An interesting trial flight attempt...

[[email protected]]

.... with a better result than a previous recent thread ;-)

Some notes about this:

Average flights to this point in 2005: time 3:03 and
distance 149 miles. I know that seems short but it
includes things like BFR/rope-break practice and
some demo rides.

This business about 12 volts vs 14 volts is silly;
real pilots know 280 volts is best.

Flame shields up.

http://www.nadler.com/public/Antares_2005.html

Come say hi at the SSA convention !
Best Regards, Dave "YO"

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:

> ... with a better result than a previous recent thread ;-)
>
> Some notes about this:
>
> Average flights to this point in 2005: time 3:03 and
> distance 149 miles. I know that seems short but it
> includes things like BFR/rope-break practice and
> some demo rides.
>
> This business about 12 volts vs 14 volts is silly;
> real pilots know 280 volts is best.
>
> Flame shields up.
>
> http://www.nadler.com/public/Antares_2005.html

Very macho wing dolly, scarey big electric connectors, and now I know
why you sold the Ventus!

I agree - I think 18 meter would be preferable for most of my flying
(no, don't send me an order blank yet!).


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

www.motorglider.org

[Shawn]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> ... with a better result than a previous recent thread ;-)
>>
>> Some notes about this:
>>
>> Average flights to this point in 2005: time 3:03 and
>> distance 149 miles. I know that seems short but it
>> includes things like BFR/rope-break practice and
>> some demo rides.
>>
>> This business about 12 volts vs 14 volts is silly;
>> real pilots know 280 volts is best.
>>
>> Flame shields up.
>>
>> http://www.nadler.com/public/Antares_2005.html

snip

scarey big electric connectors,

snip

Is there a system to insure the wires and connectors are cold when
they're not hooked up. A sore back from rigging is a sufficient risk,
but electrocution?!
:-)

Shawn
Note to self: Buy Lotto ticket

[[email protected]]

If you try the 20-meter ship you might not be able to go back.
You can pick up your order form at the convention !
See ya, Dave

PS: The Ventus 2cm is still available !

[[email protected]]

No risk of sore back with the nice riging gadget.
I don't think its more risky than plugging in your komputer.
Good luck on your lotto ticket !
See ya, Dave

[[email protected]]

Dave, you luck sack!

Nevertheless - thank you for a really great report. I was based at
Ramstein for a few years in the Air Force (even did a little local
gliding) and remember the area fondly. By the way, Zweibreuken used to
be a USAFE RF-4 base, long long ago...

Say, since FLARM isn't allowed to us barbarian Yankees and Canucks, how
about some sort of transponder detector (like a Surecheck) integrated
into the SN10 display - with a nice audio cue! Just wishing....

Kirk
66

[[email protected]]

66 -- why isn't FLARM use allowed in the US?

[5Z]

It uses some cel phone frequencies, among other things.

IMO, it's just too simple a system for the FAA to ever consider
adopting.

Just think how cool it would be if all aircraft carried one:
Fewer collisions at uncontrolled airports.
Less need for Xponders on VFR aircraf flying near congested IFR type
airspace, we'd see the airliner coming - and they would see us.
Etc...

If FLARM can really not give too many false positives in gaggles, just
think how well it would work in the above situations.

-Tom

[Marc Ramsey]

5Z wrote:
> It uses some cel phone frequencies, among other things.

FLARM would need to operate on a slightly different frequency in the US,
but the main reason it can't be used here is that the FLARM people are
scared of our liability laws, and their licensing agreement explicitly
prohibit use in the US or in aircraft carrying US citizens.

> IMO, it's just too simple a system for the FAA to ever consider
> adopting.

Tis true, but it is also too simple a system for the ICAO to adopt.

> Just think how cool it would be if all aircraft carried one:
> Fewer collisions at uncontrolled airports.
> Less need for Xponders on VFR aircraf flying near congested IFR type
> airspace, we'd see the airliner coming - and they would see us.
> Etc...

