Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:21 AM - Handheld Trancievers (Dan Billingsley)
2. 06:39 AM - Re: Handheld Trancievers (Don Smythe)
3. 07:11 AM - Re: (off-topic) Keyboard. WAS: why tailwheel (Lynn Matteson)
4. 07:18 AM - Re: why tailwheels (Lynn Matteson)
5. 07:29 AM - Re: (off-topic) Keyboard. WAS: why tailwheel (Lynn Matteson)
6. 07:35 AM - I'm goin' flyin'... (Lynn Matteson)
7. 10:14 AM - Re: Handheld Trancievers (Roger Standley)
8. 04:17 PM - Lowell Etc (Dave and Diane)
9. 04:41 PM - Re: Lowell Etc (John Oakley)
10. 05:40 PM - Re: Re: Ethanol and wing tanks Ethanol and wing tanks (Noel Loveys)
11. 06:18 PM - Re: Handheld Trancievers (Noel Loveys)
12. 07:31 PM - Re: Handheld Trancievers (Dan Billingsley)
13. 07:37 PM - Re: Handheld Trancievers (kirkhull)
14. 07:58 PM - Ignition switch question (Dave G.)
15. 08:31 PM - Re: Handheld Trancievers (Noel Loveys)
16. 09:55 PM - Handheld Trancievers (Jim Crowder)
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: | Handheld Trancievers |
Last December I purchased one of the Icom A-24 Nav Coms. I had used it several
times to monitor frequencies, yet I hadn't used it to transmit until our radio
went south on the way back from Oshkosh this year. The receiving (voice)does
ok, however, transmitting is a different story. I couldn't raise anyone. I found
that towers couldn't receive me until I was direct line of sight and within
2 miles. My $50 walkie talkies beat the heck out of that!
I wasn't impressed with the Nav end of it either. I have tried it on several
occasions flying to and from VOR's and if I rated it on a scale of 1-10 I would
give it a 2. I certainly couldn't depend on it.... If I did I would end up
in Timbuktu.
I sent the radio in to Icom believing that there was a problem with it. I got
it back with a note indicating that it checked out fine on the bench and that
I should always use a well charged battery...hmmm. Sound advice, that is if I
hadn't already tested it with a freshly charged battery. Of course it didn't
work any better after I got it back.
So I was wondering if anyone else has tried using this unit with better success?
Dan B.
Mesa
Kitfox IV (building) 314DW
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Handheld Trancievers |
Yes, but only with an external antenna and power. Mine wouldn't work
that well in the cockpit using the rubber duckie only. Now, it works
fine out to at least 15+ miles and the tower has no problem receiving
(I've asked them several times). I've never even tried the Nav portion.
Don Smythe
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Billingsley
To: kitfox-list
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 9:20 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Handheld Trancievers
Last December I purchased one of the Icom A-24 Nav Coms. I had used it
several times to monitor frequencies, yet I hadn't used it to transmit
until our radio went south on the way back from Oshkosh this year. The
receiving (voice)does ok, however, transmitting is a different story. I
couldn't raise anyone. I found that towers couldn't receive me until I
was direct line of sight and within 2 miles. My $50 walkie talkies beat
the heck out of that!
I wasn't impressed with the Nav end of it either. I have tried it on
several occasions flying to and from VOR's and if I rated it on a scale
of 1-10 I would give it a 2. I certainly couldn't depend on it.... If I
did I would end up in Timbuktu.
I sent the radio in to Icom believing that there was a problem with
it. I got it back with a note indicating that it checked out fine on the
bench and that I should always use a well charged battery...hmmm. Sound
advice, that is if I hadn't already tested it with a freshly charged
battery. Of course it didn't work any better after I got it back.
So I was wondering if anyone else has tried using this unit with
better success?
Dan B.
Mesa
Kitfox IV (building) 314DW
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: (off-topic) Keyboard. WAS: why tailwheel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Yes, they all came through...on my machine at least.
