Dreaming of a BETTER PowerFLARM antenna

On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 4:47:59 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 10:44:25 AM UTC-6, ND wrote:
Flarm antennaes are HIDEOUS. i would HATE to put one of those into my cockpit. in fact it would be one of the reasons i would decide not to put a unit it. now, before starting an argument, i'm not anti-flarm. but i AM anti ****ty hideous flarm antennae. i didn't spend all that time making our glider cockpit beautiful to stick that ugly piece right in my forward field of vision. ew.

Hmm, you obviously are in the "die early and leave a good looking corpse" camp!

Me, I can take a hideous antenna if it works. Just put it where you won't see it!

Cheers,

Kirk
66

the flarm thing, i get it. i expressly said i was not anti flarm. i said very carefully that i was anti hideous flarm antennae. what puzzles me is that people accept the ugly antennae solution. if i was going to install a flarm, i too would put it somewhere you don't see it.

either way, for the foreseeable future i am a see-and-avoid kinda guy. That's right! Ice... man. I am dangerous.

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 1:41:37 PM UTC-6, ND wrote:

either way, for the foreseeable future i am a see-and-avoid kinda guy. That's right! Ice... man. I am dangerous.

Yes you are.

Well, good luck and I hope the Big Sky Theory works for you - because "see-and-avoid" has been 100% proven to not always work.

And from personal experience, a mid-air can really ruin your day!

But hey, at least your cockpit is Gucci!

Cheers,

Kirk
66

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 3:31:24 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 1:41:37 PM UTC-6, ND wrote:

either way, for the foreseeable future i am a see-and-avoid kinda guy. That's right! Ice... man. I am dangerous.

Yes you are.

Well, good luck and I hope the Big Sky Theory works for you - because "see-and-avoid" has been 100% proven to not always work.

And from personal experience, a mid-air can really ruin your day!

But hey, at least your cockpit is Gucci!

Cheers,

Kirk
66

kirk, i was joking last time when i quoted top gun--you missed my attempt at humor. let's both pump the brakes on this one. i knew i shouldn't have expressed my opinions about the aesthetics of the antenna because it would illicit some such response. the reality is that MOST gliders in the US are still flying without flarm, and that like see-and-avoid, flarm is also not 100% effective. i don't disagree with the pro flarm camp. i hate the ugly antenna installs i see, that's it. let's meet halfway on this one, and enjoy a beer together should our paths ever meet. (ok...no pun intended, but that last sentence is comedic gold)

-ND

There's not enough space between glareshield and canopy on my ASW-15 to mount the FLARM antenna there. Fortunately mounting it in the nosecone works and gave me pretty good coverage according to the range tool. With no nose hook up there and no carbon fiber (except - thanks to the previous owner in Germany - a really nice carbon fiber instrument panel) in the ship the only thing I was worried about was that with the 15's relatively snubby nose I thought the rudder pedals might cause a blind spot but they don't seem to..

That said, now that we're going to be installing FLARM in all the club ships this winter a nice thin bottom fed antenna would be a nice option for some of them.

I agree entirely on the issues associated with FLARM antennas. I have installed several FLARM systems in our club aircraft and the antenna installation is a serious issue.

I think it is important to point out that the range tool has some very serious flaws and that relying on it to evaluate your antenna installation for range may give you a very false sense of how far you can adequately rely on it. The range tool reports average range at a variety of angles around the ship. In this kind of stochastic process, the average really doesn't mean anything. You have two targets whirling around in clear space whose sensitivity varies strongly with direction and the range tool uses measured contacts to estimate the range. In reality the actual range a contact can be made can vary quite widely. If the range tool displayed the estimated range (average) as well as the average plus and minus one standard deviation (three contours), you would find that in reality you have a very high statistical probability of not making contact unless you are very close. In addition, the way the tool is setup, where you can only enter a single flight, it is not possible to get enough contacts to even make this measurement. It probably takes an entire season of flying to properly determine this. I wrote some code to splice together lots of flight logs to do a better statistical analysis and the results are quite interesting.


Mark