A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

PowerFLARM leeching comments



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 2nd 12, 08:23 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default PowerFLARM leeching comments

I have had most conflicts when flying under cloud streets, including one incident a couple of years ago where I nearly collided head-on with a colleague at very high closing speeds. My concern with PowerFlarm and its cheesy antennas is that the range may not be sufficient to adequately warn me in this scenario. The more information the unit can provide the better - that is why I oppose use of the"stealth" mode.


Mike,

we all know the history we had with poor range beginning of this season.

But I do think we have that under control now. If you still find 'cheesy' installations,
feel free to invite the responsible operators to improve them in everybody's interest.

Luckily, there's a correlation between the reception characteristics of most
installations and the conflict situation with highest approach speed (head-on)---
most antennas are in the nose and radiate best in front of the glider.

For parallel course, you don't need 10NM range because the potential closing
speeds are much lower.

We recommend not activating stealth!

Best
--Gerhard



  #2  
Old November 2nd 12, 11:09 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Evan Ludeman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 484
Default PowerFLARM leeching comments

On Nov 2, 4:23*am, wrote:

We recommend not activating stealth!

Best
--Gerhard


Presuming that the systems and installations in use have been well
tested in open mode for adequate range in all directions in open mode:
why not?

I really only want one thing from flarm: anti-collision warning.
Tracking "bugs" across a small cockpit display and trying to make
tactical decisions based on same is simply not a game I am interested
in playing.

Evan Ludeman / T8
  #3  
Old November 2nd 12, 05:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andy[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,565
Default PowerFLARM leeching comments

On Nov 2, 1:23*am, wrote:

we all know the history we had with poor range beginning of this season.
But I do think we have that under control now.


Gerhard,

Would you please sumarise what, if any, changes have been made since
the beginning of the season that would have resulted in increased
FLARM range for the US portable and core systems.

The only change I am aware of is a recall of portables to fit a band
pass filter but that recall has not yet been made.


thanks

Andy GY
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Logger on PowerFlarm? LOV2AV8 Soaring 7 July 27th 12 03:18 AM
PowerFLARM Brick and PowerFLARM Remote Display Manuals Available Paul Remde Soaring 30 May 25th 12 11:58 PM
PowerFLARM Paul Remde Soaring 9 November 6th 10 04:30 AM
PowerFLARM Greg Arnold[_2_] Soaring 6 November 2nd 10 09:32 AM
PENTAGON CONSIDERING MILITARY BUILD UP AGAINST IRAN (Scroll down to comments section - see page 2 of the comments section as well): [email protected] Naval Aviation 0 December 19th 06 08:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.