Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:00 AM - Re: John Kuhfahl's Inst. Panel design (John Kuhfahl)
2. 04:10 AM - Re: Inst. Panel design (Jerry Dotson)
3. 04:18 AM - question for the radio geeks (Douwe Blumberg)
4. 04:56 AM - Re: question for the radio geeks (Jerry Dotson)
5. 05:17 AM - Re: Inst. Panel design (Michael Perez)
6. 06:05 AM - Re: question for the radio geeks (John Franklin)
7. 06:12 AM - Re: my favorite panel--Larry Williams before he went non-purist: (Lawrence Williams)
8. 06:42 AM - Re: my favorite panel--Larry Williams before he went non-purist: (TOM STINEMETZE)
9. 06:42 AM - Re: question for the radio geeks (Jim Markle)
10. 06:49 AM - Re: my favorite panel--Larry Williams before he went non-purist: (TOM STINEMETZE)
11. 06:58 AM - Re: my favorite panel--Larry Williams before he went non-purist (Bill Church)
12. 07:02 AM - Re: Re: question for the radio geeks (Amsafetyc)
13. 07:23 AM - Archer antennas (Woodflier@aol.com)
14. 07:42 AM - Re: question for the radio geeks (tools)
15. 07:50 AM - Re: Re: question for the radio geeks (Amsafetyc)
16. 08:03 AM - Re: question for the radio geeks (tools)
17. 08:27 AM - Re: question for the radio geeks (K5YAC)
18. 08:32 AM - Re: question for the radio geeks (tkreiner)
19. 08:39 AM - Re: question for the radio geeks (dgaldrich)
20. 08:51 AM - Re: question for the radio geeks (K5YAC)
21. 08:57 AM - Re: Re: question for the radio geeks (Amsafetyc)
22. 09:09 AM - Re: question for the radio geeks (tools)
23. 09:13 AM - Re: off topic-- how a Hartzell propeller is made (bender)
24. 09:16 AM - Re: question for the radio geeks (Jeff Wilson)
25. 10:47 AM - Re: Re: my favorite panel--Larry Williams before he went non-purist: (Ryan Mueller)
26. 11:45 AM - Re: question for the radio geeks (K5YAC)
27. 01:00 PM - GN-1 PROJECT FOR SALE (Dan Gaston)
28. 01:48 PM - Re: question for the radio geeks (tools)
29. 03:01 PM - Re: question for the radio geeks (K5YAC)
30. 05:25 PM - SNF (Dick N)
31. 05:27 PM - Re: Engine Accessories, Manuals Needed (Ralph)
32. 06:05 PM - Re: question for the radio geeks (C N Campbell)
33. 06:41 PM - Re: Corvair College 22 (IT Girl)
34. 06:55 PM - Re: question for the radio geeks (Greg Cardinal)
35. 07:20 PM - Re: Re: Inst. Panel design (Jim Boyer)
36. 07:56 PM - Re: SNF (Ben Charvet)
37. 08:43 PM - Re: Re: question for the radio geeks (Darrel Jones)
38. 09:07 PM - Re: Corvair College 22 (K5YAC)
39. 09:57 PM - Re: question for the radio geeks (tools)
40. 10:10 PM - Carb Rebuild? (Andrew Eldredge)
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: John Kuhfahl's Inst. Panel design |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 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: Inst. Panel design |
Here is mine. I jumped on the band wagon a little late.
do not archive
--------
Jerry Dotson
59 Daniel Johnson Rd
Baker, FL 32531
Started building NX510JD July, 2009
now covering and painting
21" wheels
Lycoming O-235 C2C
Jay Anderson CloudCars prop 76 X 44
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=369122#369122
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/a11_195.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/a10_138.jpg
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: | question for the radio geeks |
Okay, so if I guy an simple antenna and hook it up to the handheld, does the
ground plane have to be directly under the antenna?
For example, could the antenna be back in the fin and the ground plane just
behind the pilots seat?
And, what goes from the antenna to the ground plane, a ground wire?
Stupid questions I know, but appreciate the help.
Douwe
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: question for the radio geeks |
Douwe,
I am not an authority on the matter but here goes. The coax cable outer shield
needs to be attached(grounded) to the ground plane. I put a 8" X 12" piece of
aluminum under the hat box plywood with the antenna going through it. The antenna
hangs down. Not flown but seems to work fine.
do not archive
--------
Jerry Dotson
59 Daniel Johnson Rd
Baker, FL 32531
Started building NX510JD July, 2009
now covering and painting
21" wheels
Lycoming O-235 C2C
Jay Anderson CloudCars prop 76 X 44
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=369125#369125
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: Inst. Panel design |
Cliff, I know exactly what you are saying!- I did the same exercise with
my cutout for the center section. It has that "squished circle" look as wel
l.
I assume the wind screens are screwed to the wood supports?
Michael Perez
=0AKaretaker Aero
=0Awww.karetakeraero.com
-
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: question for the radio geeks |
Okay, so if I guy an simple antenna and hook it up to the
handheld, does the ground plane have to be directly under the antenna?
For example, could the antenna be back in the fin and the
ground plane just behind the pilots seat?
And, what goes from the antenna to the ground plane, a
ground wire?
Stupid questions I know, but appreciate the help.
Douwe
Douwe, there is a link at Spruce Aircraft for an antenna they sell, and they also
have a pdf file for installation at that link:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/av534.php
Regards,
John Franklin
Prairie Aire 4TA0
Needville, TX
GN-1 / Corvair 164CID
________________________________________
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: my favorite panel--Larry Williams before he went non-purist: |
Enough with the nice words and kudos. My title will not be compromised!!!!