Lynn
do not archive
On Saturday, August 19, 2006, at 08:50 AM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> On Aug 19, 2006, at 2:10 PM, Lynn Matteson wrote:
>> Jose' - (sorry, my computer won't let me put the accent where it
>> belongs...I'm on an eMac...any help, Michel?)
>
> Gosh! Yes, the Mac has all the alternative characters on the keyboard,
> unlike the PC, Lynn. But I can't tell you which one because I have a
> Norwegian QWERTY keyboard it yours is different. I write many times in
> Norwegian, French and even Spanish, and find easily the different
> characters particular to those languages but the problem is: The
> Matronics list won't accept any thing else that English characters. It
> was like that in the past and I guess it is still so. Here is a try:
>
> Norwegian letters: , ,
> French characters: , , ,
> Spanish characters: , ,
> French/Scandinavian/Spanish quotes (guillemets): ,
> Typographic quotes: ,
> Em-dash:
> Degree:
> ... let see if any of these come through the list.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
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: why tailwheels |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
I couldn't figure out all that nonsense either, Rex...and what about
the "getting you home from a long trip"? I just mentally put that whole
bit into the "round file"...
Lynn
On Saturday, August 19, 2006, at 05:37 PM, Rexster wrote:
> The only reason tricycle gear was used in early aircraft is that they
> were unknown technology?
>
> WHAT?
>
> The heavier nosewheelis too much for very marginal engine power and
> therefore gives better performance???
>
> Do either of these two sentences even make any sense?
>
> Both statements are contradictory.
>
>
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: (off-topic) Keyboard. WAS: why tailwheel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Thanks, Jos`e...(this is as close as I can get, so I'm going to accept
your "permission", and just use Jose. : ) )
Lynn
do not archive
On Saturday, August 19, 2006, at 09:27 PM, Jose M. Toro wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jose M. Toro"
> <jose_m_toro@yahoo.com>
>
> Lynn: Its ok with me to replace Jos with Jose.
> Michel: your Macintosh is amazing...like a TD...
>
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2006, at 2:10 PM, Lynn Matteson wrote:
>>> Jose' - (sorry, my computer won't let me put the
>> accent where it
>>> belongs...I'm on an eMac...any help, Michel?)
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: | I'm goin' flyin'... |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt@jps.net>
Enough with all this computer talk...I'm goin' flyin'....
It's race day here in Michigan, and the track (Michigan International
Speedway) is 4.5 miles from my hangar. NOTAM says stay 3 miles away, so
I can just barely sneak out for some flight maneuver practice...and
duck the helicopters, jets, banner towing rigs, etc. Oughtta be fun!
Of course, then I get to come back and watch the race...GO Junior!
Lynn
do not archive
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: Handheld Trancievers |
We use a IC-A22 with internal whip antenna in the Champ (no battery
electrical system) and regularly make calls entering Class Delta from
about 10 miles out with no problems. We keep the A22 on the re-charger
when it is not flying so we always go out with a fresh charge.
Roger
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Smythe<mailto:dosmythe@cox.net>
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com<mailto:kitfox-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Handheld Trancievers
Yes, but only with an external antenna and power. Mine wouldn't work
that well in the cockpit using the rubber duckie only. Now, it works
fine out to at least 15+ miles and the tower has no problem receiving
(I've asked them several times). I've never even tried the Nav portion.
Don Smythe
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Billingsley<mailto:dan@azshowersolutions.com>
To: kitfox-list<mailto:kitfox-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 9:20 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Handheld Trancievers
Last December I purchased one of the Icom A-24 Nav Coms. I had used
it several times to monitor frequencies, yet I hadn't used it to
transmit until our radio went south on the way back from Oshkosh this
year. The receiving (voice)does ok, however, transmitting is a different
story. I couldn't raise anyone. I found that towers couldn't receive me
until I was direct line of sight and within 2 miles. My $50 walkie
talkies beat the heck out of that!
