Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:34 AM - Re: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks (Kelly McMullen)
2. 06:45 AM - Re: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks (Tim Olson)
3. 06:57 AM - Re: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks (bill.peyton)
4. 06:57 AM - Re: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks (Kelly McMullen)
5. 07:07 AM - Re: Static Wicks (Kelly McMullen)
6. 07:11 AM - Re: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks (bill.peyton)
7. 07:24 AM - Re: Re: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks (Kelly McMullen)
8. 07:24 AM - Re: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks (Tim Olson)
9. 07:33 AM - Re: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks (Rene Felker)
10. 07:36 AM - Re: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks (bill.peyton)
11. 08:05 AM - Re: Re: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks (Bob Condrey)
12. 12:10 PM - Re: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks (Parish Moffitt)
13. 12:34 PM - Re: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks (Bob Turner)
14. 01:56 PM - Re: Re: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks (Carlos Trigo)
15. 06:50 PM - Re: Re: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks (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: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks |
I went with 2 Archer antennas, one in each wingtip so I wouldn't need a
splitter. There was a time when having 120 nm range at 10,000 ft was
important for victor airways in the west, but in today's GPS environment
more than 50 nm range is unlikely to be used. Both antennas work equally
well for ILS, but put centerline about 15 ft one side or the other. ;>)
Static wicks might make sense if you plan on doing a lot of flying
inside snow or very dry clouds. With the 10's capabilities, I want to
either be on top of clouds or well underneath. Slogging along for long
periods below 10K in clouds and precip is to be avoided to my way of
thinking. Sure, there can be times that other factors might give that
result, but the -10 climbs so well that you should be able to get on top
unless there is significant vertical activity, and I want to stay away
from those convective conditions.
Even pilots flying actively for business are unlikely to spend much more
than 10% of flight time in actual IMC. Static wicks are magnets for
damage and maintenance expense. And you have to adjust the balance of
control surfaces to account for their weight. JMHO
On 1/17/2018 11:06 PM, Dan Charrois wrote:
>
> I have a standard "V" antenna on top of the vertical stabilizer, and a Bob Archer
antenna in a wingtip (two NAV radios and I didn't want to reduce signal with
a splitter). They both work well, though the traditional antenna on the tail
does pick up stations further away.
>
> I don't have static wicks on my aircraft - at least so far, I haven't experienced
any problems that might be attributable to static buildup.
>
> Dan
>
>> On 2018-Jan-17, at 8:11 PM, Tim Jennings <tjennings07@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Just received my -10 empennage kit and got started building the VS. I am wondering
what is the best cat whisker antenna/model number to mount in the top
of the tail that others have had success with and also wondering if static wicks
are necessary or overkill?
>
> ---
> Dan Charrois
> President, Syzygy Research & Technology
> Phone: 780-961-2213
>
>
>
>
>
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: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks |
You'll want to first decide how much IFR flying you really plan to do
with the plane. If you aren't going to be flying IFR, I'd just throw
an Archer antenna in. If you're going to be real interested in doing
IFR flying, I'd really consider the whiskers.
I mounted one of these CI-157P antennas (I think that's the one I
used but it's been a while) underneath the tail.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/comant157p.php
It gives me at minimum 25% better range of reception with no
less worry about being shaded by the airframe depending on where
the station is. The archer has the disadvantage of only truly
having the best positioning for reception when the station is on
the same side of the airplane as the antenna. Position the
station on the opposite side and reception will get much worse.
I've compared mine in flight many times over the years and
it's definite that the range will be better with whiskers.
If you're going to mount them on the bottom, you won't need to worry
about removable elements.
If you want it on the top, you may want to consider the
CI-158C or CI-158C-2 or similar, where you can remove the elements.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/comant158c.php
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/comantci158c.php
I know people who have cut the holes in the top of the VS to mount the
antenna. The slots if you use slots would go through the upper rib
though, which could weaken it, so I'd get one with removable
elements so you can just put holes in for the elements to attach through.
Regarding static wicks, I've always wanted to have them on my
plane but haven't installed any yet. I've paid the price a few
times, having p-static build up while in the clouds and ended up
with radios that got fuzzed up or snap and pop and odd things
like that. But it's only happened a few times that I've been
sure that's what was happening. So while think it's a good
idea, I'm not ready to call it a "must do". If you do it, there
is a document out there that someone worked out that shows a
possible placement on the RV-10. I don't know anyone yet who's
installed them all like that though.