-
Larry Williams (Top Curmudgeon)
NX899LW
-
ps. As long as I have the floor: It would be nice if listers used their rea
l names so when we meet we don't call each other by call signs or alpha-num
eric designators.
-
Do not archive
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: my favorite panel--Larry Williams before he went |
non-purist:
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: | Re: question for the radio geeks |
I don't think that's stupid question! :-)
The antenna and it's ground plane interact and need to be as close as possible....and
adding an element (of length, velocity factor, feed line dialectric, oh
never mind) between the two would complicate things.
leave a minimum of distance between the two, none if possible.
Jim Markle
Pryor, Oklahoma
-----Original Message-----
>From: John Franklin <jbfjr@peoplepc.com>
>Sent: Mar 22, 2012 9:05 AM
>To: Piet_List <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: question for the radio geeks
>
>
>Okay, so if I guy an simple antenna and hook it up to the
>handheld, does the ground plane have to be directly under the antenna?
>For example, could the antenna be back in the fin and the
>ground plane just behind the pilots seat?
>And, what goes from the antenna to the ground plane, a
>ground wire?
>Stupid questions I know, but appreciate the help.
>
>Douwe
>
>Douwe, there is a link at Spruce Aircraft for an antenna they sell, and they also
have a pdf file for installation at that link:
>
>http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/av534.php
>
>Regards,
>John Franklin
>Prairie Aire 4TA0
>Needville, TX
>GN-1 / Corvair 164CID
>
>
>________________________________________
>
>
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: my favorite panel--Larry Williams before he went |
non-purist:
Ok Larry, this "curmudgeon" thing has me a little concerned so I looked up the
definition in my Merriam-Webster; and I quote:
"A crusty, ill-tempered, and usually old man."
Never having met you in person I have to admit that the definition may be spot
on but I was just wonderin'?
Tom Stinemetze (slightly curmudgeonly)
N328X
do not archive
Enough with the nice words and kudos. My title will not be compromised!!!!
Larry Williams (Top Curmudgeon)
NX899LW
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: my favorite panel--Larry Williams before he went non-purist |
So, logic would dictate that a "Top Curmudgeon" would be crusty and ill-tempered
on the top.
BC
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=369135#369135
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: | Re: question for the radio geeks |
Now that makes sense and it's simple to understand. The only other thing we need
is for the radio heads to review and approve it as the proper method or best
alternative to stringing wire all over the place as in the installation instructions
offered by ACS.
What say you radio heads?
John
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 22, 2012, at 7:55 AM, "Jerry Dotson" <jdotson@centurylink.net> wrote:
>
> Douwe,
> I am not an authority on the matter but here goes. The coax cable outer shield
needs to be attached(grounded) to the ground plane. I put a 8" X 12" piece of
aluminum under the hat box plywood with the antenna going through it. The antenna
hangs down. Not flown but seems to work fine.
>
>
> do not archive
>
> --------
> Jerry Dotson
> 59 Daniel Johnson Rd
> Baker, FL 32531
>
> Started building NX510JD July, 2009
> now covering and painting
> 21" wheels
> Lycoming O-235 C2C
> Jay Anderson CloudCars prop 76 X 44
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=369125#369125
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
I'm thinking of putting one of the Archer Model 6 (see ACS here
_http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/archer_antennas_6.php_
(http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/archer_antennas_6.php) ) in the rear
fuselage of the Piet with a cable and BNC connector out to hook to a handheld.
I
figure this ought to have better transmit/receive properties than the rubber
duckie on the handheld. Anybody got any experience with these?
On another topic, after issues with the bungee style shocks before last
year's Brodhead, I built a set of die spring shocks over the winter. Got them
installed yesterday, taxi tested them and hopped around the pattern and did
a wheel landing with them. They're a little stiffer than the bungee shocks
but I Iike the fact that because the springs are in compression, the
travel is limited by more than just a 1/8" safety cable. Still should be plenty
of travel to damp out most of my landings...hehehe. They're off now and
back home for painting.
Matt Paxton
NX629ML
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: | Re: question for the radio geeks |
Here's the deal on these antennas.
What we're using is a vertical antenna. They need a "ground plane" to form proper
radiation patterns. Without them, the energy from the radio doesn't all go
out the antenna, it bounces around in the antenna and feedline until it's all
used up as heat or gets radiated all out of sync. Not a big deal, but lessens
the effectiveness of the antenna.
The ground plane doesn't have to be a aluminum disc. It can be a pattern of wires
all spread out like wagon wheel spokes. The point is, you can use really
fine wire and save weight if that's an issue where you are putting it. The same
with the antenna itself. At the power levels we're using, you don't need that
heavy stainless wire they use. The important property of it is the length,
it's only that heavy to withstand wind forces when placed outside the airplane.
The ground plane does need to be at the feedpoint of the antenna, and perpendicular
to it. It's an unbalanced antenna, and we use unbalanced feedline to feed
it, coax. The shielding conductor goes to the ground plane.
The wavelength of the freqs we use is around 6 feet I suppose and that's important
because it relates to the optimum length of the antenna. It needs to be about
1/2 wavelength for proper impedence. If it's not, then you need to "trick"
the system into thinking it's that long, which you can do with coils, capacitors,
coiling up the radiating element, etc. These all make the system work
correctly, but again, lessen the effectiveness of the antenna. That's how the
stubby antennas work, they're all coiled up.
