Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:29 AM - Re: Comm Antennas (Kelly McMullen)
2. 06:36 AM - Re: Comm Antennas (Strasnuts)
3. 06:51 AM - Re: Comm Antennas (Perry, Phil)
4. 07:35 AM - Re: Comm Antennas (Deems Davis)
5. 07:35 AM - Re: Comm Antennas (Condrey, Bob (US SSA))
6. 07:51 AM - Re: Comm Antennas (Rene Felker)
7. 08:13 AM - Re: Comm Antennas (William Curtis)
8. 08:26 AM - Re: Comm Antennas (Tim Olson)
9. 09:43 AM - static port (Dawson-Townsend,Timothy)
10. 10:24 AM - Re: static port (Carl Froehlich)
11. 11:48 AM - Re: Comm Antennas (pilotdds@aol.com)
12. 01:01 PM - Re: static port (David Maib)
13. 01:23 PM - Re: Comm Antennas (Bob Leffler)
14. 02:57 PM - Re: 2010 OSH RV-10 HQ Camping (orchidman)
15. 05:43 PM - Re: Comm Antennas (Dick & Vicki Sipp)
16. 07:05 PM - Comm Antenna (Les Kearney)
17. 07:55 PM - Kiwi RV-10 #2 (Tony Woods)
18. 08:00 PM - Re: Kiwi RV-10 #2 (Kelly McMullen)
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: Comm Antennas |
I believe if you look carefully, Deems put his antennas under the back seat
,
not inside of the step mount. That allows more separation. I believe the
number generally recommended is 4 ft between antennas, but that is hard to
achieve and you probably can get away with a bit less. I can tell you that
belly mounted antennas are not going to have stellar performance when on th
e
ground. Whether it is difficulty talking to ground control or a nearby
remote outlet for picking up a clearance, there is a benefit from having on
e
antenna more elevated than possible on the belly. I have one on belly and
one on top of fuselage on my Mooney. Not even airborne at altitude does the
belly mounted antenna give better reception than the top mounted, and on th
e
ground the belly mounted does lose reception depending on position on the
airport.
I think where Les is proposing would be good for one antenna, but I wouldn'
t
want it too close to the steps, and I still don't think it would be
desirable to have both there.
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Perry, Phil <Phil.Perry@netapp.com> wrote:
> This is exactly the place where Deems installed his CI-122=92s.
>
>
> Flip through the folder:
>
> http://www.deemsrv10.com/album/Sec%2033%20Baggage%20Area/index.html
>
>
> Perhaps he can give a report.
>
>
> Phil
>
>
> *From:* Les Kearney [mailto:kearney@shaw.ca]
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 05, 2010 11:00 PM
>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
>
>
> Kelley
>
>
> Is 3 ft the magic number? If so, I might be okay. I'll measure tomorrow.
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Les
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Kelly McMullen
> *Sent:* June-05-10 7:59 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
>
> Les,
> That might be a good location for one antenna. Putting two antennas withi
n
> about 2 ft of each other is not good.
> I'd consider either mounting one near an access panel on underside of win
g
> or far enough back in the tail cone to have more than 3 ft separation
> between antennas. Alternatives include a Bob Archer wingtip Com antenna,
an
> antenna on the top of the fuselage. The more separation you can get, the
> better. Of course you also need to consider separation from your ELT ante
nna
> and from GPS antenna.
>
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Les Kearney <kearney@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>
> I am planning on installing two Comant CI-122 antennas tomorrow. My plan
is
> to fab doublers and install the antennas / doublers just aft and inboard
of
> the fuse steps. My reason for this is I have inspection panels in that ar
ea
> for the steps so it seems like a good choice. I am not keen on installing
> anything where access is a problem.
>
>
> Can anyone thing of reasons to not do what I plan? Are there better optio
ns
> for these antennas?
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Les
>
> #40643
>
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
>
> *tp://forums.matronics.com*
>
> *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
>
> *href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> *href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/
c*
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> *
>
===========
>
===========
===========
===========
>
> *
>
>
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: Comm Antennas |
I agree with Kelly,
I installed one comm on the bottom under the rear seats and I have one going on
the top.
I've had numerous occasions in the citation when ground or clearance won't hear
me on the bottom antenna and when I switch over to the number two, which is on
the top, they have me 5 by 5. After I taxi out to the runway I can switch back
to the bottom and speak to tower. The bottom is also better when airborne.