Hope that helps,
Tim
On 01/17/2018 09:11 PM, Tim Jennings wrote:
> Just received my -10 empennage kit and got started building the VS. I
> am wondering what is the best cat whisker antenna/model number to mount
> in the top of the tail that others have had success with and also
> wondering if static wicks are necessary or overkill?
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks |
I used to have Archer antennas in each wing tip, one for each radio. After loosing
the glide slope signal several times during the turn to final, I decided
to add a cat wisker antenna on the belly, which cured the issue. The Archer antenna
is directional, and while it performed just fine for VOR reception, it was
not as solid as I would like it for the ILS approaches.
IRT static wicks. I installed mine from day 1 and I have never had any P-static
issues. I have heard now of three instances of airframe static on the RV-10,
which was cured with the installation of static wicks. If you do a search on
VAF you should be able to find the posts.
You won't find a production certified IFR aircraft without them, and if you are
serious about flying IMC, then IMHO they should be installed. Dayton-Grainger
has a drawing with recommended locations for the RV-10, posted below.
--------
Bill
WA0SYV
Aviation Partners, LLC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=477404#477404
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dayton_granger_rv10_146.jpg
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: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks |
Tim,
I'm curious as to what benefits you see from additional range on your
VOR. If flying an airway, I just select that on my GTN 650 and fly it. I
guess if using a GNS430/530 I would just plug in the fixes that defined
the entry and exit of the airway. While I monitor the VOR with my SL30,
can't say that I have noticed a situation where I was out of range with
either VOR, but I only use the VOR as primary nav when flying a VOR
approach these days. Can't say that I have seen airframe blocking
either, but haven't really looked for it.
Gone are the days when I flew IFR with 1 nav/comm and 1 ADF as my total
nav capability.
On 1/18/2018 7:44 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> You'll want to first decide how much IFR flying you really plan to do
> with the plane. If you aren't going to be flying IFR, I'd just throw
> an Archer antenna in. If you're going to be real interested in doing
> IFR flying, I'd really consider the whiskers.
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: Static Wicks |
Not true re production built, type certified aircraft. I flew a 1965
Mooney M20E, for 18 years, which uses the same speeds except about 10
kts slower in cruise, IFR whenever needed. It was factory IFR approved.
I know there are plenty of others. In the time few the Mooney I might
have experience a little static once. I see the need when cruise starts
approaching 200 kts, but otherwise consider it a nice to have that I
would put near the bottom of my wish list.
On 1/18/2018 7:56 AM, bill.peyton wrote:
> You won't find a production certified IFR aircraft without them, and if you are
serious about flying IMC, then IMHO they should be installed. Dayton-Grainger
has a drawing with recommended locations for the RV-10, posted below.
>
> --------
> Bill
> WA0SYV
> Aviation Partners, LLC
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: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks |
Kelly,
In my case it was a matter of losing the GS signal during approach that caused
me to re-think the Archer antenna solution. The Archer antennas are somewhat
directional, and apparently at a specific bank and turn angle were causing lose
of signal for me. As for VOR reception it worked great.
Bill
--------
Bill
WA0SYV
Aviation Partners, LLC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=477407#477407
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: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks |
I guess, just haven't seen it with my radios, so far. I can't imagine
making enough bank while on approach that would blank line of sight to
either wing tip. As I said, I have nav antenna in each wing tip, each
connected to a single nav-com with ILS. But I pretty much have to leave
AZ to fly IFR for real.....
Kelly
On 1/18/2018 8:11 AM, bill.peyton wrote:
>
> Kelly,
> In my case it was a matter of losing the GS signal during approach that caused
me to re-think the Archer antenna solution. The Archer antennas are somewhat
directional, and apparently at a specific bank and turn angle were causing lose
of signal for me. As for VOR reception it worked great.
> Bill
>
> --------
> Bill
> WA0SYV
> Aviation Partners, LLC
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=477407#477407
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks |
For me it all comes down to one thing, basically that echos what
Bill Peyton brought up right after your reply.
IFR is serious business. Sure, we're allowed, as experimental builders,
to do some things with our equipment that is not up to part 23
standards, but we do ourselves no favors by doing anything that
hurts performance. For me, it makes me cringe when I hear about
someone being so concerned about aesthetics that they would rather
hide every antenna than have the best performance available. They'll
hide a GPS antenna under the engine cowl, for their WASS Beta 3
capable LPV Approach GPS, rather than mount it as level as possible
with a full view of the sky, on the highest point of the aircraft.