The point it, you can make a REALLY effective antenna by using a longer radiating
element, and lighter because you can use a simple piece of wire, etc. Even
better, I seem to recall that if the radiating element of a vertical antenna
is 5/8 wavelength, it actually INCREASES your effective radiating power, it's
called a gain antenna.
I'll dig into my old ham radio books and see if I can't devise a more simple and
more better antenna that we could build into our piets and do better. We're
lucky because our planes are wood. Also, it should be a lot cheaper.
The best antenna I ever had for my 2 meter (144 mhz, same genre as our 120 to 130
mhz stuff) handheld radio was home made from a piece of that old brown flat
line antenna wire we used to run to our tv antennas taped to a piece of broom
handle I would just lay on the dashboard of my old van. It was called a "j pole"
antenna. Cost nothing, worked really well on the metal dash of a big old
work van. We could zip tie it along a fuse stringer and be done. Wouldn't weigh
or cost a thing, no ground plane, takes about 20 mins to make. I'll just
have to adjust some dimensions for the slightly different frequency. You feed
it with cheap old 75 ohm coax that is hanging around behind your tv set. The
antenna was about 4 feet long or so.
de n0kkj
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=369138#369138
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: | Re: question for the radio geeks |
Looks like a great seminar and Brodhead work shop session and everybody leaves
with a useable antenna tuned and ready to install. Should we all plan on bringing
our hand held radios?
John
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 22, 2012, at 10:41 AM, "tools" <n0kkj@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Here's the deal on these antennas.
>
> What we're using is a vertical antenna. They need a "ground plane" to form proper
radiation patterns. Without them, the energy from the radio doesn't all
go out the antenna, it bounces around in the antenna and feedline until it's
all used up as heat or gets radiated all out of sync. Not a big deal, but lessens
the effectiveness of the antenna.
>
> The ground plane doesn't have to be a aluminum disc. It can be a pattern of
wires all spread out like wagon wheel spokes. The point is, you can use really
fine wire and save weight if that's an issue where you are putting it. The
same with the antenna itself. At the power levels we're using, you don't need
that heavy stainless wire they use. The important property of it is the length,
it's only that heavy to withstand wind forces when placed outside the airplane.
>
> The ground plane does need to be at the feedpoint of the antenna, and perpendicular
to it. It's an unbalanced antenna, and we use unbalanced feedline to feed
it, coax. The shielding conductor goes to the ground plane.
>
> The wavelength of the freqs we use is around 6 feet I suppose and that's important
because it relates to the optimum length of the antenna. It needs to be
about 1/2 wavelength for proper impedence. If it's not, then you need to "trick"
the system into thinking it's that long, which you can do with coils, capacitors,
coiling up the radiating element, etc. These all make the system work
correctly, but again, lessen the effectiveness of the antenna. That's how the
stubby antennas work, they're all coiled up.
>
> The point it, you can make a REALLY effective antenna by using a longer radiating
element, and lighter because you can use a simple piece of wire, etc. Even
better, I seem to recall that if the radiating element of a vertical antenna
is 5/8 wavelength, it actually INCREASES your effective radiating power, it's
called a gain antenna.
>
> I'll dig into my old ham radio books and see if I can't devise a more simple
and more better antenna that we could build into our piets and do better. We're
lucky because our planes are wood. Also, it should be a lot cheaper.
>
> The best antenna I ever had for my 2 meter (144 mhz, same genre as our 120 to
130 mhz stuff) handheld radio was home made from a piece of that old brown flat
line antenna wire we used to run to our tv antennas taped to a piece of broom
handle I would just lay on the dashboard of my old van. It was called a "j
pole" antenna. Cost nothing, worked really well on the metal dash of a big old
work van. We could zip tie it along a fuse stringer and be done. Wouldn't
weigh or cost a thing, no ground plane, takes about 20 mins to make. I'll just
have to adjust some dimensions for the slightly different frequency. You feed
it with cheap old 75 ohm coax that is hanging around behind your tv set.
The antenna was about 4 feet long or so.
>
> de n0kkj
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=369138#369138
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: question for the radio geeks |
Ya, great idea. Everyone start checking your attic for that flat lead antenna
wire! I've got some laying around and I'll bring all I've got.
It's 300ohm antenna feed line. There's a bigger (read wider spaced) stuff that's
450 that will also work. You can also use solid copper wire as long as it's
supported in a way that keeps all the parts of the antenna in the right place
relative to each other.
I should have swr measuring equipment so we can tune them all to everyone's radio
and plane.
As it turns out, the hard part with antennas is getting them UP in the air... well...
a problem for earthbound mortals!
I used to play this stuff the most before the internet. Just did a quick google
on 2 meter jpole antennas and got a zillion hits. Guess I don't have to dig
out the old books.
Tools
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=369140#369140
Message 17
| 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: question for the radio geeks |
I concur with Jim... the ground plane is an active element in the antenna installation.
Think of it as a "reflector" for the transmitted signals... it should
be mounted at the base of the driven element (antenna).
For radio people, the term "antenna" includes all of the hardware at the end of
the feed line as they work in unison to effectively transmit the RF energy in
the desired pattern. For a ground mounted antenna system, an efficient ground
plane "reflects" radio signals upwards, away from the ground, which improves
gain by "reflecting" or "directing" RF energy into the air where it is most effective.
For an airplane installation, most of your communications are air-to-ground,
which I assume is why the Fly Baby installation is inverted. I haven't
read the article (looked at the pics), but I would think that the builders
intent was to reflect the RF outward and downward rather than upward into the
stratosphere where no one is listening to him. This would theoretically improve
gain, or in other words... range.
