace be any good for making up PowerFLARM dipoles or bottom-fed
> antennae?
>
> I'd be interested to hear what somebody who understands antennae thinks
> about using this stuff or even thinner trace material: it is available
> down to 20 lb breaking strain.
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

Smiling...us redneck bass fisherman know this as nylon coated stainless steel fishing leader.

[Roy Clark, \B6\]

Does one of those neat caps in the photo come with each unit?

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:20:18 -0700, bensoaring wrote:

> On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 6:56:02 PM UTC-4, Martin Gregorie
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 15:28:07 -0700, bensoaring wrote:
>>
>> > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 4:21:12 PM UTC-4,
>> > wrote:
>> >> Well, this is an old discussion.
>> >> I already published my home built bottom fed Flarm (and ADSB) dipole
>> >> antennas 2 years ago.
>> >> https://sites.google.com/site/threeuniform/powerflarm/powerflarm-
>> antennas
>> >> By now, my antennas are painted black.
>> >>
>> > Thanks 3U for contributing. Yes I'm familiar with your work and
>> > website. I wish you would expand your article to include "how to"
>> > details so DIY guys like me could fabricate their own antennas.
>> >
>> > Regarding PowerFLARM antenna A, what amount of signal degradation
>> > would be experienced if there were two "A" antennas by means of some
>> > sort of splitter?
>>
>> A thought: you can pick up nylon-covered steel trace (1.3mm OD, the
>> steel trace is 1.0mm diameter from eBay (10m for $8.95) and good
>> fishing shops also stock it. Crimp the end over and add a blob of epoxy
>> for eye protection and there's a very thin antenna. On a glare shield
>> one of these would be almost invisible. The older Swiss FLARMs, used
>> antennae which were just a 1/4 wave length of what looked like 0.8mm
>> (1/32") music wire mounted at the centre of a circular 80mm diameter
>> metal ground plane.
>>
>> The fox-hunting crowd, i.e. orienteers who run XC in search of a hidden
>> radio beacon) make Yagi DF antennae from steel tape-measures and
>> plastic plumbing pipe which seem to work pretty well, so would this
>> nylon-coated steel trace be any good for making up PowerFLARM dipoles
>> or bottom-fed antennae?
>>
>> I'd be interested to hear what somebody who understands antennae thinks
>> about using this stuff or even thinner trace material: it is available
>> down to 20 lb breaking strain.
>>
>>
>> --
>> martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
>
> Smiling...us redneck bass fisherman know this as nylon coated stainless
> steel fishing leader.

I don't fish (well, once or twice trolling for trout on Lake Taupo) and
have only used this steel trace (the UK term) for connecting controls to
the timer in free flight model aircraft.

Would you use it for a FLARM antenna? I suppose you'd have to crimp the
feeder connection as its unlikely to take solder.

BTW, here's a link to one of those Yagis. In case you're wondering, the
reason they like 'em is partly because they're light and partly because
you can crash through the undergrowth with one without breaking or
bending it:

http://theleggios.net/wb2hol/projects/rdf/tape_bm.htm


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

[SoaringXCellence]