I personally feel that when people do such things, with their
higher end IFR equipment, that they are being irresponsible.
On the same note, I view comments by people who are so 100% trusting
of their GPS, that they would say things like "Why even bother
installing a NAV radio", and just as short sighted and uninformed.
The fact is, once you are up inside a cloud with your airplane, the
lives of you and your passengers while flying IFR are largely in
control of the quality of the technology you installed, and the
methods you installed it with, with a huge additional factor of
your own personal skill and experience. In todays world, if GPS
is not functioning, such as the very recent GPS jamming that
was going to happen in the South East Coast area, the impact
on your ability to continue safely and successfully a flight is
hindered. You need to be fully willing, if you fly in IMC, to
be ready to use whatever alternate nav means necessary to provide
a safe ending to your flight. If that means tuning in a VOR
(or two, when off airway, to triangulate your position and find
where you are) and then flying an ILS to minimums, so be it.
So short and simple, I think it's taking short cuts and
being a little irresponsible and goes against a philosophy of
safety to make performance compromises on your navigational
equipment, if that equipment could be used for instrument approaches.
95% of the time, it won't matter if you have an archer
or whiskers antennas, but philosophically I can't see cutting
corners on a 4-seat RV-10. I did make that compromise on
my RV-14, but the number of lives in those seats is
smaller, and to be honest, I still feel uneasy with the
compromise. And for me, if it's an IFR day, I'd be taking the
RV-10 in most cases anyway.
With the Feds cutting the number of VOR stations over time,
the impact will be absolutely unmanageable in the event of a widespread
GPS issue. Every airliner and airplane in the sky will be looking
for the the handful of fallback airports, and the controllers would
likely not be able to handle the quantities of traffic to those
airports. So I'm not much of a fan of getting rid of all of the
VORs either.
Anyway, with GPS available, it's awesome to use, but if someone
is serious about flying IFR, take it seriously and build your
aircraft to FAR 23 specs or better, and install for best performance,
not best cosmetics.
Tim
On 01/18/2018 08:55 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Tim,
> I'm curious as to what benefits you see from additional range on your
> VOR. If flying an airway, I just select that on my GTN 650 and fly it. I
> guess if using a GNS430/530 I would just plug in the fixes that defined
> the entry and exit of the airway. While I monitor the VOR with my SL30,
> can't say that I have noticed a situation where I was out of range with
> either VOR, but I only use the VOR as primary nav when flying a VOR
> approach these days. Can't say that I have seen airframe blocking
> either, but haven't really looked for it.
> Gone are the days when I flew IFR with 1 nav/comm and 1 ADF as my total
> nav capability.
>
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: | VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks |
Just my 2 centsstatic discharge is more art than
science. I considered it because of static problems I had in our
club=99s 182=99s which had static wicks. After looking at
what needed to be done, static wicks and bonding straps, and the long
term maintenance requirements I choose not to do it. I have had limited
IFR time in my airplane, but have not experienced any problems. Flying
since 2008.
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Jennings
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:12 PM
Subject: RV10-List: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks
Just received my -10 empennage kit and got started building the VS. I
am wondering what is the best cat whisker antenna/model number to mount
in the top of the tail that others have had success with and also
wondering if static wicks are necessary or overkill?
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: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks |
Well stated Tim. My sentiments exactly!
--------
Bill
WA0SYV
Aviation Partners, LLC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=477412#477412
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: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks |
And one more variable... the Archer Nav antenna is very finicky about how
it=99s installed. I=99ve seen a LOT that weren=99t done
very well and had
resulting degraded performance. Most issues I=99ve seen were routing
of
wiring (not along the antenna leading edge) and the antenna not as far
forward as possible. For those with heat shielding for halogen wingtip
landing lights, the antenna should be as close as possible to the shielding
material without actually touching (that info direct from Bob Archer
himself several years ago). Finally, I=99ve seen creative installs w
here the
strip along the wing edge wasn=99t fully electrically connected to th
e wing
(either under the nutplates or direct to the outboard rib).
Bob
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 9:38 AM bill.peyton <peyton.b@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Well stated Tim. My sentiments exactly!
