Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:58 AM - Re: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) (Rob Rowe)
2. 06:57 AM - Re: HT Leads (ANDREWS)
3. 07:22 AM - Re: Re: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) (Brian Lloyd)
4. 07:24 AM - Extreme Hydroplaning!!!! (Tim Gagnon)
5. 07:52 AM - Re: HT Leads (A. Dennis Savarese)
6. 08:43 AM - HT leads Correction (Tom Johnson)
7. 09:04 AM - Re: Extreme Hydroplaning!!!! (Fraser, Gus)
8. 09:04 AM - Re: Extreme Hydroplaning!!!! (Fraser, Gus)
9. 09:28 AM - Re: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) (Rob Rowe)
10. 09:49 AM - Re: HT leads Correction (A. Dennis Savarese)
11. 10:15 AM - Re: Re: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) (Brian Lloyd)
12. 11:04 AM - Re: Commercial/ 2nd class (Ron Davis)
13. 11:04 AM - Re: G Limits and Lifetime (Ron Davis)
14. 11:04 AM - Re: Stress testing (Ron Davis)
15. 11:41 AM - ARS V Rental Car, registration, and hotel info (Barry Hancock)
16. 12:16 PM - Re: Stress testing (Roger Kemp)
17. 04:12 PM - Re: HT leads Correction (Bitterlich GS11 Mark G)
18. 05:01 PM - Re: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) (Bitterlich GS11 Mark G)
19. 05:05 PM - Re: Re: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) (Bitterlich GS11 Mark G)
20. 05:25 PM - Re: HT leads Correction (Brian Lloyd)
21. 05:29 PM - Re: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) (Brian Lloyd)
22. 05:35 PM - Re: Re: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) (Brian Lloyd)
23. 05:45 PM - Re: HT leads Correction (Bitterlich GS11 Mark G)
24. 05:54 PM - Re: Re: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) (Bitterlich GS11 Mark G)
25. 05:58 PM - Re: HT leads Correction (Brian Lloyd)
26. 06:30 PM - Re: HT leads Correction (Bitterlich GS11 Mark G)
27. 06:31 PM - Re: Re: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) (John W. Cox)
28. 06:48 PM - Re: Re: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) (Brian Lloyd)
29. 06:55 PM - Re: Re: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) (Bitterlich GS11 Mark G)
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: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Rob Rowe" <yak-list@robrowe.plus.com>
brian wrote:
> ... If the Russian antenna is a whip type (1/4 wave monopole -- about 24" long)
it will have an impedance of about 35 ohms and will work just fine when fed
with RG-142 (50 ohms).
>
FWIW - assuming the Russian principle of "one size fits all" applies to antennae
too ... then there will be a R105 (P105 Cyrillic) filter incorporated into the
antenna mount base. This appears to be a simple high/low pass (LC) filter to
allow the radio (high pass) & ADF (low pass) to share the same 1/4 wave monopole
antenna. Cannot find any info on the characteristic impedance of the filter
outputs ... presume it's the "standard" 50 ohms.
As a long shot ... if you had a Russian ARK-15M (APK-15M Cyrillic) ADF as part
of your original avionics fit ... and have now disconnected it ... then may be
worth fitting the ADF RF cable with a 50 ohm terminator. Just in case the R105
filter does not like having an open port (ADF) output that's disturbing the
matching between the antenna and the radio.
If you've only ever had a Baklan 5 radio fitted, & no ADF, then ignore the above!
Rob R
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=24745#24745
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 |
|
Bill Blackwell's installed Conversion kits have not had extraneous noise? TJ
installed he's own plug and wires ?
Don Andrews
----- Original Message -----
From: A. Dennis Savarese
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: HT Leads
Bill,
No one that has installed my conversion kit has reported any extraneous noise
in the radios or intercom after the installation. TJ's installation is not mine.
It may be Bill Blackwell's offering.
The Russian antenna has an impedance matching device on it and I seriously doubt
when connected to the Becker VHF that it will provide the best functionality.
You should probably put a VSWR (voltage standing wave ratio) meter on the
output and see how much reflected power there is. If it were my installation
I would replace the Russian antenna with a standard US manufactured VHF antenna.
I'll bet I know why you didn't replace it to start with! -) It's a bitch
of a job getting back in the fuselage to get to the antenna to remove it.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Walker
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: HT Leads
I also am curous about the radio noise since I'm in the process of converting
over to the new plugs and wires. Has any body else out there had any noise
with this conversion?
Also, removed the Baklan 5 from my other Yak and installed the Becker 21/4
com/Trans combo. I used RG 142 but wired it into the original russian antenna
by using the Russian coax fitting from the radio. Not really sure if that was
a good Idea as I get poor reception from aircraft in the formation but excellent
reception for aircraft further away.
Any thoughts on the need to change to a different antenna?
BW
----- Original Message -----
From: Bitterlich GS11 Mark G
To: 'yak-list@matronics.com'
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 5:15 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: HT Leads
It would be interesting to know Tom whether the noise you are hearing is
coming in via the front end of the radio (I.E. from the antenna) or as noise introduced
into the radio coupled from the actual power leads. It's probably not
very easy to do... but if it IS possible to reach behind that Garmin and unplug
the antenna to see if that noise goes away, I'd very much appreciate the
feedback. Is your antenna in the same place as the original by the way, and
did you replace the Russian coax with RG-142 ??
Thanks for the info.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tom Johnson
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 10:15 AM
To: Yak-List@Matronics. Com
Subject: Yak-List: HT Leads
At Reno this last year in the Lycoming engine booth they had one of their
experimental Turbo 550 motors for the NXT style aircraft.
Surprise! It had the same automotive RACING ignition wire and plugs that
we "chaps" are now using. This is a Lycoming factory OEM part.
Many of the race aircraft use the system also as they can adjust plug temperature
for higher output engines.
Its such a no-brainer. Makes maintenance a delight, starts like a dream.
However. . . the shielding is not as good as original. I've flown my system
about 100 hours now and when far away from a station or picking up a weak
signal a small amount of ignition noise is now heard in the system. And I have
a new Garmin (true, its not oem. . . ) avionics package. Very minor though.