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 1:41:26 AM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:20:18 -0700, bensoaring wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 6:56:02 PM UTC-4, Martin Gregorie
> > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 15:28:07 -0700, bensoaring wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 4:21:12 PM UTC-4,
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Well, this is an old discussion.
> >> >> I already published my home built bottom fed Flarm (and ADSB) dipole
> >> >> antennas 2 years ago.
> >> >> https://sites.google.com/site/threeuniform/powerflarm/powerflarm-
> >> antennas
> >> >> By now, my antennas are painted black.
> >> >>
> >> > Thanks 3U for contributing. Yes I'm familiar with your work and
> >> > website. I wish you would expand your article to include "how to"
> >> > details so DIY guys like me could fabricate their own antennas.
> >> >
> >> > Regarding PowerFLARM antenna A, what amount of signal degradation
> >> > would be experienced if there were two "A" antennas by means of some
> >> > sort of splitter?
> >>
> >> A thought: you can pick up nylon-covered steel trace (1.3mm OD, the
> >> steel trace is 1.0mm diameter from eBay (10m for $8.95) and good
> >> fishing shops also stock it. Crimp the end over and add a blob of epoxy
> >> for eye protection and there's a very thin antenna. On a glare shield
> >> one of these would be almost invisible. The older Swiss FLARMs, used
> >> antennae which were just a 1/4 wave length of what looked like 0.8mm
> >> (1/32") music wire mounted at the centre of a circular 80mm diameter
> >> metal ground plane.
> >>
> >> The fox-hunting crowd, i.e. orienteers who run XC in search of a hidden
> >> radio beacon) make Yagi DF antennae from steel tape-measures and
> >> plastic plumbing pipe which seem to work pretty well, so would this
> >> nylon-coated steel trace be any good for making up PowerFLARM dipoles
> >> or bottom-fed antennae?
> >>
> >> I'd be interested to hear what somebody who understands antennae thinks
> >> about using this stuff or even thinner trace material: it is available
> >> down to 20 lb breaking strain.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
> >
> > Smiling...us redneck bass fisherman know this as nylon coated stainless
> > steel fishing leader.
>
> I don't fish (well, once or twice trolling for trout on Lake Taupo) and
> have only used this steel trace (the UK term) for connecting controls to
> the timer in free flight model aircraft.
>
> Would you use it for a FLARM antenna? I suppose you'd have to crimp the
> feeder connection as its unlikely to take solder.
>
> BTW, here's a link to one of those Yagis. In case you're wondering, the
> reason they like 'em is partly because they're light and partly because
> you can crash through the undergrowth with one without breaking or
> bending it:
>
> http://theleggios.net/wb2hol/projects/rdf/tape_bm.htm
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

Yagi antenna are great for highly directional transmit/receive. I.E. if you placed a yagi/flarm antenna pointing forward, the signal in any other direction would be practically non-existant. Not a good choice for a signal you want to send/receive in all directions.

Mike

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 18:26:37 -0800, SoaringXCellence wrote:

> Yagi antenna are great for highly directional transmit/receive.
> I.E. if you placed a yagi/flarm antenna pointing forward, the signal
> in any other direction would be practically non-existant.
> Not a good choice for a signal you want to send/receive in all
> directions.

Of course. I know that: re-read the last few posts on the thread.

I was asking if anybody had experience with using nylon-coated steel
fishing trace for bottom-fed 1/4 wave FLARM dipoles. Its so thin you'd
soon cease to notice antennas made of it mounted on top of your glare
shield.



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

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 17:33:00 +0000, Martin Gregorie wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 18:26:37 -0800, SoaringXCellence wrote:
>
>> Yagi antenna are great for highly directional transmit/receive. I.E. if
>> you placed a yagi/flarm antenna pointing forward, the signal in any
>> other direction would be practically non-existant.
>> Not a good choice for a signal you want to send/receive in all
>> directions.
>
> Of course. I know that: re-read the last few posts on the thread.
>
> I was asking if anybody had experience with using nylon-coated steel
> fishing trace for bottom-fed 1/4 wave FLARM dipoles. Its so thin you'd
> soon cease to notice antennas made of it mounted on top of your glare
> shield.

For 'dipole' read 'antenna'. Sorry 'bout that.



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

[ND]

Flarm antennaes are HIDEOUS. i would HATE to put one of those into my cockpit. in fact it would be one of the reasons i would decide not to put a unit it. now, before starting an argument, i'm not anti-flarm. but i AM anti ****ty hideous flarm antennae. i didn't spend all that time making our glider cockpit beautiful to stick that ugly piece right in my forward field of vision. ew.

[kirk.stant]

On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 10:44:25 AM UTC-6, ND wrote:
> Flarm antennaes are HIDEOUS. i would HATE to put one of those into my cockpit. in fact it would be one of the reasons i would decide not to put a unit it. now, before starting an argument, i'm not anti-flarm. but i AM anti ****ty hideous flarm antennae. i didn't spend all that time making our glider cockpit beautiful to stick that ugly piece right in my forward field of vision. ew.

Hmm, you obviously are in the "die early and leave a good looking corpse" camp!

Me, I can take a hideous antenna if it works. Just put it where you won't see it!

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[[email protected]]

There's not enough space between glareshield and canopy on my ASW-15 to mount the FLARM antenna there. Fortunately mounting it in the nosecone works and gave me pretty good coverage according to the range tool. With no nose hook up there and no carbon fiber (except - thanks to the previous owner in Germany - a really nice carbon fiber instrument panel) in the ship the only thing I was worried about was that with the 15's relatively snubby nose I thought the rudder pedals might cause a blind spot but they don't seem to..