Since this ground plane or "element" is not physically connected to the earth ground,
it is more correct to refer to it as a counterpoise, which is in effect
an electrical ground, or simulated ground plane.
Below is a cross-sectional view of a typical omni-directional radiation pattern,
the type of pattern you might expect with a vertical, whip, rubber ducky or
any other type of single element vertically oriented antenna. Notice that the
pattern is transmitted upwards away from the ground... the squiggly lines represent
a ground plane. So, imagine if you were to take that image and turn it
sideways or upside down... yes, the radiation pattern would remain the same,
but you would direct it differently.
Antenna theory and constructing arrays can become a fairly complicated discussion,
but the basic formulas and theory behind simple omni-directional antennas
is fairly straightforward. Back to the ground plane (or counterpoise)... given
that it is an active "element" of the system, the ground plane should ideally
be built to match the appropriate wavelength... i.e. for 1/4 wavelength antennas,
length in feet = 234/frequency(MHz), or 234/122.5MHz=1.9' diameter ground
plane. This is difficult to accomplish in the confines of a wooden airplane,
so generally we do the best we can. The other day I stated that the middle
of the aviation band was 117.5MHz, or some such nonsense... this is obviously
incorrect for a band that doesn't start until 118MHz. Not sure what I was thinking...
the middle of the band is 122.5MHz. I have edited that post.
Just for fun... this photo shows the installation of an HF vertical antenna. It
is similar to what we are talking about here, except HF antennas are very large.
Notice the wires stretched along the ground? Those are radials that are
cut to a specific length to match the frequencies ranges (bands) that will be
operating on this antenna. Not trying to complicate the discussion... just attempting
to illustrate the importance of ground planes (or a counterpoise) in
proper vertical antenna installations. If that antenna is similar to mine, some
of those radials may extend out around 40 feet.
@Tools... Elevation does indeed improve things, but it is not the hard part OR
the most important consideration. Proper tuning and construction ensures that
you are effectively transmitting the available RF energy into the air, regardless
of altitude. Not to mention that it is easier on the equipment. I would
take a tuned and efficient ground mounted antenna over a poorly constructed beam
on a 50' tower any day.
--------
Mark Chouinard
Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=369142#369142
Message 18
| 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: question for the radio geeks |
Many great ideas have been presented by Tools, but I'd like to chime in with what
I saw at Bldg. C (?) at Oshkosh last year.
There was an antenna guy with a demo, and he demonstrated the effectiveness of
ground planes in general, and we discussed the Pietenpol fuselage specifically
for some 20 minutes. Wish I could locate his card to provide additional info
on his company.
Anyway, the ground plane may actually be very thin foil, ideally, aluminum or copper,
and may be only 2 inches wide, but must be as long as practicable. In
the demo, he had two strips forming an X, i.e., as 90 deg. to one another, and
in the center, a small plate to which the antenna was actually attached. The
plate was only about 3 or 4 inches square, but sufficiently thick to attach the
antenna. The strips were 4 feet in length.
In the demo, he had an instrument - you antenna guys will know which one - which
gave antenna efficiency or VSWR maybe. The first ground plane he used was a
10 inch square of aluminum plate, and the second was the foil setup described
above. When he demo'd the two, the antenna efficiency was dramatically improved
when using the foil setup. And I mean DRAMATICALLY.
Then we discussed the wooden fuselage, and how it would be difficult to orient
the foil strips, as the fuselage is only 2 ft. wide, he said, NO PROBLEM. Make
the strips follow the interior or exterior contour of the fuselage, and voila,
it will be identical to the demo. What is needed here is the overall length
of the strips, as orientation doesn't matter at all.
Hope this helps...
--------
Tom Kreiner
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=369144#369144
Message 19
| 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: question for the radio geeks |
Hi Douwe
Jim Markle is correct on two points. One, it's not a dumb question and two, for
the ACS "kit" antenna and it's brethren, the ground plane is really an integral
part of the antenna assembly.
If you can put the antenna inside the fuselage, wind load is not an issue and you
could use almost any kind of metal for the ground plane, probably even thick
aluminum foil, window screen, or starburst pattern radiating wires as tools
suggested, you get the idea.
As others have implied, the closer to vertical the radiating element, the better
the performance. As an illustration, take two pairs of polarized sunglasses
and look through one as you rotate the other. Radio is just a different part
of the electromagnetic spectrum and the effect is very similar. The antennae
that have a kink in them are the rough equivalent of rotating the glasses just
a little bit from "matched" polarity. They get slightly dimmer but don't go
to black. That slight attenuation is one of those design compromises that they
make to get the form factor better.
Years ago, Epcot had a 3D display that worked on that very principle. They gave
you glasses that were "cross" polarized so that you were, in effect, seeing
2 separate projected images taken with two lenses and then cross polarized. Your
brain did the rest.
Since I haven't covered my tail feathers yet, I'm thinking about putting a very
thin piece of aluminum in my horizontal stab as a ground plane and a vertical
wire up the vertical stab. The down side is the rather long feed coax and the
possible interference from the guy wires.
Dave
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=369145#369145
Message 20
| 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: question for the radio geeks |
tkreiner wrote:
> When he demo'd the two, the antenna efficiency was dramatically improved when
using the foil setup. And I mean DRAMATICALLY.