Tj
---------------------------
Thomas Johnson
Airpower Insurance, LLC
36 West Ocotillo Road
Phoenix, AZ 85013-1235
Tel: 602-628-2701
Fax: 623-321-5843
E: tomjohnson@cox.net
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Rob Rowe wrote:
> FWIW - assuming the Russian principle of "one size fits all" applies to antennae
too ... then there will be a R105 (P105 Cyrillic) filter incorporated into
the antenna mount base. This appears to be a simple high/low pass (LC) filter
to allow the radio (high pass) & ADF (low pass) to share the same 1/4 wave monopole
antenna. Cannot find any info on the characteristic impedance of the filter
outputs ... presume it's the "standard" 50 ohms.
That would make sense if they are using the whip as an ADF sense antenna
too. And, yes, the VHF port should be about 50 ohms as that is what
physics dictates for a resonant monopole antenna.
BTW, for those of you with CJ6A's, the Chinese comm antenna is a
standard 1/4 wave monopole and will work just fine with US radios once
you adapt from the Chinese connector to western connectors. It looks
like a PL-259 connector but the threads are metric. Just like using the
chinese B-nut with US fittings, you can probably use the Chinese outer
shell with a western PL-259 center assembly.
> As a long shot ... if you had a Russian ARK-15M (APK-15M Cyrillic) ADF as part
of your original avionics fit ... and have now disconnected it ... then may
be worth fitting the ADF RF cable with a 50 ohm terminator. Just in case the R105
filter does not like having an open port (ADF) output that's disturbing the
matching between the antenna and the radio.
In this it shouldn't matter if the port is terminated and a 50 ohm
termination is probably NOT correct. At ADF frequencies the monopole is
no longer an antenna per se because it is so short compared to a
wavelength. The antenna's impedance is nowhere near 50 ohms. (The
characteristic impedance of a very short antenna is extremely low (under
one ohm probably). I bet that port impedance is NOT 50 ohms either. They
are probably using a low-cap low-loss coax that is not 50 ohm impedance
for the ADF sense antenna, like the stuff we used to use for unamplified
LORAN whip antennas.
> If you've only ever had a Baklan 5 radio fitted, & no ADF, then ignore the above!
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
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: | Extreme Hydroplaning!!!! |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Tim Gagnon" <NiftyYak50@msn.com>
http://www.flightzone.co.za/media/harvards.wmv
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=24777#24777
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 |
|
That's what I figured Don.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: ANDREWS
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: HT Leads
Bill Blackwell's installed Conversion kits have not had extraneous noise? TJ
installed he's own plug and wires ?
Don Andrews
----- Original Message -----
From: A. Dennis Savarese
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: HT Leads
Bill,
No one that has installed my conversion kit has reported any extraneous noise
in the radios or intercom after the installation. TJ's installation is not
mine. It may be Bill Blackwell's offering.
The Russian antenna has an impedance matching device on it and I seriously
doubt when connected to the Becker VHF that it will provide the best functionality.
You should probably put a VSWR (voltage standing wave ratio) meter on the
output and see how much reflected power there is. If it were my installation
I would replace the Russian antenna with a standard US manufactured VHF antenna.
I'll bet I know why you didn't replace it to start with! -) It's a bitch
of a job getting back in the fuselage to get to the antenna to remove it.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Walker
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: HT Leads
I also am curous about the radio noise since I'm in the process of converting
over to the new plugs and wires. Has any body else out there had any noise
with this conversion?
Also, removed the Baklan 5 from my other Yak and installed the Becker 21/4
com/Trans combo. I used RG 142 but wired it into the original russian antenna
by using the Russian coax fitting from the radio. Not really sure if that
was a good Idea as I get poor reception from aircraft in the formation but excellent
reception for aircraft further away.
Any thoughts on the need to change to a different antenna?
BW
----- Original Message -----
From: Bitterlich GS11 Mark G
To: 'yak-list@matronics.com'
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 5:15 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: HT Leads
It would be interesting to know Tom whether the noise you are hearing is
coming in via the front end of the radio (I.E. from the antenna) or as noise
introduced into the radio coupled from the actual power leads. It's probably
not very easy to do... but if it IS possible to reach behind that Garmin and
unplug the antenna to see if that noise goes away, I'd very much appreciate the
feedback. Is your antenna in the same place as the original by the way, and
did you replace the Russian coax with RG-142 ??
Thanks for the info.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tom Johnson
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 10:15 AM
To: Yak-List@Matronics. Com
Subject: Yak-List: HT Leads
At Reno this last year in the Lycoming engine booth they had one of their
experimental Turbo 550 motors for the NXT style aircraft.
Surprise! It had the same automotive RACING ignition wire and plugs that
we "chaps" are now using. This is a Lycoming factory OEM part.
Many of the race aircraft use the system also as they can adjust plug temperature
for higher output engines.
Its such a no-brainer. Makes maintenance a delight, starts like a dream.
However. . . the shielding is not as good as original. I've flown my system
about 100 hours now and when far away from a station or picking up a weak
signal a small amount of ignition noise is now heard in the system. And I have
a new Garmin (true, its not oem. . . ) avionics package. Very minor though.
Tj
---------------------------
Thomas Johnson
Airpower Insurance, LLC
36 West Ocotillo Road
Phoenix, AZ 85013-1235
Tel: 602-628-2701
Fax: 623-321-5843
E: tomjohnson@cox.net
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: | HT leads Correction |
I should have been more careful when I said "noise".
My radios are absolutely crystal clear 99.9% of the time
Whoever installed the GNC250 used -58 antenna wire and the existing Russian
antenna.
Since installing the "West Coast" version of the wire package and the
phenolic mag cover seal I still have perfect radio reception and
transmission.
Now. . what does happen when VERY far away . . .from a VERY weak station you
can hear a very faint buzz in the background ONLY if the squelch is broken.
So for instance when trying to talk to MCAS Yuma from 50 miles north and
they are coming in VERY weakly and you manually break squelch . . .
you can hear this faint buzz.