That said, now that we're going to be installing FLARM in all the club ships this winter a nice thin bottom fed antenna would be a nice option for some of them.

[ND]

On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 4:47:59 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 10:44:25 AM UTC-6, ND wrote:
> > Flarm antennaes are HIDEOUS. i would HATE to put one of those into my cockpit. in fact it would be one of the reasons i would decide not to put a unit it. now, before starting an argument, i'm not anti-flarm. but i AM anti ****ty hideous flarm antennae. i didn't spend all that time making our glider cockpit beautiful to stick that ugly piece right in my forward field of vision. ew.
>
> Hmm, you obviously are in the "die early and leave a good looking corpse" camp!
>
> Me, I can take a hideous antenna if it works. Just put it where you won't see it!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kirk
> 66

the flarm thing, i get it. i expressly said i was not anti flarm. i said very carefully that i was anti hideous flarm antennae. what puzzles me is that people accept the ugly antennae solution. if i was going to install a flarm, i too would put it somewhere you don't see it.

either way, for the foreseeable future i am a see-and-avoid kinda guy. That's right! Ice... man. I am dangerous.

[kirk.stant]

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 1:41:37 PM UTC-6, ND wrote:

> either way, for the foreseeable future i am a see-and-avoid kinda guy. That's right! Ice... man. I am dangerous.

Yes you are.

Well, good luck and I hope the Big Sky Theory works for you - because "see-and-avoid" has been 100% proven to not always work.

And from personal experience, a mid-air can really ruin your day!

But hey, at least your cockpit is Gucci!

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[ND]

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 3:31:24 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 1:41:37 PM UTC-6, ND wrote:
>
> > either way, for the foreseeable future i am a see-and-avoid kinda guy. That's right! Ice... man. I am dangerous.
>
> Yes you are.
>
> Well, good luck and I hope the Big Sky Theory works for you - because "see-and-avoid" has been 100% proven to not always work.
>
> And from personal experience, a mid-air can really ruin your day!
>
> But hey, at least your cockpit is Gucci!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kirk
> 66

kirk, i was joking last time when i quoted top gun--you missed my attempt at humor. let's both pump the brakes on this one. i knew i shouldn't have expressed my opinions about the aesthetics of the antenna because it would illicit some such response. the reality is that MOST gliders in the US are still flying without flarm, and that like see-and-avoid, flarm is also not 100% effective. i don't disagree with the pro flarm camp. i hate the ugly antenna installs i see, that's it. let's meet halfway on this one, and enjoy a beer together should our paths ever meet. (ok...no pun intended, but that last sentence is comedic gold)

-ND

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 3:58:07 PM UTC-5, ND wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 3:31:24 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 1:41:37 PM UTC-6, ND wrote:
> >
> > > either way, for the foreseeable future i am a see-and-avoid kinda guy.. That's right! Ice... man. I am dangerous.
> >
> > Yes you are.
> >
> > Well, good luck and I hope the Big Sky Theory works for you - because "see-and-avoid" has been 100% proven to not always work.
> >
> > And from personal experience, a mid-air can really ruin your day!
> >
> > But hey, at least your cockpit is Gucci!
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Kirk
> > 66
>
> kirk, i was joking last time when i quoted top gun--you missed my attempt at humor. let's both pump the brakes on this one. i knew i shouldn't have expressed my opinions about the aesthetics of the antenna because it would illicit some such response. the reality is that MOST gliders in the US are still flying without flarm, and that like see-and-avoid, flarm is also not 100% effective. i don't disagree with the pro flarm camp. i hate the ugly antenna installs i see, that's it. let's meet halfway on this one, and enjoy a beer together should our paths ever meet. (ok...no pun intended, but that last sentence is comedic gold)
>
> -ND

ND...I'm glad you did express your opinion about the UNSIGHTLY PowerFLARM. IMO, you are absolutely correct. Perhaps if more pilots agreed and "squawked" an enterprising double E or ham geek would design and offer something better. Its needed.