That would be called "ADS-B" not "FLARM".

> If FLARM can really not give too many false positives in gaggles, just
> think how well it would work in the above situations.

FLARM is just too simple to be useful with aircraft flying more than a
couple of hundred knots, nor does it integrate into the air traffic
control system. There are always tradeoffs...

Marc

[[email protected]]

Screw the FAA, and lawyers. Useless waste of carbon, most of the time.

How about some smart person come up with a FLARM clone that will work
in the US (i.e. suitable frequencies), and would intergrate with the
FLARM display or software like MCU and SN10 that already support it.

Make it portable so we can hide it from the feds. Keep it small and
unobtrusive. Stick it behind the panel, hook it up to your PDA or
computer, and bug all your glider buddies to get one. I bet if it was
priced right a lot of XC and racers would get one. I know I would.

Safety is always about what you do, not what someone else behind a desk
does...

66

[Marc Ramsey]

wrote:
> Screw the FAA, and lawyers. Useless waste of carbon, most of the time.

The FAA doesn't really care if we put FLARM-like devices in our gliders.
The FCC doesn't care as long as they (properly) use an unlicensed
portion of the frequency spectrum. The lawyers will do what the lawyers
will do, but only if pilots, or their survivors, ask them to.

> How about some smart person come up with a FLARM clone that will work
> in the US (i.e. suitable frequencies), and would intergrate with the
> FLARM display or software like MCU and SN10 that already support it.

There is nothing preventing anyone in the US from doing this, except
available money, time, minuscule market, etc. I (and others) could hack
together a prototype using off the shelf components in a few months, but
that would still be months of effort (and tens of thousands of dollars)
short of being a production device. Perhaps someone will be willing do
this all for the love of soaring (like the FLARM folks did), but they
certainly won't be doing to to make a profit. You got $50,000 to
$100,000? I can find someone to design it.

> Make it portable so we can hide it from the feds. Keep it small and
> unobtrusive. Stick it behind the panel, hook it up to your PDA or
> computer, and bug all your glider buddies to get one. I bet if it was
> priced right a lot of XC and racers would get one. I know I would.

Yes, we're talking a really hot market, maybe as much as 500 units over
the next 5 years. And, you can get those sales if it is priced "right"
in glider pilot terms, which means essentially no profit. I expect
someone will jump in there any day now...

> Safety is always about what you do, not what someone else behind a desk
> does...

Nobody is stopping you...


Marc

[GK]

Dave,
How big and what is the life span of this motor driving battery?
Thanks for sharing all that interesting info.

GK

[[email protected]]

> There is nothing preventing anyone in the US from doing this, except
> available money, time, minuscule market, etc. I (and others) could hack
> together a prototype using off the shelf components in a few months, but
> that would still be months of effort (and tens of thousands of dollars)
> short of being a production device. Perhaps someone will be willing do
> this all for the love of soaring (like the FLARM folks did), but they
> certainly won't be doing to to make a profit. You got $50,000 to
> $100,000? I can find someone to design it.

> Yes, we're talking a really hot market, maybe as much as 500 units over
> the next 5 years. And, you can get those sales if it is priced "right"
> in glider pilot terms, which means essentially no profit. I expect
> someone will jump in there any day now...

Marc, by your math (admittedly back of the envelope), if 200 glider
pilots each chipped in $500, someone could design it? I know nothing
about the costs of production of such a device, but say (worst case)
another $500 per unit? So for a grand those pilots would have a
working system. That's in my price range...

The obvious problem, of course, is that it only works if those 200
pilots all fly in the same area - so you have to convince the rest of
the glider pilots in the local area (or racing scene) to pony up the
$500 to get one. Or wait! Get SRA to make it optionally mandatory at
SSA sanctionned contests! Worked for ELTs! Maybe make a bunch of them
and rent them to pilots at contests? A couple of avoided collisions
and I bet there would be increased interest in the device by a lot of
glider pilots.