>
> Then we discussed the wooden fuselage, and how it would be difficult to orient
the foil strips, as the fuselage is only 2 ft. wide, he said, NO PROBLEM. Make
the strips follow the interior or exterior contour of the fuselage, and voila,
it will be identical to the demo. What is needed here is the overall length
of the strips, as orientation doesn't matter at all.
>
1. It's easy to be sneaky when comparing antennas... I could take two seemingly
equal antennas and make them perform very differently, and it would be unnoticeable
to the lay person. Not trying to insult, just saying that a couple of
mismatched elements (coil, feedline, etc.) can make a perfectly good antenna look
like junk. He's a salesman.
2. My reason for suspecting the things I say in point 1... The orientation of the
ground plane absolutely DOES matter. If you do what he instructed you to do
(follow the contour of the airplane), not only will you likely have impedance
issues at the feed point, but you will effectively BLOCK your ability to transmit
or recieve well.
For anyone who really wants to get the most out of their antenna system, here is
a good place to start.
--------
Mark Chouinard
Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=369147#369147
Message 21
| 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: question for the radio geeks |
Will all that be covered in your Brodhead fly in workshop seminar this July ?
John
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:50 AM, "K5YAC" <hangar10@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> tkreiner wrote:
>> When he demo'd the two, the antenna efficiency was dramatically improved when
using the foil setup. And I mean DRAMATICALLY.
>>
>> Then we discussed the wooden fuselage, and how it would be difficult to orient
the foil strips, as the fuselage is only 2 ft. wide, he said, NO PROBLEM.
Make the strips follow the interior or exterior contour of the fuselage, and voila,
it will be identical to the demo. What is needed here is the overall length
of the strips, as orientation doesn't matter at all.
>>
>
>
> 1. It's easy to be sneaky when comparing antennas... I could take two seemingly
equal antennas and make them perform very differently, and it would be unnoticeable
to the lay person. Not trying to insult, just saying that a couple of
mismatched elements (coil, feedline, etc.) can make a perfectly good antenna
look like junk. He's a salesman.
>
> 2. My reason for suspecting the things I say in point 1... The orientation of
the ground plane absolutely DOES matter. If you do what he instructed you to
do (follow the contour of the airplane), not only will you likely have impedance
issues at the feed point, but you will effectively BLOCK your ability to transmit
or recieve well.
>
> For anyone who really wants to get the most out of their antenna system, here
is a good place to start.
>
>
>
> --------
> Mark Chouinard
> Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=369147#369147
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 22
| 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: question for the radio geeks |
A ground plane is only important in a vertical. In the case of a j pole or dipole,
or others, it isn't. Those are the antennas that work better high up in
the air (a wavelength or more).
The verticals work especially well for really long distance low freqency stuff
because of the low angle of radiation. They're also just simple antennas which
is probably whey they're used for handhelds and such.
Another consideration is a dipole. We could stretch the radiating elements along
the spar. When you can get them high enough, they're really a good antenna.
They do have some directionality, broadside to the antenna, so it'll work best
when you're flying towards where you want to talk, which is the case usually.
I don't know if the attenuation off the ends would be a problem plane to
plane... possibly another reason for verticals, they have no directionality unless
used in an array.
Of course all of this is theoretical, radiation patters are usually in free space
and such. All the metal around you tends to change them to some degree. Just
trying some different ones is the most likely way we're going to find out
what will work the best. If the directionality of a dipole isn't a liability,
it is probably the best option for someone who is still building or during a
recover. We could pretty easily get some gain there.
I'm surprised there isn't more options out there. Paradigms I guess, gotta use
a vertical... Power fixes all the problems, but we're trying to maximize a handheld,
so we probably should be thinking outside the box.
The brace wires won't interfere unless the length is some sort of multiple of the
wavelength. And if they do, they may help, or hurt, just depends. Really,
just try it and see if it works. If for some reason it doesn't and everything
else is good, then they may be hurting your signal and that can be fixed by
electrically changing the length of the brace wires. We're probably getting a
little anal in that case, I doubt it will matter.
Tools
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=369149#369149
Message 23
| 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-- how a Hartzell propeller is made |
That's slightly more advanced than the method i learned from Dan...
I'll stick with the chainsaw
Jeff
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=369150#369150
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/saw_191.jpg
Message 24
| 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: question for the radio geeks |
Hi guys,
I felt compelled to weigh in here on specs. If you want to be exact and get the
best performance lets start with the cable. Coax is the common cable used from
radio to antenna but there are different types. The coax used on our tv sets
is RG59 and is 75 ohm. What we use on our radios is RG58 and is 50 ohm.
RG58 is available at Radio Shack as are connectors that you may need.
The length of the cable also matters for maximum performance.
The wavelength of 121.5 mghz is 8.1 ft. Let's round down to 8 ft. Using even multiples
of the wavelength will give best performance in both the cable and the
antenna.
So to simplify: use eight feet of cable and a quarter wave antenna of 24 inches.
This combo will give the best SWR across all aviation freqs. and be sure to
use RG58 cable. A quarter wave ground plane would be ideal as well but for space
considerations, maintain the even multiples. Divide by eighths or even 16 ths
if need be.
Here's a calculator for wavelength:
www.1728.org/freqwave.htm
Jeff Wilson
St Louis, MO
H49
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 22, 2012, at 9:41 AM, "tools" <n0kkj@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Here's the deal on these antennas.
>
> What we're using is a vertical antenna. They need a "ground plane" to form proper
radiation patterns. Without them, the energy from the radio doesn't all
go out the antenna, it bounces around in the antenna and feedline until it's
all used up as heat or gets radiated all out of sync. Not a big deal, but lessens
the effectiveness of the antenna.