[kirk.stant]

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 2:58:07 PM UTC-6, ND wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 3:31:24 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 1:41:37 PM UTC-6, ND wrote:
> >
> > > either way, for the foreseeable future i am a see-and-avoid kinda guy.. That's right! Ice... man. I am dangerous.
> >
> > Yes you are.
> >
> > Well, good luck and I hope the Big Sky Theory works for you - because "see-and-avoid" has been 100% proven to not always work.
> >
> > And from personal experience, a mid-air can really ruin your day!
> >
> > But hey, at least your cockpit is Gucci!
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Kirk
> > 66
>
> kirk, i was joking last time when i quoted top gun--you missed my attempt at humor. let's both pump the brakes on this one. i knew i shouldn't have expressed my opinions about the aesthetics of the antenna because it would illicit some such response. the reality is that MOST gliders in the US are still flying without flarm, and that like see-and-avoid, flarm is also not 100% effective. i don't disagree with the pro flarm camp. i hate the ugly antenna installs i see, that's it. let's meet halfway on this one, and enjoy a beer together should our paths ever meet. (ok...no pun intended, but that last sentence is comedic gold)
>
> -ND

Dude, if you are OK with trusting see-and-avoid, then go for it - it's just that your choosing aethetics over utility in what is potentially a live-saving area seems a bit narcissistic, that's all.

I totally got the Top Gun reference - I was actively flying F-4s when TG came out and remember doing the "Need for Speed" thing on the Nellis ramp during a Red Flag back then. And my background may be why I will always take utility over beauty when it comes to safety - and trust me, Flarm is WAY better than your eyes will ever be!

The fact that the US is a third-world backwater with regards to flarm adoption (see France, Germany, Britain, even Australia) says more about the US glider pilot mentality (Schweizers, anyone?) than about the merits of flarm.

Anyway - anytime you pass by St Louis on I-70 stop by St Louis Soaring at H07 (30 miles east of the Mississippi) and I'll buy you a Stag.

Cheers!

Kirk
66

[Richard[_9_]]

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 1:59:23 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 3:58:07 PM UTC-5, ND wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 3:31:24 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 1:41:37 PM UTC-6, ND wrote:
> > >
> > > > either way, for the foreseeable future i am a see-and-avoid kinda guy. That's right! Ice... man. I am dangerous.
> > >
> > > Yes you are.
> > >
> > > Well, good luck and I hope the Big Sky Theory works for you - because "see-and-avoid" has been 100% proven to not always work.
> > >
> > > And from personal experience, a mid-air can really ruin your day!
> > >
> > > But hey, at least your cockpit is Gucci!
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > > 66
> >
> > kirk, i was joking last time when i quoted top gun--you missed my attempt at humor. let's both pump the brakes on this one. i knew i shouldn't have expressed my opinions about the aesthetics of the antenna because it would illicit some such response. the reality is that MOST gliders in the US are still flying without flarm, and that like see-and-avoid, flarm is also not 100% effective. i don't disagree with the pro flarm camp. i hate the ugly antenna installs i see, that's it. let's meet halfway on this one, and enjoy a beer together should our paths ever meet. (ok...no pun intended, but that last sentence is comedic gold)
> >
> > -ND
>
> ND...I'm glad you did express your opinion about the UNSIGHTLY PowerFLARM.. IMO, you are absolutely correct. Perhaps if more pilots agreed and "squawked" an enterprising double E or ham geek would design and offer something better. Its needed.

Already done several years ago!

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

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[[email protected]]

I agree entirely on the issues associated with FLARM antennas. I have installed several FLARM systems in our club aircraft and the antenna installation is a serious issue.

I think it is important to point out that the range tool has some very serious flaws and that relying on it to evaluate your antenna installation for range may give you a very false sense of how far you can adequately rely on it. The range tool reports average range at a variety of angles around the ship. In this kind of stochastic process, the average really doesn't mean anything. You have two targets whirling around in clear space whose sensitivity varies strongly with direction and the range tool uses measured contacts to estimate the range. In reality the actual range a contact can be made can vary quite widely. If the range tool displayed the estimated range (average) as well as the average plus and minus one standard deviation (three contours), you would find that in reality you have a very high statistical probability of not making contact unless you are very close. In addition, the way the tool is setup, where you can only enter a single flight, it is not possible to get enough contacts to even make this measurement. It probably takes an entire season of flying to properly determine this. I wrote some code to splice together lots of flight logs to do a better statistical analysis and the results are quite interesting.


Mark