That's all. Not a big deal, and Dennis I would be surprised if you didn't
find the same thing on your kit, seeing as the wire is the same.
In normal x-country, formation, ACM (<--doesn't do that). . .you never know
the difference.
Would be cool if the -142 got rid of that.
I have VERY low tolerance for anything but perfection in radios.
Tj
---------------------------
Thomas Johnson
Airpower Insurance, LLC
36 West Ocotillo Road
Phoenix, AZ 85013-1235
Tel: 602-628-2701
Fax: 623-321-5843
E: tomjohnson@cox.net
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: | Extreme Hydroplaning!!!! |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Fraser, Gus" <gus.fraser@gs.com>
'kin awesome.
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Gagnon
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 10:25 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Extreme Hydroplaning!!!!
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Tim Gagnon" <NiftyYak50@msn.com>
http://www.flightzone.co.za/media/harvards.wmv
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=24777#24777
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: | Extreme Hydroplaning!!!! |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Fraser, Gus" <gus.fraser@gs.com>
I want to se RPA arrive at the seaplane base at OSH this year, go on you can
do it !
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Gagnon
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 10:25 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Extreme Hydroplaning!!!!
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Tim Gagnon" <NiftyYak50@msn.com>
http://www.flightzone.co.za/media/harvards.wmv
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=24777#24777
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: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Rob Rowe" <yak-list@robrowe.plus.com>
brian wrote:
>
> That would make sense if they are using the whip as an ADF sense antenna
> too. And, yes, the VHF port should be about 50 ohms as that is what
> physics dictates for a resonant monopole antenna.
>
Checked the schematics & they're using a 2 metre length of 50 ohm coax PK50-7-11
which other sources equate to RG213.
>
> The characteristic impedance of a very short antenna is extremely low (under
one ohm probably). I bet that port impedance is NOT 50 ohms either. They are probably
using a low-cap low-loss coax that is not 50 ohm impedance for the ADF
sense antenna, like the stuff we used to use for unamplified LORAN whip antennas.
>
My mistake ... checked the schematics which show a (max 20cm) length of unscreened
multi-strand PVC coated wire (BPVL 1,5) from the filter ADF port into an impedance
adapter unit which provides a 75 ohm coax (PK75-3-21) interface into
the ADF RF input. So the ADF filter port has an inconsequential impedance but
the ADF itself requires 75 ohms.
Rob R
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=24813#24813
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: HT leads Correction |
That makes better sense TJ.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Johnson
To: Yak-List@Matronics. Com
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 10:42 AM
Subject: Yak-List: HT leads Correction
I should have been more careful when I said "noise".
My radios are absolutely crystal clear 99.9% of the time
Whoever installed the GNC250 used -58 antenna wire and the existing Russian antenna.
Since installing the "West Coast" version of the wire package and the phenolic
mag cover seal I still have perfect radio reception and transmission.
Now. . what does happen when VERY far away . . .from a VERY weak station you
can hear a very faint buzz in the background ONLY if the squelch is broken.
So for instance when trying to talk to MCAS Yuma from 50 miles north and they
are coming in VERY weakly and you manually break squelch . . .
you can hear this faint buzz.
That's all. Not a big deal, and Dennis I would be surprised if you didn't find
the same thing on your kit, seeing as the wire is the same.
In normal x-country, formation, ACM (<--doesn't do that). . .you never know the
difference.
Would be cool if the -142 got rid of that.
I have VERY low tolerance for anything but perfection in radios.
Tj
---------------------------
Thomas Johnson
Airpower Insurance, LLC
36 West Ocotillo Road
Phoenix, AZ 85013-1235
Tel: 602-628-2701
Fax: 623-321-5843
E: tomjohnson@cox.net
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: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Rob Rowe wrote:
> brian wrote:
>> That would make sense if they are using the whip as an ADF sense antenna
>> too. And, yes, the VHF port should be about 50 ohms as that is what
>> physics dictates for a resonant monopole antenna.
>>
>
> Checked the schematics & they're using a 2 metre length of 50 ohm coax PK50-7-11
which other sources equate to RG213.
RG-213 is fine as is RG-142 with an appropriate adapter (different
outside diameters). Both are 50 ohm coax.
>> The characteristic impedance of a very short antenna is extremely low (under
one ohm probably). I bet that port impedance is NOT 50 ohms either. They are
probably using a low-cap low-loss coax that is not 50 ohm impedance for the ADF
sense antenna, like the stuff we used to use for unamplified LORAN whip antennas.
>>
>
> My mistake ... checked the schematics which show a (max 20cm) length of unscreened
multi-strand PVC coated wire (BPVL 1,5) from the filter ADF port into an
impedance adapter unit which provides a 75 ohm coax (PK75-3-21) interface into
the ADF RF input. So the ADF filter port has an inconsequential impedance but
the ADF itself requires 75 ohms.
That makes perfect sense.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
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: Commercial/ 2nd class |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <L39parts@hotmail.com>
A commercial pilot applicant has to have a 2nd class medical to take the
checkride. A Commercial pilot must have a 2nd class while exercising
Commercial "priveleges", which would mean when doing something that the FAA
requires a Commercial license for- not when some other group of
self-appointed do-gooders requires you to have a commercial license.
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Commercial/ 2nd class
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
> <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
>
> If according to RPA rules a FAST Lead must have a commercial ticket, then
> lead must also have a 2nd class medical.
> Dennis
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "DaBear" <dabear@damned.org>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 12:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Commercial/ 2nd class
>
>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: DaBear <dabear@damned.org>
>>
>> I hope Blade or one of the other check pilots jumps in here, but until
>> they do, I'll stick my nose in it. (not like I'm shy about sharing my
>> opinion :-) BTW, the Lead does not require a 2nd class medical, only
>> requires a 3rd.
>>
>> So, if you look at the requirements and the responsibilities for lead
>> versus the abilities for wing they are two different directions. Wing
>> allows formation flight into waivered airspace (flying wing position, or
>> leading a flight). Outside of waivered airspace there is no requirement
>> for wing or lead qualification to fly formation (wing or lead).