The point is - I see lots of guys sticking expensive transponders in
their ships which (in my opinion) provide little protection from most
mid-air collision threats, while there is little being done in
exploiting more useful avenues.

Perhaps a market for flight schools, that have a lot of power trainers
working VFR in busy airspace? (again - all xponder equipped but no TCAS
or warning by ATC if not on ATC freq).

Just saying it can't be done guarantees it won't be done. And just
thinking/talking about it doesn't make it happen, I know - but you have
to start somewhere.

Cheers,

Kirk

[Marc Ramsey]

wrote:
> Marc, by your math (admittedly back of the envelope), if 200 glider
> pilots each chipped in $500, someone could design it? I know nothing
> about the costs of production of such a device, but say (worst case)
> another $500 per unit? So for a grand those pilots would have a
> working system. That's in my price range...

You could get 200 US glider pilots to chip in $500 on something that
won't increase their L/D? You must be quite a salesman 8^)

FLARM costs around ~500 Euros, so it is certainly possible. The most
sensible thing is to license the FLARM design for production/sale in the
US. Payment of a suitable license fee, and indemnification against the
evils of the US court system would likely bypass their liability
concerns. It would be necessary to swap in a wireless module using FCC
acceptable frequencies.

An entirely new system would require a significant amount of hardware
design, software development, and testing. Paying for this would push
the amortized costs over even 500 units beyond your price range. This
would only work with an essentially volunteer effort.

In either case, a testing lab would need to be hired to do FCC Part 15
conformance verification as an "intentional radiator". This is way
outside of my area, but I would guess that the cost for this alone is
somewhere in the $20K to $50K range.

> The point is - I see lots of guys sticking expensive transponders in
> their ships which (in my opinion) provide little protection from most
> mid-air collision threats, while there is little being done in
> exploiting more useful avenues.

Perhaps transponders aren't useful in your area, but they are in mine.
I have had more surprise encounters with commercial and military
aircraft, than I have with other gliders.

I also suspect that FLARM won't do much to help where I'm most concerned
about a collision with another glider, the ridge running down the White
and Inyo mountains near the CA/NV border. FLARM advertises an effective
range of 2-3 km, or 1 to 1.5 nm. Given a head-on approach between two
gliders, each running at a TAS of 150 knots, you'll be lucky to get 10
seconds of warning. Might work for an ex-fighter pilot, but that's not
much time for someone like me...

> Perhaps a market for flight schools, that have a lot of power trainers
> working VFR in busy airspace? (again - all xponder equipped but no TCAS
> or warning by ATC if not on ATC freq).

ADS-B is a much better solution for this, particularly with the ground
stations in place (as they are now on much of the east coast), which
will allow ATC to see you. If you have a traffic display (which could
be implemented using a PDA), not only will you see other ADS-B equipped
aircraft, you'll also see Mode C/S equipped aircraft through the data link.

> Just saying it can't be done guarantees it won't be done. And just
> thinking/talking about it doesn't make it happen, I know - but you have
> to start somewhere.

True, but to get much farther, it'll take time and money. Any
volunteers? I can help with the software and bad advice...

Marc

[[email protected]]

The motor TBO is 900 hours after which it needs new bearings.
Its about 57 hp and 8" across, and hollow.
Best Regards, Dave

[5Z]

Dave,
I think he was asking about the batteries. Any idea on the number of
charge cycles and approximate replacement cost?

-Tom

[Bert Willing]

You're wrong there, Marc. I'm not an ex-fighter pilot, and I had this
warning from my Flarm on the ridge. I took an evasive action and we didn't
collide. 10 sec is a lot when something is yelling at you.

Bert
TW

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> I also suspect that FLARM won't do much to help where I'm most concerned
> about a collision with another glider, the ridge running down the White
> and Inyo mountains near the CA/NV border. FLARM advertises an effective
> range of 2-3 km, or 1 to 1.5 nm. Given a head-on approach between two
> gliders, each running at a TAS of 150 knots, you'll be lucky to get 10
> seconds of warning. Might work for an ex-fighter pilot, but that's not
> much time for someone like me...