>
> The ground plane doesn't have to be a aluminum disc. It can be a pattern of
wires all spread out like wagon wheel spokes. The point is, you can use really
fine wire and save weight if that's an issue where you are putting it. The
same with the antenna itself. At the power levels we're using, you don't need
that heavy stainless wire they use. The important property of it is the length,
it's only that heavy to withstand wind forces when placed outside the airplane.
>
> The ground plane does need to be at the feedpoint of the antenna, and perpendicular
to it. It's an unbalanced antenna, and we use unbalanced feedline to feed
it, coax. The shielding conductor goes to the ground plane.
>
> The wavelength of the freqs we use is around 6 feet I suppose and that's important
because it relates to the optimum length of the antenna. It needs to be
about 1/2 wavelength for proper impedence. If it's not, then you need to "trick"
the system into thinking it's that long, which you can do with coils, capacitors,
coiling up the radiating element, etc. These all make the system work
correctly, but again, lessen the effectiveness of the antenna. That's how the
stubby antennas work, they're all coiled up.
>
> The point it, you can make a REALLY effective antenna by using a longer radiating
element, and lighter because you can use a simple piece of wire, etc. Even
better, I seem to recall that if the radiating element of a vertical antenna
is 5/8 wavelength, it actually INCREASES your effective radiating power, it's
called a gain antenna.
>
> I'll dig into my old ham radio books and see if I can't devise a more simple
and more better antenna that we could build into our piets and do better. We're
lucky because our planes are wood. Also, it should be a lot cheaper.
>
> The best antenna I ever had for my 2 meter (144 mhz, same genre as our 120 to
130 mhz stuff) handheld radio was home made from a piece of that old brown flat
line antenna wire we used to run to our tv antennas taped to a piece of broom
handle I would just lay on the dashboard of my old van. It was called a "j
pole" antenna. Cost nothing, worked really well on the metal dash of a big old
work van. We could zip tie it along a fuse stringer and be done. Wouldn't
weigh or cost a thing, no ground plane, takes about 20 mins to make. I'll just
have to adjust some dimensions for the slightly different frequency. You feed
it with cheap old 75 ohm coax that is hanging around behind your tv set.
The antenna was about 4 feet long or so.
>
> de n0kkj
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=369138#369138
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 25
| 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: my favorite panel--Larry Williams before he went |
non-purist:
But it would be fun to hear someone introduce themself with their
self-applied nickname and ridiculously long signature....
do not archive
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Lawrence Williams <lnawms@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Enough with the nice words and kudos. My title will not be compromised!!!!
>
> Larry Williams (Top Curmudgeon)
> NX899LW
>
> ps. As long as I have the floor: It would be nice if listers used their
> real names so when we meet we don't call each other by call signs or
> alpha-numeric designators.
>
> Do not archive
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
Message 26
| 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: question for the radio geeks |
Got to bring some facts to this conversation...
tools wrote:
> A ground plane is only important in a vertical. In the case of a j pole or dipole,
or others, it isn't. Those are the antennas that work better high up in
the air (a wavelength or more).
Yep, but just throw them up there all haphazardly and they don't work worth a crap...
I don't care how much power you throw at it.
tools wrote:
> The verticals work especially well for really long distance low freqency stuff
because of the low angle of radiation. They're also just simple antennas which
is probably whey they're used for handhelds and such.
I'm not so sure about ESPECIALLY well... light up 10 elements that are horizontally
oriented (i.e. quiet) and tuned (i.e. efficient) and you can open the band.
Not the case at all with a vertical, I can assure you. Phased verticals,
maybe... but then you are talking about an array, not a simple vertical.
tools wrote:
> Another consideration is a dipole. We could stretch the radiating elements along
the spar. When you can get them high enough, they're really a good antenna.
They do have some directionality, broadside to the antenna, so it'll work
best when you're flying towards where you want to talk, which is the case usually.
Yes, usually, but why would you NOT want the omnidirectional attributes of a vertical?
The station you may be trying to communicte with is not ALWAYS to your
front. As for getting them high to be really good... let's not forget our friends
the inverted-V, the Windom or even the folded dipole. I've worked a fair
amount of stations (and plenty of DX) on those simple pieces of properly tuned
wire at treetop level, to include 1425 Qs during Field Day 2007.
tools wrote:
> If the directionality of a dipole isn't a liability, it is probably the best
option for someone who is still building or during a recover. We could pretty
easily get some gain there.
This is simply not true. A dipole is only a slight improvement over a vertical,
but it poses other issues that make it not very well suited to our application.
tools wrote:
> I'm surprised there isn't more options out there. Paradigms I guess, gotta use
a vertical... Power fixes all the problems, but we're trying to maximize a
handheld, so we probably should be thinking outside the box.
There are a TON of options out there, but it boils down to what is practical and
what is proven to work. As for power fixing all problems... that is a big negative.
If you have a poorly built antenna, more power will only create more
heat... it won't fix anything.
jwilson wrote:
> If you want to be exact and get the best performance lets start with the cable.
Coax is the common cable used from radio to antenna but there are different
types. The coax used on our tv sets is RG59 and is 75 ohm. What we use on our
radios is RG58 and is 50 ohm.
Correct... RG-58 is perfectly suitable for short and low power runs on the aviation
band.
jwilson wrote:
> The length of the cable also matters for maximum performance... Using even multiples
of the wavelength will give best performance in both the cable and the
antenna.