>>
>> The expectation of Lead is to recommend pilots for check rides (wing or
>> lead), sign annual activity reports, and to be able to instruct pilots
>> wanting to fly formation (wing or lead). The thought behind commercial
>> requirement is tied to the perceived higher level skill required for
>> commercial than private AND the expectation that the lead is someone who
>> is flying at a higher skill level than wing, AND can coach pilots to
>> bring their skills up as well.
>>
>> The requirements for 1k hours, commercial, 1 year as wing, etc. are
>> reasonable expectations for setting expected skill levels needed to fly
>> lead and also set "mindset" expectations of a person who will be
>> reviewing/coach other pilots performance. While debriefing a formation
>> flight, everyone's views are heard, the lead qualified pilots are
>> expected to provide feedback/coaching that enables pilot skill
>> improvement, not just acknowledgment of areas that need improvement.
>>
>>
>> Waivers to the lead qualification requirements are available through the
>> RPA check pilot group but must be ultimately approved by the national
>> FAST board. So the RPA check pilot AND the national board must approve
>> the waiver. The waiver must be requested AND approved PRIOR to the
>> check ride.
>>
>> All of this info is on the RPA website and the qualifications are from
>> the National FAST document, not an RPA specific document. The only RPA
>> specific qualification I know of that is different from the national
>> standard is a requirement for a FAM flight for those FAST card holders
>> coming from other signatories into RPA.
>>
>> Disclaimer: I'm not a lead pilot, void where prohibited, your mileage
>> may vary, and weight before cooking.
>>
>> Dabear
>>
>> Fraser, Gus wrote:
>>
>>>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Fraser, Gus" <gus.fraser@gs.com>
>>>
>>>Urghhhh!
>>>
>>>Oh I get it a CSEL has a second class medical and therefore better eyes
>>>to
>>>see where he is going, those mountains can be a bugger to spot.
>>>
>>>Here we go again
>>>
>>>Gus
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>>[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
>>>Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 12:41 PM
>>>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: Re: Yak-List: Commercial/ 2nd class
>>>
>>>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>>>
>>>Forrest,
>>>Only RPA requires CSEL to be a FAST Lead.
>>>Doc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>[Original Message]
>>>>From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>>>>To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>>>>Date: 3/23/2006 10:34:47 PM
>>>>Subject: Re: Yak-List: Commercial/ 2nd class
>>>>
>>>>--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>forrest johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I did not intend for this to get to the point it has. I am a FAST
>>>>>WING pilot. Understand the problems dealing with the FAA. I guess i
>>>>>didn't make myself clear. According to what has been writtin Ihave
>>>>>to have to have a Com/2nd to fly. I would like to fly weather I am
>>>>>compensated or not. I love Tto fly! The rerequirements prevent me
>>>>>from signing up. The question I have is why to be a LEAD PILOT
>>>>>should have a Comm/2nd. I have over 30 yrs. flying and no need for a
>>>>>comm. Over 2yrs Form, over 150hrs form , Would some one please
>>>>>enlighten me why I cant get a FAST LEAD card. This requirement is
>>>>>stiffling the FAST orgination. Iwill now SHUT-up and wait for the
>>>>>responces
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>
>
>
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: G Limits and Lifetime |
I'm pretty sure that the typical Yank CJ owner can't fly at +9/-7G indefinitely
either. The vast majority are a bit long of tooth and gray of beard to do that
1 day a week, let alone 7 days. Looking at the girth of the typical owner,
I'd say 9G is well over a ton. That's a lot for your ass to support and for
your heart to deal with.
Somewhere between 3G and five it stops being fun and starts being work. It becomes
hard work after five. I've never seen 9G and don't want to. In the negative
range minus two is hard work.
I don't believe it's possible to win unlimited competition in a Yak 52, so there's
no reason to fly one at 7G, and certainly not 9G. It's nice that the wings
won't break if you have a 7G awshit, but if you do that very often you need
sit down and have a long talk with yourself.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Goode
To: YAK USA LIST
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:05 AM
Subject: Yak-List: G Limits and Lifetime
An important subject.
Yaks are very tough aircraft, and I am sure stronger in ultimate strength but
also longevity than any western analogue.
However I am absolutely sure that Yak-50s and Yak-52s cannot be flown at their
design limits (+9G/-7G and +7G/-5G) indefinitely.
Also remember that these limits apply to standard aircraft, with the MAXIMUM
of 198lbs in each cockpit, INCLUDING parachutes.
Immaculate (and so heavier) paint-jobs; extra fuel; smoke systems etc etc will
all eat into G limits.
Fly a Yak-52 at +5G and it will last forever. Fly it at 7G and there is a very
finite lifetime.
Richard Goode
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Herefordshire
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Mob: +44 (0) 7768 610389
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
dangerous content by http://www.invictawiz.com
and is believed to be clean.
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: Stress testing |
Stress testingNow we need a volunteer to put in the centrifuge to see how much
deflection he/she gets at 26G. I don't see that there's any practical difference
between 26G and 60G if you're talking about a device a human sits in.
----- Original Message -----
From: Fraser, Gus
To: 'yak-list@matronics.com'
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:36 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Stress testing
Richard,
I stand corrected, this brain degradation is really starting to suck, it was
26G that the Sp wing was tested to with 80mm deflection
Gus
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: | ARS V Rental Car, registration, and hotel info |
Gang,
We have secured a good deal on rental cars for ARS V. See the below
for details. Thanks to Keith Frost for the assist on this one! Online
registration will open shortly and I will make an announcement when it
does.
HOTEL
here has been some confusion about registering with the event hotel,
Best Western of Porterville. If you call to make a reservation without
mentioning All Red Star, they will tell you the hotel is sold out!
This is because we have 80 rooms reserved! When someone calls to make
a reservation, use "All Red Star" as the group name, which is in their
computer. The confusion comes because there are codes based on the
number of days that people are staying...