I wasn't impressed with the Nav end of it either. I have tried it
on several occasions flying to and from VOR's and if I rated it on a
scale of 1-10 I would give it a 2. I certainly couldn't depend on it....
If I did I would end up in Timbuktu.
I sent the radio in to Icom believing that there was a problem with
it. I got it back with a note indicating that it checked out fine on the
bench and that I should always use a well charged battery...hmmm. Sound
advice, that is if I hadn't already tested it with a freshly charged
battery. Of course it didn't work any better after I got it back.
So I was wondering if anyone else has tried using this unit with
better success?
Dan B.
Mesa
Kitfox IV (building) 314DW
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List<http://www.matronics.com/N
avigator?Kitfox-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dave and Diane <ddsyverson@comcast.net>
Hey guys,
This is just too cool not to say something!
I have been out in the shed working on my Kitfox all day, (actually got
something done too); then came in for supper.
While the evening national news was rolling (OK - I multitask news and supper
so I can get back on the 'fox), a segment came on about commuting by light
aircraft including Cameron Park and with a Kitfox with comment by Lowell.
Kitfox, national news, why not!!! (Yes, we even get national news in
Minnesota)
So Lowell, Now I know what you look like and .... with any luck at all I hope
It won't be too long till I can get to some of the events and get acquainted
with other Kitfoxers.
My wife and I are planning on using our model 7 as much as possible for
traveling the country when we get it done. We're pretty much good at sleeping
in the desert or mountains on the ground for a couple weeks at a time - the
Kitfox should be a good fit.
Anyway - everyone out there still building like I am - I hope you had a chance
to see the news segment - this is about as good as it gets for motivation to
get the project done and get out there and fly.
Just for the record - what people in this group are doing is pretty special.
Dave S
St Paul, MN
M-7
Do Not Archive
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 |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Oakley" <john@leptron.com>
Dave S,
Keep working, it is a really great moment when you take to the sky. I took 5
years to build but, on every flight I grin and wonder what life would be
like with out this plane. Flights into the Idaho primitive area and even to
the local burger shop are always a joy. Nine years of flight and I love
every one.
John Oakley
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave and Diane
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 4:27 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Lowell Etc
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dave and Diane <ddsyverson@comcast.net>
Hey guys,
This is just too cool not to say something!
I have been out in the shed working on my Kitfox all day, (actually got
something done too); then came in for supper.
While the evening national news was rolling (OK - I multitask news and
supper
so I can get back on the 'fox), a segment came on about commuting by light
aircraft including Cameron Park and with a Kitfox with comment by Lowell.
Kitfox, national news, why not!!! (Yes, we even get national news in
Minnesota)
So Lowell, Now I know what you look like and .... with any luck at all I
hope
It won't be too long till I can get to some of the events and get acquainted
with other Kitfoxers.
My wife and I are planning on using our model 7 as much as possible for
traveling the country when we get it done. We're pretty much good at
sleeping
in the desert or mountains on the ground for a couple weeks at a time - the
Kitfox should be a good fit.
Anyway - everyone out there still building like I am - I hope you had a
chance
to see the news segment - this is about as good as it gets for motivation to
get the project done and get out there and fly.
Just for the record - what people in this group are doing is pretty special.
Dave S
St Paul, MN
M-7
Do Not Archive
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: Ethanol and wing tanks Ethanol and wing tanks |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Noel
>
> "Often it's done by pure extrapolation. A more reliable method,
> however, is through the use of so-called performance numbers.
> Briefly, these are arrived at by determining the instantaneous mean
> effective cylinder pressure (IMEP), using the fuel under test, at the
> highest boost that does not cause knocking. This number is then
> multiplied by 100 and the resultant is divided by the IMEP at the
> highest boost that does not cause knocking on the 100 octane
> equivalent fuel.
**I agree. This is factual. And what they are getting at is a rating is
simply a comparison.
