PowerFLARM antenna mounts

On Jul 9, 11:34*pm, "Matt Herron Jr." wrote:
On Monday, July 9, 2012 7:10:55 AM UTC-7, Wayne wrote:
There must be some company that builds a nice FLARM compatible 1/2 wave
length base fed antenna similar to the one in the following link.
http://www.spectrumaudio.com/shure-u...JaE95fgjLECFSZ....

Wayne
W7ADK
http://www.soaridaho.com/

"John Godfrey (QT)" *wrote in message
...

On Monday, July 9, 2012 2:31:48 AM UTC-4, FLARM wrote:
> We have published an Application note for the FLARM antenna installation:
>http://powerflarm.us/manuals-softwar...release-notes/
>
> Deep link:
>http://powerflarm.us/wp-content/uplo...ARM_Applicatio...
>
> Still a bit raw, but we will update it with more pictures and examples.

Excellent,

How do I get one of the 1/4 wave whip antenna's shown on p6 of the
Application Note? Who it the manufacturer and what is the part number?

QT

I won't be buying powerFlarm until the antenna installation is as unobtrusive as my Transponder. *Di-pole sticking up above the glare shield doesn't cut it. *Figure out another way. *You have plenty of headroom to boost the power and use a less efficient *1/2 or 1/4 wave antenna. *PowerFlarm needs to step up and fix this problem.

Yep

I share the feeling that the antenna sucks. But the benefit of PF is vastly greater than the annoynace of the antenna.

Eventually a better antenna solution will emerge. The system now is working remarkably well. It would be wiser to think of the present antenna as temporary.

As I have remarked before, the best is the enemy of the good.

To those who are waiting for the best solution, I hope you don’t have a
collision meanwhile. The odds are that you will not. But somebody will.

If you were involved, what do you say at the inquest, or to the lawyers for
the other family?

“I had read it works, but I was waiting for a perfect installation, not
one that is good enough to avoid collisions. Sorry about your loss, but
tough.�

How deep are your, or your estate’s, pockets?

Chris N.

I'm curious about the requirement for the secondary PowerFlarm dipole
antenna to be oriented vertically. I flew with a rental box in the R8
contest and had great results. I did, however, mount the secondary dipole
horizontally at the forward edge of the glare shield. This was based on
conversations with radio & avionics folks that had looked at these
particular antennas with a spectrum analyzer and found no difference in
performance based on orientation. We also couldn't think of a scenario
where the signal would need to be polarized. Is there a PowerFlarm expert
out there that can shed some light on this.

Thanks,
Craig


On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 20:42:39 -0700, Dave Nadler wrote:

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 12:16:38 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
Having a glare-shield mounted antenna is like sitting behind a support
column at a basketball game.

Complete Nonsense. The antenna and any decent
mount are thin, and you won't notice them after
5 minutes. The angle blocked is only slightly
more than your yaw string.

Are you going to remove your yaw string too ?

Really now.


--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Jul 9, 10:34*pm, "Matt Herron Jr." wrote:
I won't be buying powerFlarm until the antenna installation is as unobtrusive as my Transponder. *Di-pole sticking up above the glare shield doesn't cut it. *Figure out another way. *You have plenty of headroom to boost the power and use a less efficient *1/2 or 1/4 wave antenna. *PowerFlarm needs to step up and fix this problem.-

Certainly agree with the statement about power. FLARM recognized at
the start of development of the US FLARM that a higher power would be
required than for the rest of the world. This I assume was based on
the fact that the ISM band, which also happens to be the 33cm amateur
band, has multiple users, some using much higher power transmitters.
I have not seen any statement from FLARM indicating why a higher power
transmitter was not used when we had been told it would be required.

The limited field testing of PF has provided reports that the system
works as intended. How much, if any, of that flight testing has been
done in the vicinity a large metropolitan areas where interference
from other band users will likely be much greater than out in the
boonies of Utah?

