PowerFLARM antenna mounts

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 12:16:38 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
Having a glare-shield mounted antenna is like sitting behind a support column at a basketball game.

Complete Nonsense. The antenna and any decent
mount are thin, and you won't notice them after
5 minutes. The angle blocked is only slightly
more than your yaw string.

Are you going to remove your yaw string too ?

Really now.

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 8:42:39 PM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 12:16:38 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
Having a glare-shield mounted antenna is like sitting behind a support column at a basketball game.

Complete Nonsense. The antenna and any decent
mount are thin, and you won't notice them after
5 minutes. The angle blocked is only slightly
more than your yaw string.

Are you going to remove your yaw string too ?

Really now.

No doubt PowerFlarm USA can come up with more aesthetic antenna and solutions.
I will have to compromise meanwhile, but am expecting a better solution will followup shortly once they start shipping and have more time.
The pictures I saw so far hurt my eyes...

Ramy (who is eagerly waiting for his brick unit)

On Jul 5, 12:07*am, Ramy wrote:
On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 8:42:39 PM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 12:16:38 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
Having a glare-shield mounted antenna is like sitting behind a support column at a basketball game.

Complete Nonsense. The antenna and any decent
mount are thin, and you won't notice them after
5 minutes. The angle blocked is only slightly
more than your yaw string.

Are you going to remove your yaw string too ?

Really now.

No doubt PowerFlarm USA can come up with more aesthetic antenna and solutions.
I will have to compromise meanwhile, but am expecting a better solution will followup shortly once they start shipping and have more time.
The pictures I saw so far hurt my eyes...

Ramy (who is eagerly waiting for his brick unit)

I guess I am not sure what you are seeing that is so ugly?


Here is what I see from my cockpit:

https://plus.google.com/photos/10893...22263754238914

I only see about one inch of the PowerFLARM antenna over my compass.

I have flown two nationals with the Brick now. I see aircraft up to
11 miles and could not imagine flying a contest without it. I had a
head on at my altitude alert with a closing speed of over 250 mph at
Parowan with W3. I would have never seen the other glider with the
light angle and speeds we were flying.

The common statement among pilots with PowerFLARM was "I can't believe
anyone would fly without PowerFLARM".

Tim (TT)

The common statement among pilots with PowerFLARM was "I can't believe
anyone would fly without PowerFLARM".

Agree...no arguments. My point is anything protruding into the available plexiglass field-of-vision is not desirable and IMO not acceptable. Example: there appears to be three objects above TT's glare shield base; in a "perfect storm", an aircraft could easily "hide" in the shadow of TT's compass. Splitting hairs? Maybe...but all it takes is missing one thermaling bird or a glint off a wing to change your day from outstanding to average or to DNF or to (God forbid) even worse.

Respected manufactures, please do not recommend application of your products into one's field-of-vision.

On Thursday, July 5, 2012 4:34:34 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
The common statement among pilots with PowerFLARM was "I can't believe
anyone would fly without PowerFLARM".

Agree...no arguments. My point is anything protruding into the available plexiglass field-of-vision is not desirable and IMO not acceptable. Example: there appears to be three objects above TT's glare shield base; in a "perfect storm", an aircraft could easily "hide" in the shadow of TT's compass. Splitting hairs? Maybe...but all it takes is missing one thermaling bird or a glint off a wing to change your day from outstanding to average or to DNF or to (God forbid) even worse.

Respected manufactures, please do not recommend application of your products into one's field-of-vision.

"not acceptable" is very subjective and certainly an antenna installed up on the glareshield in return for the benefits of PowerFLARM is more than acceptable to me.

To get reliable, range and operation from PowerFLARM we need to get suitable antennas up high with good line of sight especially forward. They just cannot be buried below typical glareshields, etc. or in many of the other things that show up in the hall of shame. Please lets focusing on getting proper/high quality PowerFLARM installs and less on making a big thing out of something that is not.

Darryl

I'm curious about the requirement for the secondary PowerFlarm dipole
antenna to be oriented vertically. I flew with a rental box in the R8
contest and had great results. I did, however, mount the secondary dipole
horizontally at the forward edge of the glare shield. This was based on
conversations with radio & avionics folks that had looked at these
particular antennas with a spectrum analyzer and found no difference in
performance based on orientation. We also couldn't think of a scenario
where the signal would need to be polarized. Is there a PowerFlarm expert
out there that can shed some light on this.

Thanks,
Craig


On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 20:42:39 -0700, Dave Nadler wrote:

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 12:16:38 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
Having a glare-shield mounted antenna is like sitting behind a support
column at a basketball game.

Complete Nonsense. The antenna and any decent
mount are thin, and you won't notice them after
5 minutes. The angle blocked is only slightly
more than your yaw string.

Are you going to remove your yaw string too ?

Really now.


--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/