3rd - 7th: CGRED
4th - 7th: CGSTAR
5th - 7th: CGREDS
6ht - 7th: CGRED1
The front desk person will ask how many days and then the code will go
along with their confirmation number. OR you can reserve your room
using these
codes...either way it is under All Red Star. The CG is Best Western's
group code...nothing to do with us; something they have to use. If you
have any questions, please contact our Event Coordinator, Amy Rose, at
bomberamy@yahoo.com.
For reservations, DO NOT use the internet. Call them at 559-781-7411.
REGISTRATION
Online registration at www.allredstar.com will open, I'm told, in the
next 24 hours. I will send out an email the moment you are "cleared
hot".
RENTAL CARS
We will have a 15 passenger van, plus a few other vehicles on a
schedule to shuttle people back and forth from the hotel. If you would
like more flexibility, we have arranged a very convenient system for
you to rent a car for the event.
Cars INC.
1-(559) 781-9900
They will have your car at the airport when you arrive and check you in
there. When you leave, they will make arrangements for you to leave the
car and keys at the airport. (Including Sunday drop off)
Here's what the renter needs to do:
1) Inform them you are calling for the REDSTAR Discount.
2) Tell them which date and approx time you will arrive.
3 Tell them which date and approx. time you will leave.
3) Which car or van you want:
(Note: The 50 mile per day limit is the cheapest deal. The airport is
approx 7 miles from the hotel.)
SMALL:=A0=A0 FORD Escort.=A0 $22.50=A0 (50 miles per day)
Medium: FORD Taurus.=A0=A0 $27.00=A0 (50 miles per day)
Large:=A0=A0 Grand Prix.=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 $31.50=A0 (50 miles per day)
SUV:=A0 Buick Rendezvous.=A0 $40.50=A0 (50 miles per day)
VAN:=A0 8 pax.=A0=A0=A0 $49.50=A0 (50 miles per day)
VAN:=A0 15 pax.=A0 $72.00=A0 (50 miles per day),=A0=A0 $90.00=A0 (100 miles per
day)
4) Have your credit card ready.
FLYING EVENTS
This year we're introducing a bunch of new flying events that promise
lots of good times both in the air and from an observers standpoint -
with the runway being much closer to the ramp at PTV, it will be a much
more enjoyable spectator venue.
1) Formation Challenge. Well with 3 years of great formation work in
the book, the ARS planning cell decided It is time put the "challenge"
back into the 4th annual Formation Challenge and put all your skills to
the test. Think Treasure Hunt meets TOT meets crowd pleasing formation
passes. ;) Gone are many of the subjective ground elements. Added
are rejoins, dead reckoning, TOT's, altitude separation blocks,
etc....all the things you'd be expected to do in an air show
environment. Start on time, take off on time, join up, make a photo
pass, head out, break up and find 4 undisclosed landmarks using
bearing/distance and a riddle for the landmark, rejoin, hit the TOT at
the hold point above the airport, make one pass (configuration at your
discretion), and recover using the break of your choice.
2) Carrier Landings No, we are not talking about Pappy rubmlin',
stumblin', fumblin' and flopping on a ping pong table. Were talking
about "Splash 12, call the ball!" "Roger, Ball!" Spot landings....with
a twist. Fly a carrier pattern with a 1/4 mile final, talk to the LSO,
make sure not to hit the back of the boat (yellow boards, laid flat),
and catch the 3 wire (all 4 wires simulated by flour lines). Complete
with a "Landing on the Boat" brief, "Paddles" will be out there giving
you corrections and we'll have it all on video for the Saturday night
banquet! ;)
3) Amateur Aerobatics Contest To kick off the Friday Night Ramp
Party/BBQ we'll be having an aerobatics contest open to all qualified
pilots. You'll fly a basic program and be judged by a group of your
peers. We expect the judging to be fully subjective and political as
Olympic Ice Skating, bribes will be accepted. ;)
4) CAS Demo We had such a blast doing this down in the desert that we
are hoping to put on a demo Friday night as well. This will be
dependent on our active duty guys being able to get the time off to
play the GFAC role, but the comms are interesting, and this will be a
fun primer for our Desert Thunder III in the Fall.
Aside from all this will be our usual FAST formation clinic, Tac Form
introduction and instruction, Lead Pilot Seminar, and safety and
maintenance discussions.
More to come....
Cheers,
Barry and the ARS staff
Barry Hancock
Event Director
All Red Star
May 3-7, 2006 @ KPTV
(949) 300-5510
www.allredstar.com
"A Unique Aviation Experience"
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: Stress testing |
Above 25 G human tissue starts to act like jelly! Above 100 G's it it turns into
strained mush and explodes! In any case, you went to sleep at 10 to 12 and it
will not matter much what happens after that.
Doc
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Davis
Sent: 3/28/2006 1:11:00 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Stress testing
Now we need a volunteer to put in the centrifuge to see how much deflection he/she
gets at 26G. I don't see that there's any practical difference between 26G
and 60G if you're talking about a device a human sits in.
----- Original Message -----
From: Fraser, Gus
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:36 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Stress testing
Richard,
I stand corrected, this brain degradation is really starting to suck, it was 26G
that the Sp wing was tested to with 80mm deflection
Gus
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: | HT leads Correction |
The 142 might not get rid of it Tom, but it is a move in the right
direction. RG-58 should not be allowed in aircraft. It is junk of the
highest order.
Don't you have any left from what I sent you for the GPS?
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of A. Dennis Savarese
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: HT leads Correction
That makes better sense TJ.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Johnson <mailto:tomjohnson@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 10:42 AM
Subject: Yak-List: HT leads Correction
I should have been more careful when I said "noise".
My radios are absolutely crystal clear 99.9% of the time
Whoever installed the GNC250 used -58 antenna wire and the existing Russian
antenna.
Since installing the "West Coast" version of the wire package and the
phenolic mag cover seal I still have perfect radio reception and
transmission.
Now. . what does happen when VERY far away . . .from a VERY weak station you
can hear a very faint buzz in the background ONLY if the squelch is broken.