[Marc Ramsey]

Bert Willing wrote:
> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
> . com...
>> I also suspect that FLARM won't do much to help where I'm most concerned
>> about a collision with another glider, the ridge running down the White
>> and Inyo mountains near the CA/NV border. FLARM advertises an effective
>> range of 2-3 km, or 1 to 1.5 nm. Given a head-on approach between two
>> gliders, each running at a TAS of 150 knots, you'll be lucky to get 10
>> seconds of warning. Might work for an ex-fighter pilot, but that's not
>> much time for someone like me...
>
> You're wrong there, Marc. I'm not an ex-fighter pilot, and I had this
> warning from my Flarm on the ridge. I took an evasive action and we
> didn't collide. 10 sec is a lot when something is yelling at you.

Real world experience definitely trumps my speculation.

By the way, if anyone here in the US is interested, for another project
I've found multiple sources of FCC approved (no conformance testing
required, if used with specific antennas) 900 MHz RF modules with as
much as 20 mile line of sight range using 1/2 wave whip antennas. There
might be a way to do this without a huge up-front hardware and
certification costs. Software and testing would still be a big effort...

Marc

[[email protected]]

The batteries should last 11 years and cost 12k Euros to replace.
Best Regards, Dave

[Shawn]

wrote:
> The batteries should last 11 years and cost 12k Euros to replace.
> Best Regards, Dave

I'd been reading e-mails from a Yahoo group about replacing batteries in
PDAs and got confused for a moment =:-O

How many charge/discharge cycles do they figure?

Shawn

[[email protected]]

>> How many charge/discharge cycles do they figure?

More than your PDA ;-)
There's more detail on the Lange web site under FAQs
http://www.lange-flugzeugbau.de/bilder/pdf/daten-batterie-engl.pdf
Hope that helps !
Best Regards, Dave

[Ramy]

Did anyone figured out the cost per, say, 1000ft of altitude, giving
the battery replacement cost, charging cost, engine maintainance etc?
It would be interesting to see a comparisom between electric glider,
motorgliders, aerotows and winch tows as for the overall cost per
1000ft of altitude.

Ramy

[Ramy]

> You could get 200 US glider pilots to chip in $500 on something that
> won't increase their L/D? You must be quite a salesman 8^)

I for one, will be more than happy to chip in $500 for something that
will significantly increase safety. Most of us spend up to about $1000
on parachutes which we probably never use, so why not a Flarm like
device? I hope someone will either license the Flarm or produce
something similar, and then make it mandatory... Till then we will
continue average at least one mid air per year in the US...

Ramy

[Eric Greenwell]

Ramy wrote:
>>You could get 200 US glider pilots to chip in $500 on something that
>>won't increase their L/D? You must be quite a salesman 8^)
>
>
> I for one, will be more than happy to chip in $500 for something that
> will significantly increase safety. Most of us spend up to about $1000
> on parachutes which we probably never use, so why not a Flarm like
> device? I hope someone will either license the Flarm or produce
> something similar, and then make it mandatory... Till then we will
> continue average at least one mid air per year in the US...

I gave a short presentation on FLARM at the 2005 SSA convention, and
have tried to generate some interest in it. Very few people have had any
interest in it, unlike the huge response in Europe. I think the
difference is we don't have nearly the mid-air collision problem that
they do in the Alps, Pyrenees, and other places. Their airspace can be
far denser with gliders than ours, even including the White mountains
and the ridge-runners along the Alleghenies, and as a result, they run
into each other more frequently.

The poor response I get may be reasonable: personally, I think a
transponder is a better value at, say, $2000, than FLARM at $620Euro
(US$745). My experience is the glider that is likely to run into me is
the one I'm thermalling with and already know about. Except for
contests, I see more airplanes en route than gliders.