--------
Cust. #40936
RV-10 SB Fuselage
N801VR reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=300200#300200
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 |
|
Yeah, that's true Kelly. Deems are a little further forward and that
gives a little bit of extra space between them.
I'd still be interested in knowing how it's working out though.
From: Kelly McMullen [mailto:apilot2@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
I believe if you look carefully, Deems put his antennas under the back
seat, not inside of the step mount. That allows more separation. I
believe the number generally recommended is 4 ft between antennas, but
that is hard to achieve and you probably can get away with a bit less. I
can tell you that belly mounted antennas are not going to have stellar
performance when on the ground. Whether it is difficulty talking to
ground control or a nearby remote outlet for picking up a clearance,
there is a benefit from having one antenna more elevated than possible
on the belly. I have one on belly and one on top of fuselage on my
Mooney. Not even airborne at altitude does the belly mounted antenna
give better reception than the top mounted, and on the ground the belly
mounted does lose reception depending on position on the airport.
I think where Les is proposing would be good for one antenna, but I
wouldn't want it too close to the steps, and I still don't think it
would be desirable to have both there.
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Perry, Phil <Phil.Perry@netapp.com>
wrote:
This is exactly the place where Deems installed his CI-122's.
Flip through the folder:
http://www.deemsrv10.com/album/Sec%2033%20Baggage%20Area/index.html
Perhaps he can give a report.
Phil
From: Les Kearney [mailto:kearney@shaw.ca]
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 11:00 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
Kelley
Is 3 ft the magic number? If so, I might be okay. I'll measure tomorrow.
Cheers
Les
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: June-05-10 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
Les,
That might be a good location for one antenna. Putting two antennas
within about 2 ft of each other is not good.
I'd consider either mounting one near an access panel on underside of
wing or far enough back in the tail cone to have more than 3 ft
separation between antennas. Alternatives include a Bob Archer wingtip
Com antenna, an antenna on the top of the fuselage. The more separation
you can get, the better. Of course you also need to consider separation
from your ELT antenna and from GPS antenna.
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Les Kearney <kearney@shaw.ca> wrote:
Hi
I am planning on installing two Comant CI-122 antennas tomorrow. My plan
is to fab doublers and install the antennas / doublers just aft and
inboard of the fuse steps. My reason for this is I have inspection
panels in that area for the steps so it seems like a good choice. I am
not keen on installing anything where access is a problem.
Can anyone thing of reasons to not do what I plan? Are there better
options for these antennas?
Cheers
Les
#40643
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: Comm Antennas |
I've not experienced any problems with ground operations. once caveat
however, I have not had occasion to contact a remote facility while on
the ground.
Deems
On 6/6/2010 6:51 AM, Perry, Phil wrote:
>
> Yeah, that's true Kelly. Deems are a little further forward and that
> gives a little bit of extra space between them.
>
> I'd still be interested in knowing how it's working out though.
>
> *From:* Kelly McMullen [mailto:apilot2@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 06, 2010 7:26 AM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
>
> I believe if you look carefully, Deems put his antennas under the back
> seat, not inside of the step mount. That allows more separation. I
> believe the number generally recommended is 4 ft between antennas, but
> that is hard to achieve and you probably can get away with a bit less.
> I can tell you that belly mounted antennas are not going to have
> stellar performance when on the ground. Whether it is difficulty
> talking to ground control or a nearby remote outlet for picking up a
> clearance, there is a benefit from having one antenna more elevated
> than possible on the belly. I have one on belly and one on top of
> fuselage on my Mooney. Not even airborne at altitude does the belly
> mounted antenna give better reception than the top mounted, and on the
> ground the belly mounted does lose reception depending on position on
> the airport.
>
> I think where Les is proposing would be good for one antenna, but I
> wouldn't want it too close to the steps, and I still don't think it
> would be desirable to have both there.
>
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Perry, Phil <Phil.Perry@netapp.com
> <mailto:Phil.Perry@netapp.com>> wrote:
>
> This is exactly the place where Deems installed his CI-122's.
>
> Flip through the folder:
>
> http://www.deemsrv10.com/album/Sec%2033%20Baggage%20Area/index.html
>
> Perhaps he can give a report.