> "Note that, technically, there is no such thing as an octane number
> above 100. If you're at a party, avoid saying things like '110 octane
> gasoline' because people will get up and walk away from you. You
> should say, instead, 'a gasoline with a performance number of 110.'
> That will bring the help scurrying over with more champagne."
**Viva La Champagne! Can I get dark rum with that? Technically we are
getting into semantics a bit but you're right again.
> I don't know why you think that. I just pointed out the definition
> of octane rating versus other performance ratings.
**I believe your word was octane <<percentage>> I was talking about "rating"
so extrapolation or mathematical assessment is all that is available. E.g.
Some gasoline available today may not have any octane at all. Would their
octane rating be "0"???, How does one then assign an octane rating to
ethanol??? Is there any heptanes in 100 octane gas, or should I call it
motor fuel??
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: | Handheld Trancievers |
The problem with using the "rubber ducky" inside the cockpit of your kit
fox
is called parasitic interference. To try to put it into simple terms
this
means the the frame of the aircraft is absorbing some of the output of
the
transmitter and almost like judo is using the transmitters own power
against
itself.
The one really great thing you can do for your transmission is to use a
tuned antenna. Get an avionics tech or a ham who is active on VHF to
hook
up a "Bird Watt Meter" between your transceiver and the connection
where
your antenna plugs into the transceiver. This instrument will tell the
teckkie how to set up your antenna for the best performance. One thing
that
can really affect the range is the size of the ground plane for your
antenna. The ground plane for air band should be around 47.24" in
diameter
or a series of 23.6" radials stretching out from the base of the
antenna.
It can be made of just about any conductive metal and should be grounded
via
the braid on your antenna coax. I think there are even some ground
planes
that are simply foil adhered to the inside of aircraft skin ( if the
skin
isn't metal). Of course the frame of the aircraft can also make a very
good
ground plane too.
VHF for most intents and purposes is a line of sight transmission.
There is
a formula for the distance that can be transmitted under normal
conditions.
Aircraft tend to fly over objects so range is pretty good. But.... If
you
get into a deep valley or behind a mountain or some other large
obstruction
don't expect your little VHF radio to punch through for you.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Smythe
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Handheld Trancievers
Yes, but only with an external antenna and power. Mine wouldn't work
that
well in the cockpit using the rubber duckie only. Now, it works fine
out to
at least 15+ miles and the tower has no problem receiving (I've asked
them
several times). I've never even tried the Nav portion.
Don Smythe
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Billingsley <mailto:dan@azshowersolutions.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 9:20 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Handheld Trancievers
Last December I purchased one of the Icom A-24 Nav Coms. I had used it
several times to monitor frequencies, yet I hadn't used it to transmit
until
our radio went south on the way back from Oshkosh this year. The
receiving
(voice)does ok, however, transmitting is a different story. I couldn't
raise
anyone. I found that towers couldn't receive me until I was direct line
of
sight and within 2 miles. My $50 walkie talkies beat the heck out of
that!
I wasn't impressed with the Nav end of it either. I have tried it on
several occasions flying to and from VOR's and if I rated it on a scale
of
1-10 I would give it a 2. I certainly couldn't depend on it.... If I did
I
would end up in Timbuktu.
I sent the radio in to Icom believing that there was a problem with it.
I
got it back with a note indicating that it checked out fine on the bench
and
that I should always use a well charged battery...hmmm. Sound advice,
that
is if I hadn't already tested it with a freshly charged battery. Of
course
it didn't work any better after I got it back.
So I was wondering if anyone else has tried using this unit with better
success?
Dan B.
Mesa
Kitfox IV (building) 314DW
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 |
|
| Subject: | Handheld Trancievers |
Wow Noel...that is great information...thanks! Almost sounds like you know what
you are talking about.:>) It certainly looks like I will need to hook it up
to the outside antenna. Since I have your ear, what are your thoughts on placing
the comm antenna inside the vertical stab? Some of the guys here in Phx have
done that and seem to do fine. Would you expect to see any performance loss
doing this? Thanks again and to all who responded.
