Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:04 AM - Re: Flightcom Intercom (Neil Henderson)
2. 06:15 AM - Must-See TV (Eric M. Jones)
3. 06:37 AM - Re: Flightcom Intercom (Brian Lloyd)
4. 06:42 AM - Re: Avg Power Consumption (Brian Lloyd)
5. 06:48 AM - Re: Flightcom Intercom (Tim Olson)
6. 06:51 AM - Re: Flightcom Intercom (Brian Lloyd)
7. 07:53 AM - Re: Flightcom Intercom (earl_schroeder@juno.com)
8. 08:06 AM - Re: Flightcom Intercom (Jon Finley)
9. 11:44 AM - Resetting CB in flight//Not in Russia (Paul Messinger)
10. 11:46 AM - Re: Avg Power Consumption (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 03:37 PM - Re: Horizontal contactor (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 08:04 PM - Firewall goop (Fergus Kyle)
13. 08:47 PM - Radio Range (Larry Bowen)
14. 08:55 PM - Re: Radio Range (BobsV35B@aol.com)
15. 09:12 PM - Re: Radio Range (Larry Bowen)
16. 09:22 PM - Re: Radio Range (BobsV35B@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flightcom Intercom |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Neil Henderson" <neil.mo51@btopenworld.com>
Brian
Presumably the intercom would still work, both would be able to transmit at the
same time. This must be the case with RST unit because the PTT buttons are connected
in parallel directly into the radio. I think I might connect it up and
see. Doe's anyone see a problem with this.
In answer to Peter's question. I can't get to work properly despite being looked
at by an electronic wiss kid,that's why I'm replacing it. The squelch control
pretty indeterminate and the signal to noise ratio is unacceptable, maybe due
to the fact that I modified it as built in unit by remote mounting the pot's
and switch. RST are not prepared to check it out in this form. The standard RST
unit was only availlable as a portable unit.
Neil
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Neil Henderson"
> <neil.mo51@btopenworld.com>
>
>
> Listers
>
>
> I have just purchased a Flightcom 403mc intercom to replace an
> existing intercom which I built from a RST Engineering kit and doesn't
> work very well. The aircraft,Vans RV9, has a Microair 760 and is
> already hard wired. The PTT buttons are wired directly into the radio
> but the 403mc calls for them to be wired through the intercom. I have
> a "D" connector with easy access for Mic and Headphones but the push
> to talk buttons go straight to the radio and are difficult to access
> without a major rewired. Will the intercom work with just the Pilot /
> Co Pilot Mic and Headphones connected or must their be a PPT
> connection to the 403mc.
The PTT connection is needed to tell the intercom which mic to mute.
When the pilot's PTT is pressed the intercom mutes the copilot's mic
going into the radio and vice versa. So, yes, you need to wire the PTT
lines through the intercom.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I was thinking of purchasing Jim Weir's intercom.
You stated that the RST intercom "doesn't
> > work very well." Would you elaborate on this?.
Is it a faulty circuit or in your opinion a not so great design?
Peter Laurence
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
The "Black Sky" TV program detailing Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne and the
winning of the X-prize is a must see.
(Do not archive)
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flightcom Intercom |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Oct 7, 2004, at 9:45 AM, Peter Laurence wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Peter Laurence
> <dr.laurence@mbdi.org>
>
>>> Brian,
> I was thinking of purchasing Jim Weir's intercom.
> You stated that the RST intercom "doesn't
>>> work very well." Would you elaborate on this?.
> Is it a faulty circuit or in your opinion a not so great design?
No, that was not from me. I have no experience with Jim's intercom and
so cannot comment. I did build and install his marker beacon receiver
in my RV-4 and was pleased with its performance. Jim seems to know
what he is doing.
YMMV.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Avg Power Consumption |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Oct 7, 2004, at 11:35 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> The 80% rule is intended to cover battery recharge issues. A
> better statement of the rule-of-thumb is to have sufficient
> output to recharge the battery in whatever interval you're
> comfortable
> with. If you like 30 minutes and you have a 17 a.h. battery,
> you need 34 amps of headroom. If you're okay with a 90 minute
> recharge,
> then 6 amps of headroom would do it.
Except that batteries do not recharge linearly. Constant voltage
charging of lead-acid batteries puts most of the electrons back (up to
about 85%) in short order but after that it takes a long time and you
can't get the battery to suck more current without raising the voltage
which will damage the battery. And since you probably haven't drawn
more than a couple of AH out of the battery for starting, you already
have more than 85% when you start recharging. Having a lot more
alternator capacity will not speed charging.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flightcom Intercom |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I can't possibly be the only one wondering this, but, why
don't you just do the job right and wire it as it was intended,
even though it's more work. There's something to be said
about doing the job properly. I b1tch up and down every time
I have to re-do the wiring in our house because I find something
that wasn't done properly. I can only bet that down the road
you'd be far happier if everything actually worked as intended,
and matches the wiring diagram if someone else has to look at
it.