True and false. The feedline (be it coax or whatever feedline you prefer, although
coax is standard), is not an active element. Yes, it must be of the proper
impedance, and using the best type of coax for the given application is critical
in proper transmission of signal, but length has nothing to do with tuning.
This part of the conversation gets pretty deep as we start discussing dielectric
materials, velocity factors, etc. To summarize, different frequencies
travel through different dielectric materials at different rates (speeds)...
therefore no one type of 50ohm coax is suitable for all applications... for example,
I use LMR400 in my HF station. If I were wanting to squeeze every bit
of signal out of my handheld air band transceiver I'd probably use LMR240 instead
of RG-58, but at the lengths we are talking about the losses arenegligiblee.
That is really what we are talking about when it comes to feedlines, losses,
not tuning. For example, the attenuation of a 100' length of RG-58 at 150MHz
is ~6.2dB... the same length of LMR240 is only 3.0dB, or in radio talk, an
entire s-unit! Ok, I understand, we aren't running 100', we are running closer
to 10', which reduces those values by a factor of 10, or .62dB and .3dB of loss
respectively. At that length we are talking about a difference of .32dB of
signal loss between the two. Am I going to run out and get some LMR240 for
that small of a boost in signal? Nope, I'll grab the readily available RG-58
and cut to whatever length I need... the shorter the better. Remember, length=attenuation=loss.
--------
Mark Chouinard
Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=369159#369159
Message 27
| 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: | GN-1 PROJECT FOR SALE |
I still have a GN-1 project for sale. Complete rib set built, tail
feathers built, fuselage sides built. All wood necessary to complete,
including spars, sheeting,everything. All wood came from Aircraft
Spruce. Laser cut 4130 fittings. Continental A-65-8 with carb,
mags,hub,and logs, on engine stand. For details, just e-mail me. I'm
tired of looking at something that I'm not going to finish. $3,000.00
for all of it, no less. I am located in Norwalk, ohio.I work Monday
through Thursday and only use the e-mail at work, so please forgive my
slow replies. Thank you, Dan Gaston.
Message 28
| 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: question for the radio geeks |
Any antenna just thrown up haphazardly may or may not work well. And in the venue
of small aircraft that only need to communicate 10 to 20 miles line of sight
with some altitude, power does indeed fix many of the problems of not so well
designed ground planes and such.
I agree, a ground plane does need to be tuned just like the driven element, but
in practice, for what we're doing, we probably don't need to bring in an engineer
to get it to work for us.
Lighting up 10 elements on 160 meters just isn't that easy! But I agree, it would
be better! Also, getting those antennas a wavelength or more above the ground
is problematic.
It isn't that I don't want the omnidirectional characteristics of the vertical,
it's just that I'm not sure the dipole is going to prove directional enough to
matter. I've never used one in this venue. I know my 80 meter dipole at 20
feet surely wasn't very directional. And it was tuned perfectly. At that point,
the only way to get more power out, was to put more power in. Now, if it
turns out to be so directional that it's a liability, it's out of the contest.
If not, well, it's a pretty easy antenna to install in a wing. Probably oughta
put a 20m dipole in there while I'm at it for field day!
As it turns out, the vertical antenna for the outside of most other airplanes,
is proven to not work so well for a lot of us Piet types. For a number of reasons.
I just think that sticking to what's available through most aviation supply
resources is limiting us. Trying a number of different antennas is both
cheap and safe. Considering we all like to tinker with things, I bring it up.
I meant the power comment tongue in cheek. I used to try to work HF in the Persian
gulf in the S-3. It tuned a thousand watts into the skin of the airplane
and I couldn't hear or talk to ANYONE. A total dead zone (bad sunspot cycle
as well as one hell of some sort of inversion in there, could never see more than
4 miles or so). We'd go out into the Indian Ocean and I would work worldwide
easily. Kinda cool to work aeronautical and nautical mobile at the same time!
I'm not trying to start the (admittedly fun) technical ham radio arguments, but
just throw some ideas out we might try that might work pretty good. If they
don't, nothing is lost, but I don't think they've been tried much in this venue.
Tools
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=369164#369164
Message 29
| 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: question for the radio geeks |
I'm not trying to argue either... simply attempting to clear up a few of the inaccuracies.
Again you say... more power in! Yes, it might mean more power out, but how much
is being reflected? My point is that is you have a tunable circuit (most antennas
are), why not fix it? Adding power is generally expensive (more importantly,
heavier and bulkier)... and in this application it is not at all necessary
to take that approach.
tools wrote:
> I agree, a ground plane does need to be tuned just like the driven element, but
in practice, for what we're doing, we probably don't need to bring in an engineer
to get it to work for us.
No, a ground plane does not NEED to be tuned... my statement was that it would
be ideal because it would be more efficient, but in a small airplane it is difficult
to accomplish as conditions aren't ideal. As for needing an engineer...
no, I don't suppose an engineer is required to get it to work well enough for
you, but when someone asks a question, I think it's only fair to provide accurate
answers in order to put them on the right path and protect their equipment.
Seems that if Douwe wanted to just wing-it he wouldn't have asked.
Perhaps I get buried in the details, but we have honestly only scratched the surface
on this topic. We can keep it simple, and we generally have... the answer
to the original question was that the ground plane needed to be oriented at
the base of the driven element (at the feed point)... simple, right? But, as
the discussion went on it seemed that there might be some interest in knowing
WHY it should be there, and then other factors (and inaccuracies) arose.