So for instance when trying to talk to MCAS Yuma from 50 miles north and
they are coming in VERY weakly and you manually break squelch . . .
you can hear this faint buzz.
That's all. Not a big deal, and Dennis I would be surprised if you didn't
find the same thing on your kit, seeing as the wire is the same.
In normal x-country, formation, ACM (<--doesn't do that). . .you never know
the difference.
Would be cool if the -142 got rid of that.
I have VERY low tolerance for anything but perfection in radios.
Tj
---------------------------
Thomas Johnson
Airpower Insurance, LLC
36 West Ocotillo Road
Phoenix, AZ 85013-1235
Tel: 602-628-2701
Fax: 623-321-5843
E: tomjohnson@cox.net
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: | Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) |
Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com> wrote:
>Antenna impedance is a function of physics, not nationality. If the
>Russian antenna is a whip type (1/4 wave monopole -- about 24" long) it
>will have an impedance of about 35 ohms and will work just fine when fed
>with RG-142 (50 ohms).
It does. Been there and done that. I also removed the matching circuit
that was in mine, and noticed no change to the VSWR across the range. The
best idea though is to replace it (the Russian antenna) with something like
a COMINT version. I personally like the one that combines a GPS antenna
with a VHF Com antenna. You can expect below a 2:1 VSWR across the whole
aircraft VHF spectrum with one of these. You'll see them used on the newer
Sukhoi's.
>Dennis' suggestion of using a VSWR meter is a good one. If you use that,
>check the VSWR at the bottom (118 MHz), center (127 MHz), and top (136
>MHz) of the band. VSWR should be under 3:1 across the band. A VSWR of
>1:1 is perfect but a VSWR of up to 3:1 is acceptable.
I concur...Great suggestion(s). The problem is in finding a fairly accurate
VSWR meter for the 108 to 138 Mhz. range. That one you have laying around
for the ole CB radio is not up to the task. That leaves using a wattmeter
and checking for forward and reflected power and then applying the formula:
SWR = (1+(SQR(PR/PF))) / (1-(SQR(PR/PF))) But then, finding a good wattmeter
is not an easy task either. My Bird 4410 kit was $1800.
A great solution here is to purchase a good antenna analyzer such as the MFJ
series. Expect to pay between $150 to $250 dollars. That may sound like a
lot, but consider this. These devices will check coax, connectors, filters,
... well, pretty much everything from 1-170 Mhz. What is even better about
them is that you don't need to have the radio connected and you do not need
to "transmit" on your radio to make measurements. Now $250 might seem like
a LOT of money. But think carefully... how many people need to make tests
on their aircraft antenna system because they think something might not be
just right? How much does an Avionics Facility charge for such a test? I
use mine for a lot more than aircraft radios, but taking it to the airport
was where I used it enough to buy the next best model within a year. The
Avionics Shop folks are pretty much unaware of this product.. and you can
really put them to shame in short order with this puppy.
There are other companies that make them, but the MFJ versions seem to work
well for me. Here is some product information for the $250 model.. and no,
I do not own stock in this company, but sure wish that I did. Realize that
99% of what this thing can do, are things you will probably never use. Just
checking aircraft antennas alone paid for mine.
--
The World's most popular SWR/RF analyzer just got incredibly better and
gives you more value than ever!
MFJ-259B gives you a complete pictures of your antenna's performance. You
can read antenna SWR and Complex Impedance 1.8 to 170MHz
Read Complex Impedance as series resistance and reactance (R+jX) or as
magnitude (Z) and phase (degrees). You can determine velocity factor, coax
cable loss in dB, length of coax and distance to a short or open in feet.
You can read SWR, return loss and reflection coefficient at any frequency
simultaneously at a single glance. Also read inductance in UH and
capacitance in pF at RF frequencies. Large easy-to-read two line LCD screen
and side-by-side meters clearly display your information. Built-in frequency
counter, Ni-Cad charger circuit, battery saver, low battery warning and
smooth re-duction drive tuning and much more. Super easy to use! Just set
the bandswitch and tune the dial -- just like you transceiver. SWR and
Complex Impedance are displayed instantly!
Here's what you can do
Find your antenna's true resonant frequency. Trim dipoles and verticals.
Adjust your Yagi, quad, loop and other antennas, change antenna spacing and
height and watch SWR, resistance and reactance change instantly. You'll know
exactly what to do by simply watching the display. Perfectly tune critical
HF mobile antennas in seconds for super DX -- without subjecting your
transceiver to high SWR. Measure your antenna's 2:1 SWR bandwidth on one
band, or analyze multiband performance from 1.8 to 170Mhz! Check SWR outside
the ham bands without violating FCC rules. Take the guesswork out of
building and adjusting matching networks and baluns. Measure distance in
feet to a short or open in faulty coax. Measure length of a roll of coax,
coax loss, velocity factor, impedance. Measure inductance and capacitance.
measure resonant frequency and approximate Q of traps, stubs, transmission
lines, RF chokes, tuned circuits and baluns. Adjust your antenna tuner for a
perfect 1:1 match without creating QRM. And this is only the beginning! the
MFJ-259B is a complete ham radio test station including -- frequency
counter, RF signal generator, SWR Analyzer, RF resistance and Reactance
Analyzer, Coax Analyzer, Capacitance and Inductance Meter and more!
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: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) |
Rob Rowe wrote:
> brian Lloyd replied:
>> That would make sense if they are using the whip as an ADF sense antenna
>> too. And, yes, the VHF port should be about 50 ohms as that is what
>> physics dictates for a resonant monopole antenna.
>>
>
> Checked the schematics & they're using a 2 metre length of 50 ohm coax
PK50-7-11 which other sources equate to RG213.
RG-213 is fine as is RG-142 with an appropriate adapter (different
outside diameters). Both are 50 ohm coax.
