![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Usually a 'better' antenna means one with more gain.
Which means one that is more directional. Which means less sensitive in some areas in exchange for more sensitive in others. Less sensitive in some areas might not be better for a collision avoidance. Perhaps you could focus more on a pancake at you altitude. Maybe a longer vertical dipole would do this. Instead of a dipole made of 2 back to back 1/4 wave elements, I wonder how 2 back to back 5/8 or 1 1/4 wave elements would do? Also, the WiFi folks seem to have settled on a coaxial configuration for the dipole. This fixes the problem of the feed getting in the way of the elements. I'm not sure if it affects the pattern from underneath. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PowerFlarm range tool | Mark628CA | Soaring | 2 | November 17th 15 05:24 AM |
PowerFlarm: 2.7 Vertical Range | [email protected] | Soaring | 8 | April 9th 13 11:27 PM |
PowerFlarm Range Analysis | Richard[_9_] | Soaring | 0 | March 25th 13 04:43 PM |
PowerFlarm BRICK range issues - are we alone???? | Mark | Soaring | 79 | October 17th 12 12:17 PM |
PowerFLarm expected range | [email protected] | Soaring | 6 | August 30th 12 03:43 PM |