>
> --------
> Bill
> WA0SYV
> Aviation Partners, LLC
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=477412#477412
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
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: | VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks |
To echo Tim, and add on a little here. I think one must realistically look at their
abilities and their mission profile for the airplane. Not only is there a
difference between VFR and IFR but there is a difference between IFR and IFR
to 200 and a half on both ends where the total time for the flight is the amount
you put in your logbook as actual IFR. I tell people all the time I am building
my airplane to practically CAT II standards as I shoot approaches to 600ft
RVR on a regular basis and feel comfortable doing so. Someone who flies through
a 2000 ft overcast layer a few times a year might not have the same comfort
level. I think you also need to look at where you live as well. Do you live
in AZ, then a less capable IFR setup is not that big of a deal. Do you live in
Seattle? Can we install auto land in this thing, LOL? I live in the Carolinas
and know we can get socked in from time to time for 2 or 3 days straight.
To add one more point for the original poster and this goes to the VOR antennae
discussion. Where do you plan to fly your airplane? If you plan to do any flying
outside the USA and in particular to some of the remote Caribbean locations,
having a good VOR antennae is paramount as that may be your only means of listening
to flight service. Also some airports here in the states still use VORs
to transmit the ATIS, Scranton PA for instance. I used to love it when I was
flying at the regional airline and watching my FO try to figure out how to get
the com radio to go to 108 or 110 point something.
My airplane will have a whisker up top. I placed a doubler plate on the top rib
and installed nut plates for the RAMI ant.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/ramiav525.php?recfer=11262
I have also installed the static wicks per Mouser/ Dayton Grangers instructions.
I have chosen to reduce my cost a little and gone with non-cert wicks at 26$
each rather than 47$. Just don't forget the bonding straps between the control
surfaces and the fixed surfaces.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/esd3staticwick.php?clickkey=6974
http://mouser.org/projects/rv-10/staticwicks.html
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks
For me it all comes down to one thing, basically that echos what Bill Peyton brought
up right after your reply.
IFR is serious business. Sure, we're allowed, as experimental builders, to do
some things with our equipment that is not up to part 23 standards, but we do
ourselves no favors by doing anything that hurts performance. For me, it makes
me cringe when I hear about someone being so concerned about aesthetics that
they would rather hide every antenna than have the best performance available.
They'll hide a GPS antenna under the engine cowl, for their WASS Beta 3 capable
LPV Approach GPS, rather than mount it as level as possible with a full view
of the sky, on the highest point of the aircraft.
I personally feel that when people do such things, with their higher end IFR equipment,
that they are being irresponsible.
On the same note, I view comments by people who are so 100% trusting of their GPS,
that they would say things like "Why even bother installing a NAV radio",
and just as short sighted and uninformed.
The fact is, once you are up inside a cloud with your airplane, the lives of you
and your passengers while flying IFR are largely in control of the quality of
the technology you installed, and the methods you installed it with, with a
huge additional factor of your own personal skill and experience. In todays world,
if GPS is not functioning, such as the very recent GPS jamming that was
going to happen in the South East Coast area, the impact on your ability to continue
safely and successfully a flight is hindered. You need to be fully willing,
if you fly in IMC, to be ready to use whatever alternate nav means necessary
to provide a safe ending to your flight. If that means tuning in a VOR (or
two, when off airway, to triangulate your position and find where you are) and
then flying an ILS to minimums, so be it.
So short and simple, I think it's taking short cuts and being a little irresponsible
and goes against a philosophy of safety to make performance compromises
on your navigational equipment, if that equipment could be used for instrument
approaches.
95% of the time, it won't matter if you have an archer or whiskers antennas, but
philosophically I can't see cutting corners on a 4-seat RV-10. I did make that
compromise on my RV-14, but the number of lives in those seats is smaller,
and to be honest, I still feel uneasy with the compromise. And for me, if it's
an IFR day, I'd be taking the
RV-10 in most cases anyway.
With the Feds cutting the number of VOR stations over time, the impact will be
absolutely unmanageable in the event of a widespread GPS issue. Every airliner
and airplane in the sky will be looking for the the handful of fallback airports,
and the controllers would likely not be able to handle the quantities of
traffic to those airports. So I'm not much of a fan of getting rid of all of
the VORs either.
Anyway, with GPS available, it's awesome to use, but if someone is serious about
flying IFR, take it seriously and build your aircraft to FAR 23 specs or better,
and install for best performance, not best cosmetics.