My 2 cents:
Actually, RG-213 is a single shield milspec version of RG-8. Using a Poly E
dielectric it has a stranded center conductor and at 125 Mhz the loss of a
15 foot length would be right around 0.4 Db. The O.D. is .404"
RG-142 on the other hand is a double shielded, solid center conductor, all
silver plated and has a Teflon dielectric. A 15 foot run at 125 Mhz would
have close to 0.6 Db loss. The O.D. of this coax is .195"
Without question, in any General Aviation aircraft I would strongly
recommend RG-142 over RG-213. It is about half the size and weight, and the
0.2 Db loss difference for a 15 foot run is very small. The Teflon
dielectric means it will not melt, and in turn the center conductor will not
"migrate" on sharp turns/curves over time with higher than normal temps.
causing impedance mismatches. In addition it is double shielded and that
is a rather big deal in high (RF) noise environments.
Mark Bitterlich
N50YK
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: HT leads Correction |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Bitterlich GS11 Mark G wrote:
> The 142 might not get rid of it Tom, but it is a move in the right
> direction. RG-58 should not be allowed in aircraft. It is junk of the
> highest order.
Well, it depends on whose RG-52 you get. The good stuff has 97%
shielding with tinned braid. The cheap stuff has about 70% shielding and
copper braid. You get what you pay for.
Also, you have a choice of solid polyethylene or foamed polyethylene
dielectric. The foamed stuff is lower-loss and works better at first but
eventually absorbs moisture which increases loss. The foamed poly stuff
actually outperforms RG-142 initially.
I managed to find some surplus military RG-58 that is silver plated and
double shielded. Nice stuff, almost as nice as RG-142. I still have
about 100' of it and wouldn't hesitate to use it in wiring an aircraft.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
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: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Bitterlich GS11 Mark G wrote:
> A great solution here is to purchase a good antenna analyzer such as the
> MFJ series. Expect to pay between $150 to $250 dollars. That may sound
> like a lot, but consider this. These devices will check coax,
> connectors, filters, ... well, pretty much everything from 1-170 Mhz.
> What is even better about them is that you don't need to have the radio
> connected and you do not need to "transmit" on your radio to make
> measurements. Now $250 might seem like a LOT of money. But think
> carefully... how many people need to make tests on their aircraft
> antenna system because they think something might not be just right?
> How much does an Avionics Facility charge for such a test? I use mine
> for a lot more than aircraft radios, but taking it to the airport was
> where I used it enough to buy the next best model within a year. The
> Avionics Shop folks are pretty much unaware of this product.. and you
> can really put them to shame in short order with this puppy.
And you can split the cost with the other guys in your EAA chapter. (You
all do belong to an EAA chapter, don't you?)
> There are other companies that make them, but the MFJ versions seem to
> work well for me.
Might Fine Junk. :-)
> Here is some product information for the $250 model..
> and no, I do not own stock in this company, but sure wish that I did.
> Realize that 99% of what this thing can do, are things you will probably
> never use. Just checking aircraft antennas alone paid for mine.
It is a slick box.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
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: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Bitterlich GS11 Mark G wrote:
> Without question, in any General Aviation aircraft I would strongly
> recommend RG-142 over RG-213. It is about half the size and weight, and
> the 0.2 Db loss difference for a 15 foot run is very small. The Teflon
> dielectric means it will not melt, and in turn the center conductor will
> not "migrate" on sharp turns/curves over time with higher than normal
> temps. causing impedance mismatches. In addition it is double shielded
> and that is a rather big deal in high (RF) noise environments.
Sure RG-142 is probably better but, as I said, both will work just fine.
The Chinese antenna connector works with an RG-8-sized cable. You might
want to use some RG-213 just to make an adapter to RG-142. Terminate the
RG-213 in a type-N connector, connect that to an N-to-BNC-female
adapter, and then use RG-142 terminated in type-BNC connectors from
there on.
Heck, if you want real performance you might want to look at LMR-195. ;-)
And I am certain that we have gone way beyond what anyone else cares
about. ;-)
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
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: | HT leads Correction |
Mark Bitterlich wrote:
>> The 142 might not get rid of it Tom, but it is a move in the right
>> direction. RG-58 should not be allowed in aircraft. It is junk of the
>> highest order.
Brian Lloyd replied:
>Well, it depends on whose RG-52 you get. The good stuff has 97%
>shielding with tinned braid. The cheap stuff has about 70% shielding and
>copper braid. You get what you pay for.
It is very difficult to get quality RG-58 coax Brian, and I am sure you know
that! [smile] Even MILSPEC RG-58 is not advisable for use in aircraft. On
that note, let me add that a lot of companies producing GPS devices for
aircraft specify that as a MINIMUM RG-142 be used, and they will not honor
the warranty should you choose to use it. But HEY.......
>Also, you have a choice of solid polyethylene or foamed polyethylene
>dielectric. The foamed stuff is lower-loss and works better at first but
>eventually absorbs moisture which increases loss. The foamed poly stuff
>actually outperforms RG-142 initially.
Yes you do (have lots of choices). The straight Poly E at 125 Mhz and 15
feet went up another .2 Db from .6 for RG-142 to .8 for RG-58. I am glad
you are not advising anyone to use foam Poly in an aircraft. Talk about
center conductor migration, not to mention moisture absorption. Junk....
>I managed to find some surplus military RG-58 that is silver plated and
>double shielded. Nice stuff, almost as nice as RG-142. I still have
>about 100' of it and wouldn't hesitate to use it in wiring an aircraft.
Yeah, it is called RG-223 (not RG-58) and I would not hesitate to use it
either, except that once again... in overly warm quarters, it will have a
migrating center conductor. That is why we pulled it OUT of most new
military aircraft.. if you need some more, let me know.
Heck, we might as well go to Andrews SuperFlex Heliax. :-0)
Mark Bitterlich
N50YK
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: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) |
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>Heck, if you want real performance you might want to look at LMR-195. ;-)
Mark Bitterlich Replies:
Aw heck, let's go with Inch and 5/8 Heliax where the connectors alone cost
$250 ... each! And, let's use a nitrogen/air dielectric so we can REALLY
get that velocity factor up there! (When are you going to suggest a
balanced line?)
>And I am certain that we have gone way beyond what anyone else cares
>about. ;-)
Yes, obviously we both know a fair amount about coaxial transmission lines.