Dan B
Mesa, AZ
Noel Loveys <noelloveys@yahoo.ca> wrote:
The problem with using the "rubber ducky" inside the cockpit of your
kit fox is called parasitic interference. To try to put it into simple terms
this means the the frame of the aircraft is absorbing some of the output of the
transmitter and almost like judo is using the transmitters own power against
itself.
The one really great thing you can do for your transmission is to use a tuned
antenna. Get an avionics tech or a ham who is active on VHF to hook up a "Bird
Watt Meter" between your transceiver and the connection where your antenna
plugs into the transceiver. This instrument will tell the teckkie how to set
up your antenna for the best performance. One thing that can really affect the
range is the size of the ground plane for your antenna. The ground plane for
air band should be around 47.24" in diameter or a series of 23.6" radials stretching
out from the base of the antenna. It can be made of just about any
conductive metal and should be grounded via the braid on your antenna coax. I
think there are even some ground planes that are simply foil adhered to the inside
of aircraft skin ( if the skin isn't metal). Of course the frame of the
aircraft can also make a very good ground plane too.
VHF for most intents and purposes is a line of sight transmission. There is
a formula for the distance that can be transmitted under normal conditions. Aircraft
tend to fly over objects so range is pretty good. But.... If you get
into a deep valley or behind a mountain or some other large obstruction don't
expect your little VHF radio to punch through for you.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Smythe
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Handheld Trancievers
Yes, but only with an external antenna and power. Mine wouldn't work that well
in the cockpit using the rubber duckie only. Now, it works fine out to at
least 15+ miles and the tower has no problem receiving (I've asked them several
times). I've never even tried the Nav portion.
Don Smythe
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Billingsley
To: kitfox-list
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 9:20 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Handheld Trancievers
Last December I purchased one of the Icom A-24 Nav Coms. I had used it several
times to monitor frequencies, yet I hadn't used it to transmit until our radio
went south on the way back from Oshkosh this year. The receiving (voice)does
ok, however, transmitting is a different story. I couldn't raise anyone. I found
that towers couldn't receive me until I was direct line of sight and within
2 miles. My $50 walkie talkies beat the heck out of that!
I wasn't impressed with the Nav end of it either. I have tried it on several
occasions flying to and from VOR's and if I rated it on a scale of 1-10 I would
give it a 2. I certainly couldn't depend on it.... If I did I would end up
in Timbuktu.
I sent the radio in to Icom believing that there was a problem with it. I got
it back with a note indicating that it checked out fine on the bench and that
I should always use a well charged battery...hmmm. Sound advice, that is if I
hadn't already tested it with a freshly charged battery. Of course it didn't
work any better after I got it back.
So I was wondering if anyone else has tried using this unit with better success?
Dan B.
Mesa
Kitfox IV (building) 314DW
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 |
|
| Subject: | Handheld Trancievers |
I use an Icom A4 with a whip antenna in the kitfox ten miles easy. An
aircraft antenna with a ground plane would be better
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Standley
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Handheld Trancievers
We use a IC-A22 with internal whip antenna in the Champ (no battery
electrical system) and regularly make calls entering Class Delta from about
10 miles out with no problems. We keep the A22 on the re-charger when it is
not flying so we always go out with a fresh charge.
Roger
----- Original Message -----
From: Don <mailto:dosmythe@cox.net> Smythe
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Handheld Trancievers
Yes, but only with an external antenna and power. Mine wouldn't work that
well in the cockpit using the rubber duckie only. Now, it works fine out to
at least 15+ miles and the tower has no problem receiving (I've asked them
several times). I've never even tried the Nav portion.