Tim
On 01/18/2018 08:55 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Tim,
> I'm curious as to what benefits you see from additional range on your
> VOR. If flying an airway, I just select that on my GTN 650 and fly it.
> I guess if using a GNS430/530 I would just plug in the fixes that
> defined the entry and exit of the airway. While I monitor the VOR with
> my SL30, can't say that I have noticed a situation where I was out of
> range with either VOR, but I only use the VOR as primary nav when
> flying a VOR approach these days. Can't say that I have seen airframe
> blocking either, but haven't really looked for it.
> Gone are the days when I flew IFR with 1 nav/comm and 1 ADF as my
> total nav capability.
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks |
bcondrey wrote:
> And one more variable... the Archer Nav antenna is very finicky about how its
installed. Ive seen a LOT that werent done very well and had resulting degraded
performance. Most issues Ive seen were routing of wiring (not along the antenna
leading edge) and the antenna not as far forward as possible. For those with
heat shielding for halogen wingtip landing lights, the antenna should be as
close as possible to the shielding material without actually touching (that
info direct from Bob Archer himself several years ago). Finally, Ive seen creative
installs where the strip along the wing edge wasnt fully electrically connected
to the wing (either under the nutplates or direct to the outboard rib).
>
>
> Bob
>
>
> > -->
> >
> >
>
I agree 100% with Bobs post, above. I have personally seen installations where
the ground leg was 8 away from the rib, and connected to it by a piece of wire.
Ive also seen one that was backwards, with the ground leg out in the wing tip,
and the radiating leg attached to the rib! Little wonder some report poor performance.
Ideally these need to be installed with proper test equipment; lacking
that, at least a working knowledge of what is important and what is not.
As an aside, I have my backup com on an Archer. Due to the difficulty getting
vertical polarization out in the wing tip, it is not as good as my external whip.
However, it is nowhere near as bad as many others report. I believe this is
100% installation related.
Tim: I agree with much of what you wrote. IFR is serious business. I would never
install my primary nav antenna (gps) contrary to the manufacturers instructions,
even if it wasnt technically illegal to do so. I would not accept my Archer
nav antenna if my GS dropped out on a turn to final (it doesnt). I wouldnt
accept it if I couldnt pick up a VOR 50 nm away (I can). But I am willing to accept
that 50 nm range is about the limit in the 3 oclock direction (antenna is
in the left wingtip). At the same time, there are some downsides to cats whiskers.
They need matching networks, which seem to attract moisture over time.
A walk around my home field will probably turn up one with a missing element.
Theyre ice magnets. And people washing airplanes really do poke themselves on
them! As the saying goes, engineering is the art of compromise. Everyone flying
in IMC needs to carefully consider the consequences of their choices.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=477425#477425
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: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks |
Bob T
I agree that many amongst us dont install the Archer antennae right, but that is
also due to the poor instructions which come with them...
That is why I looked thoroughly for pictures of well installed Archer antennae.
Once again: one picture worths more than a thousand words
Cheers
Carlos
Enviado do meu iPhone
No dia 18/01/2018, s 20:34, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> escreveu:
>
>
> bcondrey wrote:
>> And one more variable... the Archer Nav antenna is very finicky about how its
installed. Ive seen a LOT that werent done very well and had resulting degraded
performance. Most issues Ive seen were routing of wiring (not along the
antenna leading edge) and the antenna not as far forward as possible. For those
with heat shielding for halogen wingtip landing lights, the antenna should
be as close as possible to the shielding material without actually touching (that
info direct from Bob Archer himself several years ago). Finally, Ive seen
creative installs where the strip along the wing edge wasnt fully electrically
connected to the wing (either under the nutplates or direct to the outboard
rib).
>>
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>>> -->
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> I agree 100% with Bobs post, above. I have personally seen installations where
the ground leg was 8 away from the rib, and connected to it by a piece of wire.
Ive also seen one that was backwards, with the ground leg out in the wing
tip, and the radiating leg attached to the rib! Little wonder some report poor
performance. Ideally these need to be installed with proper test equipment; lacking
that, at least a working knowledge of what is important and what is not.
As an aside, I have my backup com on an Archer. Due to the difficulty getting
vertical polarization out in the wing tip, it is not as good as my external
whip. However, it is nowhere near as bad as many others report. I believe this
is 100% installation related.