It is also obvious that we are both ham radio operators. I wonder how many
more are out there?
Mark
WA3JPY
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: HT leads Correction |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Bitterlich GS11 Mark G wrote:
> Yes you do (have lots of choices). The straight Poly E at 125 Mhz and
> 15 feet went up another .2 Db from .6 for RG-142 to .8 for RG-58. I am
> glad you are not advising anyone to use foam Poly in an aircraft. Talk
> about center conductor migration, not to mention moisture absorption.
> Junk....
>
> >I managed to find some surplus military RG-58 that is silver plated and
> >double shielded. Nice stuff, almost as nice as RG-142. I still have
> >about 100' of it and wouldn't hesitate to use it in wiring an aircraft.
>
> Yeah, it is called RG-223 (not RG-58)
Ah, I always wondered what that stuff was called. No one ever seemed to
know but it walked, talked, and tasted like RG-58 so that is what I
called it.
> and I would not hesitate to use it
> either, except that once again... in overly warm quarters, it will have
> a migrating center conductor. That is why we pulled it OUT of most new
> military aircraft.. if you need some more, let me know.
Sure! I use it in my ham station where I would otherwise use RG-58,
mostly for patch cables and temporary antenna installations.
> Heck, we might as well go to Andrews SuperFlex Heliax. :-0)
I use that stuff in my VSAT installations as a jumper to the feed horn.
Mark, you are being pedantic. And speaking as the resident pedant, We
are not amused! :-)
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
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: | HT leads Correction |
Brian Lloyd replied:
>> >I managed to find some surplus military RG-58 that is silver plated and
>> >double shielded. Nice stuff, almost as nice as RG-142. I still have
>> >about 100' of it and wouldn't hesitate to use it in wiring an aircraft.
>>
>> Yeah, it is called RG-223 (not RG-58)
>Ah, I always wondered what that stuff was called. No one ever seemed to
>know but it walked, talked, and tasted like RG-58 so that is what I
>called it.
Brian, if it is indeed RG-223, you'll know it by it's O.D. of 0.211 versus
0.195 for RG-58. That means you will have to use a UG-176 reducer instead
of
a UG-175 when using standard UHF connectors.
>> military aircraft.. if you need some more, let me know.
>Sure! I use it in my ham station where I would otherwise use RG-58,
>mostly for patch cables and temporary antenna installations.
Me too. It beats RG-142 when you need flexibility. Good for duplexers too.
I also have some RG-393 laying around (a spool I think) that is basically
RG-214
but again with Teflon dielectric. Consider RG-393 to RG-214, as RG-142 is
to RG-223.
Sadly, I have very little RG-214 left. How much do you want? (Let's take
this off list)
>Mark, you are being pedantic. And speaking as the resident pedant, We
>are not amused! :-)
Well consider me to be just a lowly Apprentice. I can never lead, only
follow.
Oh Master Jedi ...... :-)
Mark Bitterlich
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: | Re: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) |
Mark, as a fellow ham W7COX the idea of a pigtail to adapt improved coax
to the existing avionics in a classic aircraft is a great idea but isn't
there a clearly known Db loss with the addition of a male and female
connector to complete the task?
John Cox
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich
GS11 Mark G
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 5:55 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads)
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>Heck, if you want real performance you might want to look at LMR-195.
;-)
Mark Bitterlich Replies:
Aw heck, let's go with Inch and 5/8 Heliax where the connectors alone
cost $250 ... each! And, let's use a nitrogen/air dielectric so we can
REALLY get that velocity factor up there! (When are you going to
suggest a balanced line?)
>And I am certain that we have gone way beyond what anyone else cares
>about. ;-)
Yes, obviously we both know a fair amount about coaxial transmission
lines. It is also obvious that we are both ham radio operators. I
wonder how many more are out there?
Mark
WA3JPY
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: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
John W. Cox wrote:
> Mark, as a fellow ham W7COX the idea of a pigtail to adapt improved coax
> to the existing avionics in a classic aircraft is a great idea but isnt
> there a clearly known Db loss with the addition of a male and female
> connector to complete the task?
Yes but it is usually minimal, especially if you are using constant
impedance connectors like type-N or BNC. VHF comm and nav signals
usually have ample margin and an insertion loss of .1dB for a good
adapter is not going to be an issue. This isn't weak-signal tropo or EME
where .1dB makes a difference.
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN
brian-yak at lloyd dot com
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
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: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads) |
Hi John,
Yes, you are correct... there is. But ... it is not very much. The exact
amount of loss is of course determined by the exact series of connector and
the frequency being used, but usually you can assume that a connector with
constant "Z" (such as BNC, TNC, N series, etc) will have a loss of about
0.05 Db each. In the worst case, using something awful like a PL-259, you
can expect about 0.1 Db per connector. Of course, we're not talking about
GPS at L1 (1565 Mhz) either! Over 300 Mhz or so, I would be much more
careful.
Again, it is true that every darn bit of loss you can eliminate adds up in
the long run.... I personally believe that as long as the total loss.. from
end to end.. is less than 1 Db.... you're really splitting hairs to ask for
more. After all, the way I look at it.... we're not doing Moon bounce here
in our airplanes.
A standard aircraft radio installation will have a minimum of 4
connectors... so there is 0.2 Db. Add another 0.6 Db for coax... and you're
still under 1 Db. Add your pigtail disconnect, and you're now up to 0.9 Db.
Plus.. you're coax is probably less than 15 feet long. Not much to worry
about. But while we're talking about it, let me say that I would NEVER put
in a pigtail with anything other than a constant impedance connector series,
typically BNC. Avoid PL-259's when ever possible. HF... well, OK.
Anything higher... try not to use them unless you have no other choice.
Mark Bitterlich
WA3JPY
N50YK
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:31 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Antenna impedance (was: HT Leads)
Mark, as a fellow ham W7COX the idea of a pigtail to adapt improved coax to
the existing avionics in a classic aircraft is a great idea but isn't there
a clearly known Db loss with the addition of a male and female connector to
complete the task?
John Cox
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! --
|