Don Smythe
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan <mailto:dan@azshowersolutions.com> Billingsley
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 9:20 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Handheld Trancievers
Last December I purchased one of the Icom A-24 Nav Coms. I had used it
several times to monitor frequencies, yet I hadn't used it to transmit until
our radio went south on the way back from Oshkosh this year. The receiving
(voice)does ok, however, transmitting is a different story. I couldn't raise
anyone. I found that towers couldn't receive me until I was direct line of
sight and within 2 miles. My $50 walkie talkies beat the heck out of that!
I wasn't impressed with the Nav end of it either. I have tried it on
several occasions flying to and from VOR's and if I rated it on a scale of
1-10 I would give it a 2. I certainly couldn't depend on it.... If I did I
would end up in Timbuktu.
I sent the radio in to Icom believing that there was a problem with it. I
got it back with a note indicating that it checked out fine on the bench and
that I should always use a well charged battery...hmmm. Sound advice, that
is if I hadn't already tested it with a freshly charged battery. Of course
it didn't work any better after I got it back.
So I was wondering if anyone else has tried using this unit with better
success?
Dan B.
Mesa
Kitfox IV (building) 314DW
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 |
|
| Subject: | Ignition switch question |
On my Kitfox as wired the output from the rectifier (582 with the
original rect) is wired directly to the positive battery bus with no
cutoff. I want to add a cutoff to completely isolate the battery. I've
seen diagrams the connect the rectifier output to the accessory terminal
of the ignition switch and there's no doubt this would accomplish my
goal but I have some doubt the ACS switch can take it. It also has the
drawback that you cannot isolate the rectifier without turning the
ignition to off.
Motorcycles are commonly wired exactly as my aircraft is now, so perhaps
this is what most people do. So, whats the popular method?
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 |
|
| Subject: | Handheld Trancievers |
There are a lot of aircraft out there that have the com antennas built
into
the vertical fins. most of them have vertical dipole (Two equal poles
set
up one opposite the other) glassed into a composite fin. In the kit fox
the
fin has metal frame which will act exactly as the rubber ducky in the
cabin.
The upright parts of the tail frame will become parasitic elements which
can
change the pattern of radiation and no doubt some power absorption.
Stick with a single vertical monopole in the middle of the back of the
plane. Have it tuned for the best performance around the middle of the
aviation com band. The K9itfox isn't a mach 3 fireball, a few inches of
antenna won't affect it's flight envelope significantly
You are right I have more paper in electronics and avionics than I like
to
admit. As a Canadian Advanced Amateur Radio Operator antenna design and
tuning. Believe it or not Amateur Radio is where the real learning and
experimentation is done. Amateur pioneered little things like Packet
radio
( data routers )
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Billingsley
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 11:59 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Handheld Trancievers
Wow Noel...that is great information...thanks! Almost sounds like you
know
what you are talking about.:>) It certainly looks like I will need to
hook
it up to the outside antenna. Since I have your ear, what are your
thoughts
on placing the comm antenna inside the vertical stab? Some of the guys
here
in Phx have done that and seem to do fine. Would you expect to see any
performance loss doing this? Thanks again and to all who responded.
Dan B
Mesa, AZ
Noel Loveys <noelloveys@yahoo.ca> wrote:
The problem with using the "rubber ducky" inside the cockpit of your kit
fox
is called parasitic interference. To try to put it into simple terms
this
means the the frame of the aircraft is absorbing some of the output of
the
transmitter and almost like judo is using the transmitters own power
against
itself.
The one really great thing you can do for your transmission is to use a
tuned antenna. Get an avionics tech or a ham who is active on VHF to
hook
up a "Bird Watt Meter" between your transceiver and the connection
where
your antenna plugs into the transceiver. This instrument will tell the
teckkie how to set up your antenna for the best performance. One thing
that
can really affect the range is the size of the ground plane for your
antenna. The ground plane for air band should be around 47.24" in
diameter
or a series of 23.6" radials stretching out from the base of the
antenna.
