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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On larger aircraft, there are very few antennas the manufacturer will
let you paint. You can get by with metalics on some such as the comms, but not any of the L-band, TCAS, or other high frequency ones. As a rule though, we won't cover the antenna manufacturer's paint with anything else. I recently had a new Gulfstream that the tail radome that covers the satcom, Direct TV, and high-speed data antennas that had to be changed because the paint was too thick and attenuated the TV and data signals. The satcom worked fine. Experience has shown me that with other than small metallic stripes on the nose radome, they won't pass a transmissivity test on the range and have to be stripped and re-painted. The white urethane base coats don't cause a problem there. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Don Hammer" wrote in message news:1119738126.4b52018cd82f8bdc4b584a58e183d17a@t eranews... On larger aircraft, there are very few antennas the manufacturer will let you paint. A holdover from the days when most paints had colors with pigments starting with "lead", "cadmium", "copper" and the other heavy metals. With the EPA ban on truly metal based paints as the pigment, why should the manufacturer go back and redo the whole damned testing procedure with the new oxide based colors. Besides, at these speeds, there are some legitimate static buildups that come in to play to require "furry paint". At Mach .25, these effects are hardly noticeable. You can get by with metalics on some such as the comms, but not any of the L-band, TCAS, or other high frequency ones. As a rule though, we won't cover the antenna manufacturer's paint with anything else. I don't have a problem with that. If you don't have an antenna pattern range on which to "prove" your work, the best course is to avoid paint. However, we were talking about an experimental here, and THIS is where we prove the new concepts that eventually work their way into production aircraft. How many production aircraft had Whitcomb winglets installed until several thousand EZs proved the point? I recently had a new Gulfstream that the tail radome that covers the satcom, Direct TV, and high-speed data antennas that had to be changed because the paint was too thick and attenuated the TV and data signals. The satcom worked fine. No problem. If I was working with submicrovolt signals, my advice would be to save every tenth of a dB possible. Here we are talking noise margins of forty to sixty dB and the dB or so that thin, thick, or semimetallic paint would introduce is a second order effect at best. Experience has shown me that with other than small metallic stripes on the nose radome, they won't pass a transmissivity test on the range and have to be stripped and re-painted. The white urethane base coats don't cause a problem there. And we both know that the "small metallic stripes" are there to conduct lightning strikes from the epoxy to the metal airframe. Ever seen a radome that takes a REAL lightning pop that goes through the epoxy before it gets to the metal stripes? The sucker looks like it had a huge popcorn kernel under the skin. Jim |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"RST Engineering" wrote Why on earth would you bond a transponder antenna to the inside of the fuselage? How do you get lower hemispherical (not biconical) radiation from something bonded to the fuselage? Ahh, those pesky double meanings. Perhaps he means bonded - as in glued to, instead of your EE, bonded - electrically. -- Jim in NC |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
And we both know that the "small metallic stripes" are there to conduct lightning strikes from the epoxy to the metal airframe. Ever seen a radome that takes a REAL lightning pop that goes through the epoxy before it gets to the metal stripes? The sucker looks like it had a huge popcorn kernel under the skin. Jim All good points Jim. Larger aircraft radomes have lightning deverter strips installed on the outside of the glass. What I'm talking about is metalic paint trim stripes. We try and keep all metallics off of the radomes because it will attenuate the signal if it is anyway near the signal path. The radome on the tail also has diverters. Their placement is engineered to be out of the way of the signal. Don |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"RST Engineering" wrote:
Mark ... I mean no offense, but anecdotal evidence about painting pagers doesn't take the place of a controlled environment test when it comes to making general pronouncements about antennas inside of one paint or the other. Of course not, but the fact the paint DID affect the operation of the pager shows that there WILL be an effect on the operation of the antenna inside the painted radome. The controlled environmental testing will determine the magnitude. Kinda like giving a dose of a substance to a mouse. It squeaks, drops dead quivering ten seconds later... it would be safe to say the substance wouldn't be good to ingest, but you'd have to do more testing to find out just how dangerous it is. So far as I know, the paint could have leaked inside, the pager could have crapped out from natural causes... Nope - with a new pager case, the thing worked like new. And FWIW, the testing of the pager did involve a radiation test fixture inside a Lindgren screen room, and lotsa nice HP test equipment. Mark "wouldn't have brought it up otherwise" Hickey Jim "Mark Hickey" wrote in message .. . "RST Engineering" wrote: I have absolutely no idea. I can tell you how to run a test on it if you would like. Had a customer paint his pager case with metalflake paint - didn't work worth squat when he was done. I suspect the effect would be the same on any radome (since that's what a pager case is). |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Darrel Toepfer wrote:
RST Engineering wrote: Mark ... I mean no offense, but anecdotal evidence about painting pagers doesn't take the place of a controlled environment test when it comes to making general pronouncements about antennas inside of one paint or the other. So far as I know, the paint could have leaked inside, the pager could have crapped out from natural causes... They also operate in all the normal bands... VHF Low/Hi, UHF, 800/900/1200 mhz and probably more... The pagers we were working on at the time were almost all VHF or UHF (this was quite a while ago). Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
In that case I stand corrected ... for THAT brand of paint at the frequency
of THAT pager {;-) Jim "Mark Hickey" wrote in message ... "RST Engineering" wrote: Nope - with a new pager case, the thing worked like new. And FWIW, the testing of the pager did involve a radiation test fixture inside a Lindgren screen room, and lotsa nice HP test equipment. Mark "wouldn't have brought it up otherwise" Hickey Jim |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
No, that wasn't the point. You CAN'T bond (as in glued to) a ground plane
type of transponder antenna to the plastic fuselage. If you were so ... ummm ... thoughtless as to try and bond a dipole type antenna for transponder use half your transponder power gets radiated into outer space. Where, as I understand it, no ATC facilities yet exist. Jim "Morgans" wrote in message ... "RST Engineering" wrote Why on earth would you bond a transponder antenna to the inside of the fuselage? How do you get lower hemispherical (not biconical) radiation from something bonded to the fuselage? Ahh, those pesky double meanings. Perhaps he means bonded - as in glued to, instead of your EE, bonded - electrically. -- Jim in NC |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 07:41:15 -0700, "RST Engineering"
wrote: No, that wasn't the point. You CAN'T bond (as in glued to) a ground plane type of transponder antenna to the plastic fuselage. If you were so ... ummm ... thoughtless as to try and bond a dipole type antenna for transponder use half your transponder power gets radiated into outer space. Where, as I understand it, no ATC facilities yet exist. Jim sounds like a good place to use Wier's foil antenna setup :-) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Joe Camp" wrote in message
.. . What about metal flake paint? Metal flake paint has considerably more metal, and bigger pieces of it. Wouldn't that block the signal to and from an embedded antenna? I'm sorry to but in this late in the thread, and further since I have been away from avionics for 20 years...and was almost exclusively a Comm and VOR technicial at the time. But I'm not sure that all metal-flake paint has any metal it it. As I recall, a lot of is is/was "mylar". Back when I was last involved, metal-flake was enjoying a resurgence of popularity (after a 15 to 20 year slump) and we were seeing King Air 200's with metal- flake radome paint--which contained a small amount of added conductive material, just like the plain radome paint... Your local DuPont supplier of aircraft paint should be a good information source. They have an outstanding product line and are/were quite helpfull. Peter |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|