Even so, I hope people will pursue it. There are mitigating features;
for example, the FLARM will log a flight in IGC format, though it's not
secure at this point. If that happened, it wouldn't cost much more than
just an IGC logger. Busy clubs could benefit from it's use with a ground
station and automatic logging of tows and club glider use by it's
members, and there are other applications under way.

Besides technical people, I think we need some good lawyers that can
analyze the liability situation, then create a means to license or
otherwise acquire the technology from FLARM that would ease the concerns
of the FLARM developers.

I'd be willing to chip in at least $200 for starters.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

www.motorglider.org

[Jeremy Zawodny]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
>
> I also suspect that FLARM won't do much to help where I'm most concerned
> about a collision with another glider, the ridge running down the White
> and Inyo mountains near the CA/NV border. FLARM advertises an effective
> range of 2-3 km, or 1 to 1.5 nm. Given a head-on approach between two
> gliders, each running at a TAS of 150 knots, you'll be lucky to get 10
> seconds of warning. Might work for an ex-fighter pilot, but that's not
> much time for someone like me...

But in the case of running the Whites, there's a radio procedure in place.

http://www.soaringsafety.org/presentation/Nose2Nose_2002.ppt

Any idea how universally adopted (or not) it is?

Jeremy

[Ramy Yanetz]

At the risk of further hijacking the thread , may I suggest pilots not to
turn off their transponders when flying over the white mountains? Some of us
nowadays are equipped with low cost TPAS and would like to receive your
transponder signal...

Ramy

"Jeremy Zawodny" > wrote in message
...

> But in the case of running the Whites, there's a radio procedure in place.
>
> http://www.soaringsafety.org/presentation/Nose2Nose_2002.ppt
>
> Any idea how universally adopted (or not) it is?
>
> Jeremy

[[email protected]]

> Did anyone figured out the cost....

Are you mad ? If we knew the real cost we'd never fly !
Especially if our spouses knew the real cost !
See ya, Dave

[Ramy]

Actually, I may try to convince wife it may be cheaper on the long run
to buy a motorglider (or electric glider) then pay for aerotows, but I
need numbers...

Ramy

[bumper]

"Ramy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Actually, I may try to convince wife it may be cheaper on the long run
> to buy a motorglider (or electric glider) then pay for aerotows, but I
> need numbers...
>
> Ramy
>

Actually, it's probably best to forget about using numbers, as that implies
that you will try to use logic and fact . . . and we all know *that* won't
work.

Naw, overall it's probably more expensive to operate a self-launch. But that
extra money buys amazing versatility, the ability to go where pure gliders
can't (or at least not without a retrieve), And the convenience of always
having your "tow plane" tucked away conveniently along for the ride.

Purist?? Hawks and eagles self-launch!

bumper
ASH26E
Minden, NV

[RichardFreytag]

I did a very rough analysis of another glider instrument, probable
market size, and necessary pricing here:
https://www.freytag.us/twiki/bin/view/Freytag/GliderLiftDetectors

The good thing about the FLARM is that the design/function is resolved
so your costs are reduced there. But then you still have the risks of
distribution and, implicit, support.

Cheers,
Richard "H3"

Ramy wrote:
> > You could get 200 US glider pilots to chip in $500 on something that
> > won't increase their L/D? You must be quite a salesman 8^)
>
> I for one, will be more than happy to chip in $500 for something that
> will significantly increase safety. Most of us spend up to about $1000
> on parachutes which we probably never use, so why not a Flarm like
> device? I hope someone will either license the Flarm or produce
> something similar, and then make it mandatory... Till then we will
> continue average at least one mid air per year in the US...
>
> Ramy

[Eric Greenwell]

Ramy wrote:
> Actually, I may try to convince wife it may be cheaper on the long run
> to buy a motorglider (or electric glider) then pay for aerotows, but I
> need numbers...

And here they are!