>
> Phil
>
> *From:* Les Kearney [mailto:kearney@shaw.ca <mailto:kearney@shaw.ca>]
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 05, 2010 11:00 PM
>
>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
>
> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
>
> Kelley
>
> Is 3 ft the magic number? If so, I might be okay. I'll measure tomorrow.
>
> Cheers
>
> Les
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com>
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com>] *On Behalf Of *Kelly
> McMullen
> *Sent:* June-05-10 7:59 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
>
> Les,
> That might be a good location for one antenna. Putting two antennas
> within about 2 ft of each other is not good.
> I'd consider either mounting one near an access panel on underside of
> wing or far enough back in the tail cone to have more than 3 ft
> separation between antennas. Alternatives include a Bob Archer
> wingtip Com antenna, an antenna on the top of the fuselage. The more
> separation you can get, the better. Of course you also need to
> consider separation from your ELT antenna and from GPS antenna.
>
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Les Kearney <kearney@shaw.ca
> <mailto:kearney@shaw.ca>> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I am planning on installing two Comant CI-122 antennas tomorrow. My
> plan is to fab doublers and install the antennas / doublers just aft
> and inboard of the fuse steps. My reason for this is I have inspection
> panels in that area for the steps so it seems like a good choice. I am
> not keen on installing anything where access is a problem.
>
> Can anyone thing of reasons to not do what I plan? Are there better
> options for these antennas?
>
> Cheers
>
> Les
>
> #40643
>
> * *
> * *
> *get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
> *tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>*
> *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
> * *
>
> * *
> * *
> *href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
> *href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com*
> *href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c*
> * *
> * *
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
> * *
> * *
> * *
> *get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
> * *
> *tp://forums.matronics.com*
> *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
> * *
>
> * *
> * *
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
> **
> **
> **
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
> **
> * *
> *
>
>
> *
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: Comm Antennas |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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 |
|
I had mine in the same position, and had a problem communicating with
towers on the lower end of the frequency spectrum (118.1 --118.3). So I
moved one of the antennas up to the top and left the other on the
bottom. Have not seen any problems since.
For ref: Home field, KOGD (Ogden Utah) Tower 118, never had a problem
Problems encountered: Boise (KBOI) Tower 118.1
Salt Lake City (KSLC) Tower 118.3
Problems encounter during ground operations all the times except once,
they could not hear me one time after I was initially handed
off..at least that is what they said
Just my experience. I noticed a .12673 Knot decrease in cruise speed
with the antenna change..just kidding of course.
Rene' Felker
N423CF
801-721-6080
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Condrey, Bob
(US SSA)
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
I've got mine located wher Deems has his and haven't had an issue in
over 2 years of flying that way.
Bob
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
<owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com>
Sent: Sun Jun 06 06:51:08 2010
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
Yeah, that=99s true Kelly. Deems are a little further forward and
that gives a little bit of extra space between them.
I=99d still be interested in knowing how it=99s working out
though.
From: Kelly McMullen [mailto:apilot2@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
I believe if you look carefully, Deems put his antennas under the back
seat, not inside of the step mount. That allows more separation. I
believe the number generally recommended is 4 ft between antennas, but
that is hard to achieve and you probably can get away with a bit less. I
can tell you that belly mounted antennas are not going to have stellar
performance when on the ground. Whether it is difficulty talking to
ground control or a nearby remote outlet for picking up a clearance,
there is a benefit from having one antenna more elevated than possible
on the belly. I have one on belly and one on top of fuselage on my
Mooney. Not even airborne at altitude does the belly mounted antenna
give better reception than the top mounted, and on the ground the belly
mounted does lose reception depending on position on the airport.
I think where Les is proposing would be good for one antenna, but I
wouldn't want it too close to the steps, and I still don't think it
would be desirable to have both there.
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Perry, Phil <Phil.Perry@netapp.com>
wrote:
This is exactly the place where Deems installed his CI-122=99s.
Flip through the folder:
http://www.deemsrv10.com/album/Sec%2033%20Baggage%20Area/index.html
Perhaps he can give a report.
Phil
From: Les Kearney [mailto:kearney@shaw.ca]
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 11:00 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
Kelley
Is 3 ft the magic number? If so, I might be okay. I'll measure tomorrow.
Cheers
Les
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: June-05-10 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
Les,
That might be a good location for one antenna. Putting two antennas
within about 2 ft of each other is not good.