Tim
Neil Henderson wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Neil Henderson"
> <neil.mo51@btopenworld.com>
>
> Brian
>
> Presumably the intercom would still work, both would be able to
> transmit at the same time. This must be the case with RST unit
> because the PTT buttons are connected in parallel directly into the
> radio. I think I might connect it up and see. Doe's anyone see a
> problem with this.
>
> In answer to Peter's question. I can't get to work properly despite
> being looked at by an electronic wiss kid,that's why I'm replacing
> it. The squelch control pretty indeterminate and the signal to noise
> ratio is unacceptable, maybe due to the fact that I modified it as
> built in unit by remote mounting the pot's and switch. RST are not
> prepared to check it out in this form. The standard RST unit was only
> availlable as a portable unit.
>
> Neil
>
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Neil Henderson"
>> <neil.mo51@btopenworld.com>
>>
>>
>> Listers
>>
>>
>> I have just purchased a Flightcom 403mc intercom to replace an
>> existing intercom which I built from a RST Engineering kit and
>> doesn't work very well. The aircraft,Vans RV9, has a Microair 760
>> and is already hard wired. The PTT buttons are wired directly into
>> the radio but the 403mc calls for them to be wired through the
>> intercom. I have a "D" connector with easy access for Mic and
>> Headphones but the push to talk buttons go straight to the radio
>> and are difficult to access without a major rewired. Will the
>> intercom work with just the Pilot / Co Pilot Mic and Headphones
>> connected or must their be a PPT connection to the 403mc.
>
>
> The PTT connection is needed to tell the intercom which mic to mute.
> When the pilot's PTT is pressed the intercom mutes the copilot's mic
> going into the radio and vice versa. So, yes, you need to wire the
> PTT lines through the intercom.
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza brianl@lloyd.com
> Suite 201 +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
>
>
> I was thinking of purchasing Jim Weir's intercom. You stated that the
> RST intercom "doesn't
>
>>> work very well." Would you elaborate on this?.
>
> Is it a faulty circuit or in your opinion a not so great design?
>
> Peter Laurence
>
>
> advertising on the Matronics Forums.
>
>
>
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flightcom Intercom |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Oct 8, 2004, at 9:03 AM, Neil Henderson wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Neil Henderson"
> <neil.mo51@btopenworld.com>
>
> Brian
>
> Presumably the intercom would still work, both would be able to
> transmit at the same time. This must be the case with RST unit because
> the PTT buttons are connected in parallel directly into the radio. I
> think I might connect it up and see. Doe's anyone see a problem with
> this.
No, that should work but you do have the problem of hushing your
passenger when you talk on the radio. Ultimately you are going to find
this annoying and will want to wire the PTTs into the intercom. If it
were me, I would bite the bullet and rewire properly now.
> In answer to Peter's question. I can't get to work properly despite
> being looked at by an electronic wiss kid,that's why I'm replacing it.
> The squelch control pretty indeterminate and the signal to noise ratio
> is unacceptable, maybe due to the fact that I modified it as built in
> unit by remote mounting the pot's and switch. RST are not prepared to
> check it out in this form. The standard RST unit was only availlable
> as a portable unit.
Jim Weir is a bright guy who seems to do a good job designing things.
I am surprised you are having problems if you have built it correctly.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flightcom Intercom |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: earl_schroeder@juno.com
I have a couple of RST intercoms that have worked fine for ~10 years.
Simple straight forward design. If done per the kit, I see no problems
with remote mounting the volume & squelch controls. Earl
> > I was thinking of purchasing Jim Weir's intercom.
> > You stated that the RST intercom "doesn't
> >>> work very well." Would you elaborate on this?.
> > Is it a faulty circuit or in your opinion a not so great design?
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flightcom Intercom |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jon Finley" <Jon@finleyweb.net>
Neil (I think this is your thread), I wired my Flightcom like this several years
ago. I hate it. Getting kids to stop talking so I can communicate with the
tower is VERY hard. Thinking about rewiring it this winter....
Jon
DO NOT ARCHIVE
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
>I can't possibly be the only one wondering this, but, why
>don't you just do the job right and wire it as it was intended,
>even though it's more work. There's something to be said
>about doing the job properly. I b1tch up and down every time
>I have to re-do the wiring in our house because I find something
>that wasn't done properly. I can only bet that down the road
>you'd be far happier if everything actually worked as intended,
>and matches the wiring diagram if someone else has to look at
>it.