Andy

On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 7:34:00 AM UTC+2, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
I won't be buying powerFlarm until the antenna installation
is as unobtrusive as my Transponder.
Can you elaborate on your transponder antenna installation? We are pretty sure the PowerFLARM antenna has less requirements than your transponder...

Di-pole sticking up above the glare shield doesn't cut it.

Relax guys.
The location above the glare shield is not required in most gliders for the core collision avoidance functionality, which needs a range of only about one nautical mile.

The reason the antenna type/placement has become a big discussion is that:
1) Initial PowerFLARM hardware had interference issues in some US location, we have since added a bandpass filter and will be upgrading existing units for free.

2) Our initial installation instructions were quite poor and some user installations violated basic antenna placement rules. This resulted in poor range, also for the well installed receiving aircraft.

3) Some pilots want the maximum possible range for tactical or entertainment purposes. That maximum is only achievable in the best location which often happens to be above the glare shield.

On Jul 9, 10:34*pm, "Matt Herron Jr." wrote:
I won't be buying powerFlarm until the antenna installation is as unobtrusive as my Transponder.

Please see the latest response from the FLARM folks. BUT, please
remember that:

1) The PowerFLARM runs at a *much* lower power level than
Transponders. That means that antenna placement and visibility is
always going to be a slightly touchier issue than with transponders.

2) The Dipole is only 3 inches long (tip to tip) and very
unobtrusive.
I again refer you to the in-flight photo of my installation:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/noel_wade/7518094912/
And again, here's Tim Taylor's installation:
https://plus.google.com/photos/10893...22263754238914

So...
Is the FLARM antenna situation annoying? Yes.
Are there a few details about the PowerFLARM that I wish were
different? Yes.
Is it OK to grumble about this stuff? Sure.
Are people blowing the issues up larger than they need to be (on both
sides)? Yes.
Is the antenna situation a good reason to avoid buying it? Hell No!

I challenge anyone to find a PowerFLARM user who has installed the
system (after the initial range issues were sorted), and doesn't want
it or doesn't like using it.

--Noel

On 7/5/2012 5:35 AM, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:

Thanks,
Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"

PS: If you're interested in a mount for a flat-top
glare-shield (SH, etc) - send Rex a note.

End fed dipole could also be very thin.

"Fat" antennas are used to broaden the frequency range of the antenna,
but I don't know if that is the reason for the PowerFlarm antenna width.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On 7/8/2012 10:31 PM, Chris Nicholas wrote:
We are all faced with fitting these things to legacy gliders of
varying geometry and materials. The carbon fibre fuselage seems to
pose most problems.

I hope glider designers in future make installation of transponders,
Flarm and PowerFlarm etc. easier, without dead spots or vision
impairment.

You can already order your new glider with a transponder antenna, and
I'm sure you'll be able to order it with PowerFlarm antennas, once
PowerFlarm settles on a design (some time next year?).

I like the idea of mounting the brick in the top of the tail, where a
lot of gliders have a place for battery. My glider already has a two
wire cable there with 12 volts on it. I'd still have to run a cable
forward to the display.

The antennas could mounted inside the box in some cases; otherwise, the
two antennas could be mounted on a short extension of the TE probe
mount. The TE mount location should give the antennas an awesome view of
the world, even on a carbon glider; mounting in the box could also work
well on gliders with non-carbon horizontal stabilizers.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On 7/10/2012 10:04 AM, Steve Koerner wrote:
I share the feeling that the antenna sucks. But the benefit of PF is
vastly greater than the annoynace of the antenna.

Eventually a better antenna solution will emerge. The system now is
working remarkably well. It would be wiser to think of the present
antenna as temporary.

Yep. I have portable PF with two antennas sticking up. I didn't like
that the first few flights, but after seeing how much less tense it was
when thermalling with other PF equipped glider - I got over it.

Next season I'll install the perfect setup.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)