I'd consider either mounting one near an access panel on underside of
wing or far enough back in the tail cone to have more than 3 ft
separation between antennas. Alternatives include a Bob Archer wingtip
Com antenna, an antenna on the top of the fuselage. The more separation
you can get, the better. Of course you also need to consider separation
from your ELT antenna and from GPS antenna.
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Les Kearney <kearney@shaw.ca> wrote:
Hi
I am planning on installing two Comant CI-122 antennas tomorrow. My plan
is to fab doublers and install the antennas / doublers just aft and
inboard of the fuse steps. My reason for this is I have inspection
panels in that area for the steps so it seems like a good choice. I am
not keen on installing anything where access is a problem.
Can anyone thing of reasons to not do what I plan? Are there better
options for these antennas?
Cheers
Les
#40643
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
~=EF=BD=DE=83g(=D3=8D=D3=87qzn
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: Comm Antennas |
Agree with Kelly on this. Even Cirrus with their all composite airframes
have one antenna on the top and the other on the belly. Certainly if one
wants to follow function over form and there is no concern for remote ground
reception, dual belly antennas will be fine.
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Les,
> That might be a good location for one antenna. Putting two antennas within
> about 2 ft of each other is not good.
> I'd consider either mounting one near an access panel on underside of wing
> or far enough back in the tail cone to have more than 3 ft separation
> between antennas. Alternatives include a Bob Archer wingtip Com antenna, an
> antenna on the top of the fuselage. The more separation you can get, the
> better. Of course you also need to consider separation from your ELT antenna
> and from GPS antenna.
>
--
William
http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/90Electrical/antenna.html
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: Comm Antennas |
No problems here either. Maybe metal whips are less prone to issues
due to size/design?
Tim
On Jun 6, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net> wrote:
> I've not experienced any problems with ground operations. once
> caveat however, I have not had occasion to contact a remote facility
> while on the ground.
>
> Deems
>
> On 6/6/2010 6:51 AM, Perry, Phil wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, that=99s true Kelly. Deems are a little further forward
and t
>> hat gives a little bit of extra space between them.
>>
>> I=99d still be interested in knowing how it=99s working
out though.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Kelly McMullen [mailto:apilot2@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 7:26 AM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
>>
>> I believe if you look carefully, Deems put his antennas under the
>> back seat, not inside of the step mount. That allows more
>> separation. I believe the number generally recommended is 4 ft
>> between antennas, but that is hard to achieve and you probably can
>> get away with a bit less. I can tell you that belly mounted
>> antennas are not going to have stellar performance when on the
>> ground. Whether it is difficulty talking to ground control or a
>> nearby remote outlet for picking up a clearance, there is a benefit
>> from having one antenna more elevated than possible on the belly.
>> I have one on belly and one on top of fuselage on my Mooney. Not
>> even airborne at altitude does the belly mounted antenna give
>> better reception than the top mounted, and on the ground the belly
>> mounted does lose reception depending on position on the airport.
>>
>> I think where Les is proposing would be good for one antenna, but I
>> wouldn't want it too close to the steps, and I still don't think it
>> would be desirable to have both there.
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Perry, Phil <Phil.Perry@netapp.com>
>> wrote:
>> This is exactly the place where Deems installed his CI-122=99s.
>>
>> Flip through the folder:
>> http://www.deemsrv10.com/album/Sec%2033%20Baggage%20Area/index.html
>>
>> Perhaps he can give a report.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Les Kearney [mailto:kearney@shaw.ca]
>> Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 11:00 PM
>>
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
>>
>> Kelley
>>
>> Is 3 ft the magic number? If so, I might be okay. I'll measure
>> tomorrow.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Les
>>
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-
>> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
>> Sent: June-05-10 7:59 PM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
>>
>> Les,
>> That might be a good location for one antenna. Putting two antennas
>> within about 2 ft of each other is not good.
>> I'd consider either mounting one near an access panel on underside
>> of wing or far enough back in the tail cone to have more than 3 ft
>> separation between antennas. Alternatives include a Bob Archer
>> wingtip Com antenna, an antenna on the top of the fuselage. The
>> more separation you can get, the better. Of course you also need to
>> consider separation from your ELT antenna and from GPS antenna.