>
>Tim
>
>Neil Henderson wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Neil Henderson"
>> <neil.mo51@btopenworld.com>
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> Presumably the intercom would still work, both would be able to
>> transmit at the same time. This must be the case with RST unit
>> because the PTT buttons are connected in parallel directly into the
>> radio. I think I might connect it up and see. Doe's anyone see a
>> problem with this.
>>
>> In answer to Peter's question. I can't get to work properly despite
>> being looked at by an electronic wiss kid,that's why I'm replacing
>> it. The squelch control pretty indeterminate and the signal to noise
>> ratio is unacceptable, maybe due to the fact that I modified it as
>> built in unit by remote mounting the pot's and switch. RST are not
>> prepared to check it out in this form. The standard RST unit was only
>> availlable as a portable unit.
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
>>
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Neil Henderson"
>>> <neil.mo51@btopenworld.com>
>>>
>>>
>>> Listers
>>>
>>>
>>> I have just purchased a Flightcom 403mc intercom to replace an
>>> existing intercom which I built from a RST Engineering kit and
>>> doesn't work very well. The aircraft,Vans RV9, has a Microair 760
>>> and is already hard wired. The PTT buttons are wired directly into
>>> the radio but the 403mc calls for them to be wired through the
>>> intercom. I have a "D" connector with easy access for Mic and
>>> Headphones but the push to talk buttons go straight to the radio
>>> and are difficult to access without a major rewired. Will the
>>> intercom work with just the Pilot / Co Pilot Mic and Headphones
>>> connected or must their be a PPT connection to the 403mc.
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Resetting CB in flight//Not in Russia |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Bob seems to have world wide influence :-) (well its nice to think so).
The October AOPA pilot mag page 98 has an article on a unique twin amphibian
from Russia.
ALL the CB are only accessable from outside, on the ground, as "the mfgr
"does not want popped breakers to be reset in the air.
Paul
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Avg Power Consumption |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:41 AM 10/8/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
>
>On Oct 7, 2004, at 11:35 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> > The 80% rule is intended to cover battery recharge issues. A
> > better statement of the rule-of-thumb is to have sufficient
> > output to recharge the battery in whatever interval you're
> > comfortable
> > with. If you like 30 minutes and you have a 17 a.h. battery,
> > you need 34 amps of headroom. If you're okay with a 90 minute
> > recharge,
> > then 6 amps of headroom would do it.
>
>Except that batteries do not recharge linearly. Constant voltage
>charging of lead-acid batteries puts most of the electrons back (up to
>about 85%) in short order but after that it takes a long time and you
>can't get the battery to suck more current without raising the voltage
>which will damage the battery. And since you probably haven't drawn
>more than a couple of AH out of the battery for starting, you already
>have more than 85% when you start recharging. Having a lot more
>alternator capacity will not speed charging.
That's kind of picking at small straws . . . the nominal bus
voltage setting for most off-the-shelf regulators is already
"too-high". Any lead-acid battery will ULTIMATELY achieve 100%
charge at voltage considerably below the nominal 14.2 setting
of most regulator products. Our recommended nominal setting
on RAC products is 28.5 volts.
You're quite correct that optimum recharging of batteries
can take advantage of some pretty fancy footwork. See:
http://batterytender.com/battery_basics.php
If one has the patience, motivation, budget -AND-
a friendly microprocessor, it's easy to pamper the
airplane's battery. It gets down to return-on-investment
decisions that ask the question, "How much $time$ does
it take to increase a battery's service life by say
10 percent?" I'm trying to answer that question for
RAC right now. As you might guess, there's no real
field data from which one might draw a conclusion.
Lots of lab data but we never see laboratory conditions
in the field. In the mean time, rules-of-thumb rule:
Do you fly lots of LONG flights? 14.2 or even 13.8
may be your magic, room-temp setting. Short flights
once a week? 14.2 to 14.6 might be helpful. But it's
almost a sure bet that few operators will be able to
tell the difference.
When the FAA was crafting the 80% rule, the spirit
and intent was pretty clear. If one takes off with
100% of the generator's output is taxed running ship's
electro-whizzies, the battery may never get recharged.
On the other hand, if you're day-vfr with nothing of
significance turned on, then most of the generator's
energy production is now surplus and may be used to
recharge the battery . . . assuming of course that
the battery will accept it.
I've been proposing smart regulators to the GA
OEMs for about 20 years. To date, B&C is the only supplier
I'm aware of that offers a temperature compensated
regulator. But for 95% of the missions where an RV6
is useful, adding this feature ($75 plus cost of
installation) the return on investment is very
problematical.