If you already own a glider, then YOU may be able to afford a high
performance, self-launching sailplane (SLS)! Let me show you how:

The first thing to realize is the motor is about a $20,000-25,000
premium over a similar used unpowered glider (more if you are buying a
new one). Check the ads for gliders that are available both ways, such
as the PIK20E, Ventus CM, DG-400, and so on. Here's an example of what
it might cost an active pilot living in Seattle, WA, and driving the 150
miles to fly at Ephrata, WA:

Additional costs:

$1250 interest cost on the $25,000 motor purchase @ 5%
100 annual on the motor
300 extra insurance due to higher value with the motor
100 fuel and oil for 40 launches
------
$1750 Total additional costs

Avoided costs:

$1400 40 regular tows at $35/tow
300 3 aero-retrieves at $100 each
100 2 car retrieves plus dinner for crew
-----
$1800 Total avoided costs

Net cost: approximately $Zero

The analysis assumes you fly the exactly same way with the SLS as you
did before it, but as you adapt to the SLS, you will find yourself using
the extra soaring opportunities it provides: flying from airports
without a towplane, or when a towpilot isn't available; flying
cross-country when you otherwise wouldn't, because the conditions are
weak, unpredictable or the lift is beyond an easy tow. So let's include
some of this potential as another "avoided cost":

$450

three weekends flying from or near where you live (Seattle in this
case), avoiding travel to Ephrata ($60), motel ($40/night), and food
($50 for two days). Of course, you don't actually have to fly on a
weekend, if you can get afternoons off during the week.

Net cost: $1750 - $1800 - 420= $500 cheaper to fly a SLS!

The above analysis ignores repair costs (routine maintenance is small)
on the engine, which are difficult to quantify because they don't occur
predictably and vary considerably with the age and type of the motor.
Factoring in these costs might show a SLS is more expensive to fly. Even
so, for an active pilot, the additional cost of the SLS may be easily
outweighed by the advantages, providing the pilot can afford the extra
purchase price due to the motor. If not, or if the pilot is not so
active, a partnership can make the costs attractive, while the
versatility of the SLS ensures that both pilots get most, perhaps all,
the flying they wish. As in any glider partnership, each partner is now
responsible for only half the costs.

My point is that the SLS is not as expensive as it seems, if a good
accounting of the avoided costs and the effect of its versatility is
fully considered. A similar analysis can be made for sustainer type
(e.g., Ventus BT) and "touring" style (e.g., Grob 109, Ximango)
motorgliders. For example, someone that flies airplanes and gliders
might discover the touring motorglider does both well enough that only
one aircraft is required.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[[email protected]]

>> Net cost: $1750 - $1800 - 420= $500 cheaper to fly a SLS!

I was thinking that you can prove anything with statistics,
but justifying a sailplane would be a serious challenge.
This guy is good !

Seriously, I doubt anyone is going to purchase an
Antares to "save money". More likely because:
- its an unbelievably good sailplane, raising the bar in
comfort, handling, and performance,
- the propulsion system is more powerful and reliable
than other alternatives, especially at high density
altitudes, and
- only one lever to operate the propulsion system

Obviously I'm biased !
Best Regards, Dave

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
>>> Net cost: $1750 - $1800 - 420= $500 cheaper to fly a SLS!
>
>
> I was thinking that you can prove anything with statistics, but
> justifying a sailplane would be a serious challenge.
>
> Seriously, I doubt anyone is going to purchase an Antares to "save
> money". More likely because: - its an unbelievably good sailplane,
> raising the bar in comfort, handling, and performance,

And this why I think it's worthwhile to consider only the cost of the
motor when looking at costs of an SLSversus an upowered glider. Some
people think an SLS is expensive because they look at the total of a
sailplane with the motor, not realizing most of that money is buying a
high performance glider, fancy instruments, and a great trailer.