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Les Kearney <kearney@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I am planning on installing two Comant CI-122 antennas tomorrow. My
>> plan is to fab doublers and install the antennas / doublers just
>> aft and inboard of the fuse steps. My reason for this is I have
>> inspection panels in that area for the steps so it seems like a
>> good choice. I am not keen on installing anything where access is a
>> problem.
>>
>> Can anyone thing of reasons to not do what I plan? Are there better
>> options for these antennas?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Les
>> #40643
>>
>>
>>
>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>>
>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>>
>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution
>>
>
>
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 |
|
We had long ago installed flush static ports, before hearing how they
end up being less accurate than those with a slight outward bump. I
don't feel like crawling back in the tailcone and replacing the existing
ports.
Any opinions on the efficacy of gluing a washer or other small metal
disk on top of the flush port, with an appropriately-sized hole leading
into the port itself?
TDT
Tim Dawson-Townsend
RV-10 40025
tdt@aurora.aero
617-500-4812 (office)
617-905-4800 (mobile)
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 |
|
Same exact problem I had on my 8A.
I drilled a 1/16=94 hole in the center of a couple of 1/8=94 AN470
rivets.
After drilling the hole I used a Dremmel tool to cut off the rivet
shank,
then sanded flush. I used JB Weld to epoxy the rivet heads to the flush
static ports, putting a shaved down toothpick in the hole to both hold
it in
place while the epoxy cured and to keep the hole clear. Photos
attached.
After 200 hrs still working perfectly.
For the RV-10 I=92m using a couple of 3/16=94 AN470 rivets with a
1/16=94 hole
drilled through the head and the rivet shank. I=92ll just epoxy the
whole
rivet in, then glue on the =BC=94 static line over the rivet shank.
Carl Froehlich
RV-8A (540 hrs)
RV-10 (systems install)
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Dawson-Townsend,Timothy
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 12:42 PM
Subject: RV10-List: static port
We had long ago installed flush static ports, before hearing how they
end up
being less accurate than those with a slight outward bump. I don=92t
feel
like crawling back in the tailcone and replacing the existing ports.
Any opinions on the efficacy of gluing a washer or other small metal
disk on
top of the flush port, with an appropriately-sized hole leading into the
port itself?
TDT
Tim Dawson-Townsend
RV-10 40025
tdt@aurora.aero
617-500-4812 (office)
617-905-4800 (mobile)
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: Comm Antennas |
does the transponder antenna need to be considered and what about ads-b tr
ansceiver antenna? nav and gps are receive only but do they need to be con
sidered?I am not a fan of the archer ant for an ifr ship,in my experince
they are quirky(I think thats a word).
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Sent: Sun, Jun 6, 2010 8:26 am
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
No problems here either. Maybe metal whips are less prone to issues due to
size/design?
Tim
On Jun 6, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net> wrote:
I've not experienced any problems with ground operations. once caveat howe
ver, I have not had occasion to contact a remote facility while on the gro
und.
Deems
On 6/6/2010 6:51 AM, Perry, Phil wrote:
Yeah, that=99s true Kelly. Deems are a little further forward and
that gives a little bit of extra space between them.
I=99d still be interested in knowing how it=99s working out th
ough.
From: Kelly McMullen [mailto:apilot2@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
I believe if you look carefully, Deems put his antennas under the back sea
t, not inside of the step mount. That allows more separation. I believe th
e number generally recommended is 4 ft between antennas, but that is hard
to achieve and you probably can get away with a bit less. I can tell you
that belly mounted antennas are not going to have stellar performance whe
n on the ground. Whether it is difficulty talking to ground control or a
nearby remote outlet for picking up a clearance, there is a benefit from
having one antenna more elevated than possible on the belly. I have one
on belly and one on top of fuselage on my Mooney. Not even airborne at al
titude does the belly mounted antenna give better reception than the top
mounted, and on the ground the belly mounted does lose reception dependin
g on position on the airport.
I think where Les is proposing would be good for one antenna, but I wouldn
't want it too close to the steps, and I still don't think it would be des
irable to have both there.
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Perry, Phil <Phil.Perry@netapp.com> wrote:
This is exactly the place where Deems installed his CI-122=99s.
Flip through the folder:
http://www.deemsrv10.com/album/Sec%2033%20Baggage%20Area/index.html
Perhaps he can give a report.