> Tim: I agree with much of what you wrote. IFR is serious business. I would never
install my primary nav antenna (gps) contrary to the manufacturers instructions,
even if it wasnt technically illegal to do so. I would not accept my Archer
nav antenna if my GS dropped out on a turn to final (it doesnt). I wouldnt
accept it if I couldnt pick up a VOR 50 nm away (I can). But I am willing to
accept that 50 nm range is about the limit in the 3 oclock direction (antenna
is in the left wingtip). At the same time, there are some downsides to cats whiskers.
They need matching networks, which seem to attract moisture over time.
A walk around my home field will probably turn up one with a missing element.
Theyre ice magnets. And people washing airplanes really do poke themselves on
them! As the saying goes, engineering is the art of compromise. Everyone flying
in IMC needs to carefully consider the consequences of their choices.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=477425#477425
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: VOR/GS/LOC Antenna and Static Wicks |
Bob I agree a lot with what you said. I contacted Bob Archer when I wasn't
clear on the instructions and wanted to know what was critical. My point
was as you say, 50 nm range is generally acceptable for VOR in the lower
48. (I routinely flew IFR a non-radar route in Alaska that had the midpoint
cross-over 110 nm from each VOR and cat whiskers were needed and GPS didn't
exist).
I have seen the Archer antenna performance degrade more than 50% when the
wing tip was painted with metallic paint. I see no drop out of ILS, even
where my localizer intercept is about 12 nm out and GS intercept around 8
nm out. To some degree this is also the same argument of whether to use
RG58 for VHF radios or RG-400. (totally different requirements than
transponder and GPS that operate at and above 978 Mhz.) Sure, I'd like to
have radar altimeter and Cat III approved autopilot...but I don't need
either one, and have no problem planning legs that have forecast above Cat
I minimums and alternates that at least meet alternate requirements or
better. Yes, my IFR GPS antenna install is strictly in accordance with
TSO/manufacturer's requirements, on top of the canopy, not under anything.
Kelly
Sent from my IBM-360 main frame
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>
> bcondrey wrote:
> > And one more variable... the Archer Nav antenna is very finicky about
> how it=99s installed. I=99ve seen a LOT that weren=99t
done very well and had
> resulting degraded performance. Most issues I=99ve seen were routi
ng of
> wiring (not along the antenna leading edge) and the antenna not as far
> forward as possible. For those with heat shielding for halogen wingtip
> landing lights, the antenna should be as close as possible to the shieldi
ng
> material without actually touching (that info direct from Bob Archer
> himself several years ago). Finally, I=99ve seen creative installs
where the
> strip along the wing edge wasn=99t fully electrically connected to
the wing
> (either under the nutplates or direct to the outboard rib).
> >
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> I agree 100% with Bob=99s post, above. I have personally seen insta
llations
> where the ground leg was 8=9D away from the rib, and connected to i
t by a
> piece of wire. I=99ve also seen one that was backwards, with the gr
ound leg
> out in the wing tip, and the radiating leg attached to the rib! Little
> wonder some report poor performance. Ideally these need to be installed
> with proper test equipment; lacking that, at least a working knowledge of
> what is important and what is not. As an aside, I have my backup com on a
n
> Archer. Due to the difficulty getting vertical polarization out in the wi
ng
> tip, it is not as good as my external whip. However, it is nowhere near a
s
> bad as many others report. I believe this is 100% installation related.
> Tim: I agree with much of what you wrote. IFR is serious business. I woul
d
> never install my primary nav antenna (gps) contrary to the manufacturer
=99s
> instructions, even if it wasn=99t technically illegal to do so. I w
ould not
> accept my Archer nav antenna if my GS dropped out on a turn to final (it
> doesn=99t). I wouldn=99t accept it if I couldn=99t pick
up a VOR 50 nm away (I
> can). But I am willing to accept that 50 nm range is about the limit in t
he
> 3 o=99clock direction (antenna is in the left wingtip). At the same
time,
> there are some downsides to cat=99s whiskers. They need matching ne
tworks,
> which seem to attract moisture over time. A walk around my home field wil
l
> probably turn up one with a missing element. They=99re ice magnets.
And
> people washing airplanes really do poke themselves on them! As the saying
> goes, engineering is the art of compromise. Everyone flying in IMC needs
to
> carefully consider the consequences of their choices.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=477425#477425
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
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! --
|