> - the propulsion system is more powerful and reliable than other
> alternatives, especially at high density altitudes, and - only one
> lever to operate the propulsion system

I expect the electric gliders to have more predictable costs than the
gasoline powered alternatives, because electric motors tend to be much
more reliable. Exactly how long the batteries will last before they need
replacing isn't known, but it's still more predictable than when you'll
have a problem with your gasoline engine. And without a doubt, you will
be able to replace the battery with a cheaper, lighter, and more
powerful battery 5 or 10 years. That doesn't happen with the gasoline
motors!

> This guy is good!

Wait till you hear me tell you how explain to your spouse why her
financial well-being depends on you getting an expensive glider!

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[robert]

I recently had a year off from gliding and have come back to my gliding club
(www.ddsc.org.au) in Australia, to find the whole club fleet and most
private owners Flarm equipped. I believe we are the first fully equipped
club in Australia.

While getting checked out again over the last weeks in the club's two
seaters, I have to say the Flarm is amazingly good.

It is simply, predictable and will be going into our Nimbus soon.

Robert

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
om...
> Bert Willing wrote:
>> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
>> . com...
>>> I also suspect that FLARM won't do much to help where I'm most concerned
>>> about a collision with another glider, the ridge running down the White
>>> and Inyo mountains near the CA/NV border. FLARM advertises an effective
>>> range of 2-3 km, or 1 to 1.5 nm. Given a head-on approach between two
>>> gliders, each running at a TAS of 150 knots, you'll be lucky to get 10
>>> seconds of warning. Might work for an ex-fighter pilot, but that's not
>>> much time for someone like me...
>> You're wrong there, Marc. I'm not an ex-fighter pilot, and I had this
> > warning from my Flarm on the ridge. I took an evasive action and we
> > didn't collide. 10 sec is a lot when something is yelling at you.
>
> Real world experience definitely trumps my speculation.
>
> By the way, if anyone here in the US is interested, for another project
> I've found multiple sources of FCC approved (no conformance testing
> required, if used with specific antennas) 900 MHz RF modules with as much
> as 20 mile line of sight range using 1/2 wave whip antennas. There might
> be a way to do this without a huge up-front hardware and certification
> costs. Software and testing would still be a big effort...
>
> Marc

[PB]

To add to what Robert wrote:

It is actually the OzFlearm - a unit manufactured in Australia based and
fully compatible with the original Flarm. Details at
http://www.rf-developments.com/page008.html

The money for club gliders and 2 tugs were raised by asking members for
donations.

Paul

robert wrote:
> I recently had a year off from gliding and have come back to my gliding club
> (www.ddsc.org.au) in Australia, to find the whole club fleet and most
> private owners Flarm equipped. I believe we are the first fully equipped
> club in Australia.
>
> While getting checked out again over the last weeks in the club's two
> seaters, I have to say the Flarm is amazingly good.
>
> It is simply, predictable and will be going into our Nimbus soon.
>
> Robert
>
> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
> om...
>

[Ramy Yanetz]

Well, maybe this is the answer for the US market? A quick scan of their web
site didn't reveal and restrictions to use in the US. So a question to all
glider instruments dealers in the US, what will it take to start selling
this unit in the U.S.?
I think if it will be IGC approved, we have a winner, and soon other flight
recorders will follow by offering flarm functionality...

Ramy

"PB" > wrote in message
...
> To add to what Robert wrote:
>
> It is actually the OzFlearm - a unit manufactured in Australia based and
> fully compatible with the original Flarm. Details at
> http://www.rf-developments.com/page008.html
>
> The money for club gliders and 2 tugs were raised by asking members for
> donations.
>
> Paul
>
> robert wrote:
>> I recently had a year off from gliding and have come back to my gliding
>> club (www.ddsc.org.au) in Australia, to find the whole club fleet and
>> most private owners Flarm equipped. I believe we are the first fully
>> equipped club in Australia.
>>
>> While getting checked out again over the last weeks in the club's two
>> seaters, I have to say the Flarm is amazingly good.
>>
>> It is simply, predictable and will be going into our Nimbus soon.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
>> om...
>>