Phil
From: Les Kearney [mailto:kearney@shaw.ca]
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 11:00 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
Kelley
Is 3 ft the magic number? If so, I might be okay. I'll measure tomorrow.
Cheers
Les
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@
matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
Sent: June-05-10 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
Les,
That might be a good location for one antenna. Putting two antennas within
about 2 ft of each other is not good.
I'd consider either mounting one near an access panel on underside of wing
or far enough back in the tail cone to have more than 3 ft separation bet
ween antennas. Alternatives include a Bob Archer wingtip Com antenna, an
antenna on the top of the fuselage. The more separation you can get, the
better. Of course you also need to consider separation from your ELT ante
nna and from GPS antenna.
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Les Kearney <kearney@shaw.ca> wrote:
Hi
I am planning on installing two Comant CI-122 antennas tomorrow. My plan
is to fab doublers and install the antennas / doublers just aft and inboa
rd of the fuse steps. My reason for this is I have inspection panels in th
at area for the steps so it seems like a good choice. I am not keen on ins
talling anything where access is a problem.
Can anyone thing of reasons to not do what I plan? Are there better option
s for these antennas?
Cheers
Les
#40643
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
ref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
ref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/con
tribution
========================
===========
-= - The RV10-List Email Forum -
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
-= Photoshare, and much much more:
-
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
-
-========================
========================
===========
-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
-
-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
-
-========================
========================
===========
-= - List Contribution Web Site -
-= Thank you for your generous support!
-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-========================
========================
===========
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 |
|
Kevin Horton had some great info about fixing static port errors. I
believe it was in one of his articles in Kitplanes.
David Maib
40559
On Jun 6, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Dawson-Townsend,Timothy wrote:
We had long ago installed flush static ports, before hearing how they
end up being less accurate than those with a slight outward bump. I
don=92t feel like crawling back in the tailcone and replacing the
existing ports.
Any opinions on the efficacy of gluing a washer or other small metal
disk on top of the flush port, with an appropriately-sized hole
leading into the port itself?
TDT
Tim Dawson-Townsend
RV-10 40025
tdt@aurora.aero
617-500-4812 (office)
617-905-4800 (mobile)
<image001.png>
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 |
|
Short answer, Yes
GPS needs to be on top. Cat whiskers can go on the top of the
vertical or on the bottom of the tail, since you aren=99t using
the archer (I=99m not a fan either). While Commant states that
they should point forward, there are many RVs with them pointing aft
underneath the empennage. I would also suggest reading the install
manual for your ads-b equipment. NavWork is pretty up front, for an
example, here=99s an excerpt:
I haven=99t put in either of these yet, but I=99m thinking
the transponder will go in the tunnel near the firewall and the ADS-B
will be back by the battery someplace.
bob
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
pilotdds@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
does the transponder antenna need to be considered and what about ads-b
transceiver antenna? nav and gps are receive only but do they need to be
considered?I am not a fan of the archer ant for an ifr ship,in my
experince they are quirky(I think thats a word).
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Sent: Sun, Jun 6, 2010 8:26 am
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
No problems here either. Maybe metal whips are less prone to issues due
to size/design?
Tim
On Jun 6, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net> wrote:
I've not experienced any problems with ground operations. once caveat
however, I have not had occasion to contact a remote facility while on
the ground.
Deems
On 6/6/2010 6:51 AM, Perry, Phil wrote:
Yeah, that=99s true Kelly. Deems are a little further forward and
that gives a little bit of extra space between them.
I=99d still be interested in knowing how it=99s working out
though.
From: Kelly McMullen [mailto:apilot2@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
I believe if you look carefully, Deems put his antennas under the back
seat, not inside of the step mount. That allows more separation. I
believe the number generally recommended is 4 ft between antennas, but
that is hard to achieve and you probably can get away with a bit less. I
can tell you that belly mounted antennas are not going to have stellar
performance when on the ground. Whether it is difficulty talking to
ground control or a nearby remote outlet for picking up a clearance,
there is a benefit from having one antenna more elevated than possible
on the belly. I have one on belly and one on top of fuselage on my
Mooney. Not even airborne at altitude does the belly mounted antenna
give better reception than the top mounted, and on the ground the belly
mounted does lose reception depending on position on the airport.
I think where Les is proposing would be good for one antenna, but I
wouldn't want it too close to the steps, and I still don't think it
would be desirable to have both there.