It can be made of just about any conductive metal and should be grounded
via
the braid on your antenna coax. I think there are even some ground
planes
that are simply foil adhered to the inside of aircraft skin ( if the
skin
isn't metal). Of course the frame of the aircraft can also make a very
good
ground plane too.
VHF for most intents and purposes is a line of sight transmission.
There is
a formula for the distance that can be transmitted under normal
conditions.
Aircraft tend to fly over objects so range is pretty good. But.... If
you
get into a deep valley or behind a mountain or some other large
obstruction
don't expect your little VHF radio to punch through for you.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Smythe
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Handheld Trancievers
Yes, but only with an external antenna and power. Mine wouldn't work
that
well in the cockpit using the rubber duckie only. Now, it works fine
out to
at least 15+ miles and the tower has no problem receiving (I've asked
them
several times). I've never even tried the Nav portion.
Don Smythe
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Billingsley <mailto:dan@azshowersolutions.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 9:20 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Handheld Trancievers
Last December I purchased one of the Icom A-24 Nav Coms. I had used it
several times to monitor frequencies, yet I hadn't used it to transmit
until
our radio went south on the way back from Oshkosh this year. The
receiving
(voice)does ok, however, transmitting is a different story. I couldn't
raise
anyone. I found that towers couldn't receive me until I was direct line
of
sight and within 2 miles. My $50 walkie talkies beat the heck out of
that!
I wasn't impressed with the Nav end of it either. I have tried it on
several occasions flying to and from VOR's and if I rated it on a scale
of
1-10 I would give it a 2. I certainly couldn't depend on it.... If I did
I
would end up in Timbuktu.
I sent the radio in to Icom believing that there was a problem with it.
I
got it back with a note indicating that it checked out fine on the bench
and
that I should always use a well charged battery...hmmm. Sound advice,
that
is if I hadn't already tested it with a freshly charged battery. Of
course
it didn't work any better after I got it back.
So I was wondering if anyone else has tried using this unit with better
success?
Navigator to
and much
the Web
Wiki!
-Matt
===========
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 |
|
| Subject: | Handheld Trancievers |
Regarding handheld radios with rubber duckies, during my more active
ham radio days I was using a 2 meter radio and also a business band
radio that used an adjoining frequency and as in aircraft when inside
of a automobile, the effectiveness of the radios was greatly
reduced. I purchased a magnetic antenna mount with attached antenna
cable. One could attach an antenna of choice via a baronet
coupling. I found that attaching the rubber duckie antenna from the
handheld was as good as any much longer antenna and greatly improved
the radio performance when set a top the vehicle roof using the
magnetic mount.
With a aircraft, one could install a baronet compatible receptacle
with an appropriate length cable to the inside of the aircraft and
then when needed, attach it to the radio. The small rubber duckie
antenna could when need be attached to the mount and would display a
small profile for wind resistance.
Jim Crowder
At 09:29 PM 8/20/2006, you wrote:
>There are a lot of aircraft out there that have the com antennas
>built into the vertical fins. most of them have vertical dipole
>(Two equal poles set up one opposite the other) glassed into a
>composite fin. In the kit fox the fin has metal frame which will
>act exactly as the rubber ducky in the cabin. The upright parts of
>the tail frame will become parasitic elements which can change the
>pattern of radiation and no doubt some power absorption.
>
>Stick with a single vertical monopole in the middle of the back of
>the plane. Have it tuned for the best performance around the middle
>of the aviation com band. The K9itfox isn't a mach 3 fireball, a
>few inches of antenna won't affect it's flight envelope significantly
>
>You are right I have more paper in electronics and avionics than I
>like to admit. As a Canadian Advanced Amateur Radio Operator
>antenna design and tuning. Believe it or not Amateur Radio is where
>the real learning and experimentation is done. Amateur pioneered
>little things like Packet radio ( data routers )
>
>
>Noel
>-----Original Message-----
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! --
|