I think you are missing the point, which is that it is smarter, cheaper and more
effective to tune the circuit instead of just throwing the gear in and saying
yeah, the signal is crap, but it works good enough. To a radio guy that is
like saying, yeah, she's only running on 3 cylinders, but I'm still getting 60%
power.
Anyhow, I'll pipe down on the matter for now. If anyone wants the straight skinny
on efficient antenna design, shoot me a note.
One more thing... 10 elements on 160? Really? I'd like to see that.
--------
Mark Chouinard
Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=369171#369171
Message 30
| 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 |
|
Hey all
I am down here at Sun n Fun and have been here for a few days now. I
hope to see lots of Piet people at the show. For anyone who is
considering building a Piet, we will be building 2 fuselages at this
show and also building wing ribs.
For anyone who wants to help build stuff this is the place for it, we
can also talk with people about questions. I know of one Piet at this
point that is flying in, hopefully there will be more.
Stop by
Dick N.
Message 31
| 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: Engine Accessories, Manuals Needed |
A couple years ago I found Eisemann mag parts from the California
company with the full page ad in Trade-a-plane. All parts seemed to be
available. Try an antique tractor magazine for a magneto repair man and
you can probably find points, condenser, etc. for the Case magnetos.
Case mags have a really hot spark for tractor use and I=99ve been
told the airplane mags are the same thing.
Ralph in SD
Message 32
| 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: question for the radio geeks |
Douwe, put the antenna as close to the center of the ground plane as
possible. Connect the braided part of the coaxial cable to the ground
plane, connect the center connector to the antenna. Of course, do not
allow the antenna to come in contact with the ground plane. Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: Douwe Blumberg
To: pietenpolgroup
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 7:27 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: question for the radio geeks
Okay, so if I guy an simple antenna and hook it up to the handheld,
does the ground plane have to be directly under the antenna?
For example, could the antenna be back in the fin and the ground plane
just behind the pilots seat?
And, what goes from the antenna to the ground plane, a ground wire?
Stupid questions I know, but appreciate the help.
Douwe
Message 33
| 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: Corvair College 22 |
Most of the photos were taken by Piet builder Mark Chouinard. Thanks for taking
so many pictures Mark!
--------
Shelley Tumino
IT Girl
wife of "Axel"
NX899KP
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=369186#369186
Message 34
| 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: question for the radio geeks |
Some antenna info from the Flybaby wesite:
http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/antenna.htm
Greg "Happily Nordo" Cardinal
Minneapolis
----- Original Message -----
From: C N Campbell
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: question for the radio geeks
Douwe, put the antenna as close to the center of the ground plane as
possible. Connect the braided part of the coaxial cable to the ground
plane, connect the center connector to the antenna. Of course, do not
allow the antenna to come in contact with the ground plane. Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: Douwe Blumberg
To: pietenpolgroup
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 7:27 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: question for the radio geeks
Okay, so if I guy an simple antenna and hook it up to the handheld,
does the ground plane have to be directly under the antenna?
For example, could the antenna be back in the fin and the ground
plane just behind the pilots seat?
And, what goes from the antenna to the ground plane, a ground wire?
Stupid questions I know, but appreciate the help.
Douwe
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
Message 35
| 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: Inst. Panel design |
As I said when I first saw the Indian Head Pennies; that is one beautiful instrument
panel.
Cheers,
Jim B.
Message 36
| 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 |
|
I'm watching the weather and gathering my camping gear. I'm hoping to try ai
rcamping. Hope to find a campsite near yours.
Ben Charvet
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 22, 2012, at 8:25 PM, "Dick N" <horzpool@goldengate.net> wrote:
> Hey all
> I am down here at Sun n Fun and have been here for a few days now. I hope
to see lots of Piet people at the show. For anyone who is considering buil
ding a Piet, we will be building 2 fuselages at this show and also building w
ing ribs.
> For anyone who wants to help build stuff this is the place for it, we can
also talk with people about questions. I know of one Piet at this point t
hat is flying in, hopefully there will be more.
> Stop by
> Dick N.
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
Message 37
| 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: question for the radio geeks |
I'll weigh in with my experience. I've installed a 20 meter dipole from
tail to wingtips on my Stinson and worked hams from the air. I've also
helped a couple people put dipoles and ground plane antennas in their
wood airplanes and wings. I've used an antenna analyzer to tune each
antenna, some before the aircraft was covered during construction. My
recommendation is to look up your local amateur radio club and ask to
talk to the antenna gurus. They should be able to help you install both
VHF and ELT antennas that will work well under the fabric before covering.
Darrel Jones
Pfeifer Sport N154JP
Sonoma, CA
Message 38
| 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: Corvair College 22 |
You are welcome... it gave me something to do besides sit around and eat Round
Rock donuts, although I ate my share.
--------
Mark Chouinard
Wings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=369196#369196
Message 39
| 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: question for the radio geeks |
Wow, how perfect! Did you make one for the VHF aircraft band? How'd the other
antennas work compared to ones on the ground? Have you tried a dipole for 2
meter work airborne? Inquiring minds...!
Tools
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=369198#369198
Message 40
| 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 |
|
I still have not been able to get my engine to run for more than about 10
seconds. I've tried the bubble mitigation effort and am now turning my
suspicions to my stromberg NAS3A1. Has anyone on the list rebuilt one of
these? Is anyone familiar with the contents of the rebuild kit available
from ACS? http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/stromberg.php
The engine has been sitting for several years in an environment known to
evaporate fuel into a sludge. (Sonoran Desert) It probably merits a
cleaning anyhow.
--
Andrew Eldredge
Provo, UT
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! --
|