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Perry, Phil <Phil.Perry@netapp.com>
wrote:
This is exactly the place where Deems installed his CI-122=99s.
Flip through the folder:
http://www.deemsrv10.com/album/Sec%2033%20Baggage%20Area/index.html
Perhaps he can give a report.
Phil
From: Les Kearney [mailto:kearney@shaw.ca]
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 11:00 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
Kelley
Is 3 ft the magic number? If so, I might be okay. I'll measure tomorrow.
Cheers
Les
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: June-05-10 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
Les,
That might be a good location for one antenna. Putting two antennas
within about 2 ft of each other is not good.
I'd consider either mounting one near an access panel on underside of
wing or far enough back in the tail cone to have more than 3 ft
separation between antennas. Alternatives include a Bob Archer wingtip
Com antenna, an antenna on the top of the fuselage. The more separation
you can get, the better. Of course you also need to consider separation
from your ELT antenna and from GPS antenna.
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Les Kearney <kearney@shaw.ca> wrote:
Hi
I am planning on installing two Comant CI-122 antennas tomorrow. My plan
is to fab doublers and install the antennas / doublers just aft and
inboard of the fuse steps. My reason for this is I have inspection
panels in that area for the steps so it seems like a good choice. I am
not keen on installing anything where access is a problem.
Can anyone thing of reasons to not do what I plan? Are there better
options for these antennas?
Cheers
Les
#40643
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
">http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
">http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
">http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
rget=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: 2010 OSH RV-10 HQ Camping |
The shuttles were running Friday at 1pm when we got there last year.
--------
Gary Blankenbiller
RV10 - # 40674
(N2GB Flying)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=300258#300258
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: Comm Antennas |
My com antennas are where Deems and most others have reported, below
rear seat floors with good performance. Transponder is on belly
centerline about 10 inches aft of firewall. In the past few months I
have been getting an occasional report of intermittent response, seems
to be when the radar sight is on the nose at relatively close range,
most sites report normal ops after a few minutes of outage at most. VOR
is Archer in wing tip, works fine.
I have a back up GPS and XM antennas mounted on the firewall under the
top cowling, they both work fine.
Dick Sipp
N110DV 285 hours
From: pilotdds@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
does the transponder antenna need to be considered and what about ads-b
transceiver antenna? nav and gps are receive only but do they need to be
considered?I am not a fan of the archer ant for an ifr ship,in my
experince they are quirky(I think thats a word).
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 |
|
Hi
Thanks for all the info on comm antennas.
Checking out my planned placement, I realise that anyone accessing the
baggage area coold accidently interfere with the antenna (luggage on ground
etc). Not wanting to pull my floor pans or to install anything where it is
inaccessible, I have decided to put one antenna in the tunnel just aft of
the seats and off center (so it doesn't interfere with the control tubes).
The other will go on the centerline in the empennage about 4' aft of the
first.
In retrospect and given the comments from Kelly et al, I like the idea of
having one antenna completely clear of wings, gear and steps. I really would
like to avoid an antenna on top (other than the GPS puck.
Cheers
Les
#40643
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 |
|
My empennage kit just arrived!
New Zealand has its second RV10 underway. Let the journey begin.
Tony
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Curtis
Sent: Monday, 7 June 2010 3:13 a.m.
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Comm Antennas
Agree with Kelly on this. Even Cirrus with their all composite airframes
have one antenna on the top and the other on the belly. Certainly if one
wants to follow function over form and there is no concern for remote ground
reception, dual belly antennas will be fine.
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com> wrote:
Les,
That might be a good location for one antenna. Putting two antennas within
about 2 ft of each other is not good.
I'd consider either mounting one near an access panel on underside of wing
or far enough back in the tail cone to have more than 3 ft separation
between antennas. Alternatives include a Bob Archer wingtip Com antenna, an
antenna on the top of the fuselage. The more separation you can get, the
better. Of course you also need to consider separation from your ELT antenna
and from GPS antenna.
--
William
http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/90Electrical/antenna.html
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: Kiwi RV-10 #2 |
Builder number?
Kelly
40866
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Tony Woods <twoods@sesa.af> wrote:
> My empennage kit just arrived!
>
>
> New Zealand has its second RV10 underway. Let the journey begin.
>
>
> Tony
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! --
|