I've been working on a White Paper for several weeks
extolling the virtues of elegant charging system
design. However, in the last few paragraphs, I may
have to recommend that these features be considered ONLY
for new airplanes were the whole airplane has to fly
through the hoops of certification. The cost of upgrading
an old airplane are so high that there may be a negative
return on investment. I.e., certification stifles
improvements and may indeed reduce safety.
Our bizjet products see some wide variation of operating
temperatures and we would probably see improvement in battery
life by temperature compensating the recharge voltage.
The goal is to figure out a way to incorporate it with
a minimum number of drawing changes and test plans.
The engineering part is easy. Minimizing the paper-costs
will be the driver for a go/no-go decision.
Wouldn't be surprised that it never happens.
Bob . . .
---
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Horizontal contactor |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:21 AM 10/8/2004 +0200, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
><mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
> >Is there an "ideal" mounting position? Perhaps for the
> >battery contactor . . . a vertical mounting with the business
> >end down will have a very small operating benefit. The greater
> >benefit is to gather condensate in the lid away from the
> >contacts. I might even drill a #40 drain hole in the lowest
> >part of the lid.
>
>Thanks for your explanation. This is another example
>of where knowledge of how things work can help a lot.
>The battery contactor is a black box for me. I have
>only a vague idea what is happening inside. Do you know if
>anyone has cut one open and posted pictures somewhere?
>I guess I could sacrifice one of my new ones, and order
>another. I don't have easy access to used stuff.
>
>Also, which end would you consider the "business end",
>the end with the connections? I was about to mount
>mine with this end up. I guess another thing to add
>to your list of things to do is "Everything you wanted
>to know about contactors, but were afraid to ask".
See page 11-14 of the 'Connection. Also see:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/S701-1a.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/S701-1b.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/S701-1c.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/S701-1d.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/S701-1e.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/S701-1f.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/S701-1l.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/S701-2.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/S702-1a.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/S702-1b.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/S702-1l.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/S702wire.jpg
Bob . . .
---
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Cheers,
I just gooped the rudder bars which infringe upon the firewall
sides. I made overlapping plates either side and gooped the whole opening
with a McMaster-Carr offering of "Grace Flamesafe FS-1900 Sealant" - an
intumescent, elastomeric Firestop". I put the firepot to a copy of the
materials to see, and it kept the flames at bay for at least 15 minutes -
and it's good for one year.
tech assistance at 866-333-3726 or see at www.graceconstruction.com
Ferg
A064
www.mcmaster.com - start with page 1683, or search for fire stop compounds
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
I'm a little disappointed in the range of my comm radio. Inside 20 miles
it's OK, but I was expecting more. It's an SL30 radio with a clean commant
bent-whip antenna under the footwell. What sort of things can I do/check to
ensure I'm getting the max performance from it? At this point I'm
complaining about receiving, I haven't done any testing with max testing
range.
Thanks,
-
Larry Bowen
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 10/8/2004 10:48:18 PM Central Standard Time,
Larry@BowenAero.com writes:
I'm a little disappointed in the range of my comm radio. Inside 20 miles
it's OK, but I was expecting more.
Good Evening Larry,
What signal are you using to determine range. Are you sure that there is a
clear line of sight between your antenna and the radio sending the signal?
The curvature of the earth in twenty miles would put any ground based
transmitter well out of sight over level ground.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
I am use to receiving local tranmisions from within certain areas. I can
usually pick up the atis from xx miles out. I can usually converse with
apch xx miles out. This is unscientifically based on my routines in the
local rental fleet over the last six years. Nothing scientific, just
impressions.........
Thanks,
-
Larry Bowen
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BobsV35B@aol.com [mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 11:52 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio Range
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 10/8/2004 10:48:18 PM Central Standard
> Time, Larry@BowenAero.com writes:
>
> I'm a little disappointed in the range of my comm radio.
> Inside 20 miles it's OK, but I was expecting more.
>
>
> Good Evening Larry,
>
> What signal are you using to determine range. Are you sure
> that there is a clear line of sight between your antenna and
> the radio sending the signal?
>
> The curvature of the earth in twenty miles would put any
> ground based transmitter well out of sight over level ground.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
> ============
> Matronics Forums.
> ============
> ============
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
> ============
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 10/8/2004 11:13:18 PM Central Standard Time,
Larry@BowenAero.com writes:
I am use to receiving local transmissions from within certain areas. I can
usually pick up the atis from xx miles out. I can usually converse with
apch xx miles out. This is unscientifically based on my routines in the
local rental fleet over the last six years. Nothing scientific, just
impressions.........
Thanks,
Good Evening Larry,
If you are comparing a top mounted antenna on a Cessna 150 with a bottom
mounted antenna on a home built, the difference could be dramatic. Be sure that
your new radio is getting the same chance at reception that you were getting
from the rental airplanes.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|