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

FLARM Fusion Range



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 20th 21, 06:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Matt Herron Jr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default FLARM Fusion Range

Hi guys,

I just installed a FLARM Fusion and am getting some very poor results. The antennas are installed symmetrically on either side of the canopy rail (see photographs) in an ASW27b. They clip into a plastic adaptor printed from ABS, and each antenna has a clear 180 degree view out the side of the canopy. This seems to me like a pretty ideal setup to avoid the carbon in the cockpit, etc. Can anyone help me understand why the range is not better, and in particular, why the range is better on one antenna vs the other? that makes no sense to me.

Thanks,

Matt Herron


PastedGraphic-4.tiff

PastedGraphic-1.tiff

PastedGraphic-2.tiff
Ads
  #2  
Old April 20th 21, 07:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Ramy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 601
Default FLARM Fusion Range

Matt,

I suspect you only had couple of flights at Williams with only couple of gliders., possibly the same gliders. This is not enough variety of data. I suggest to collect more flights with more flarm targets first.

Ramy

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 10:28:54 AM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
Hi guys,

I just installed a FLARM Fusion and am getting some very poor results. The antennas are installed symmetrically on either side of the canopy rail (see photographs) in an ASW27b. They clip into a plastic adaptor printed from ABS, and each antenna has a clear 180 degree view out the side of the canopy. This seems to me like a pretty ideal setup to avoid the carbon in the cockpit, etc. Can anyone help me understand why the range is not better, and in particular, why the range is better on one antenna vs the other? that makes no sense to me.

Thanks,

Matt Herron


PastedGraphic-4.tiff

PastedGraphic-1.tiff

PastedGraphic-2.tiff

  #3  
Old April 20th 21, 11:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Matt Herron Jr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default FLARM Fusion Range

Fair enough, but there were 5-6 gliders in the air, including you. I thermaled with many of them in the same thermal.

Matt

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 11:44:15 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
Matt,

I suspect you only had couple of flights at Williams with only couple of gliders., possibly the same gliders. This is not enough variety of data. I suggest to collect more flights with more flarm targets first.

Ramy
On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 10:28:54 AM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
Hi guys,

I just installed a FLARM Fusion and am getting some very poor results. The antennas are installed symmetrically on either side of the canopy rail (see photographs) in an ASW27b. They clip into a plastic adaptor printed from ABS, and each antenna has a clear 180 degree view out the side of the canopy. This seems to me like a pretty ideal setup to avoid the carbon in the cockpit, etc. Can anyone help me understand why the range is not better, and in particular, why the range is better on one antenna vs the other? that makes no sense to me.

Thanks,

Matt Herron


PastedGraphic-4.tiff

PastedGraphic-1.tiff

PastedGraphic-2.tiff

  #4  
Old April 21st 21, 01:41 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
David Leonard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default FLARM Fusion Range

You might want to check the ktrax site that does a FLARM transmit range
analysis using OGN receivers, like the one at Williams. The most recent
report for your glider (at least it might be your glider, if not put in
the correct ICAO code) shows better than average transmit range:

https://ktrax.kisstech.ch/plot?device=A7D668

If your transmit range is good but receive range is bad, you might have
an RF noise maker on board jamming your receiver. Or there could be a
lot of interference from ground transmitters causing you range
degradation. Last time I was at Hobbs, 2019, my FLARM receive range
dropped showing mostly less than 1.5 miles. Out at Nephi the next week
it was up to about 6 miles with no changes other than a lot of driving.
I found a bunch of IGC files from other gliders from those two weeks
that had FLARM data in them that showed even worse while at Hobbs ( 1
mile) and a complete recovery to normal later in the season at other
sites. Kind of deceiving when a lot of gliders had ADS-B and very long
range on the display, but the tip off was how many gliders did not show
up at all until entering the same thermal.

-Dave

On 4/20/2021 4:17 PM, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
Fair enough, but there were 5-6 gliders in the air, including you. I thermaled with many of them in the same thermal.

Matt

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 11:44:15 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
Matt,

I suspect you only had couple of flights at Williams with only couple of gliders., possibly the same gliders. This is not enough variety of data. I suggest to collect more flights with more flarm targets first.

Ramy
On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 10:28:54 AM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
Hi guys,

I just installed a FLARM Fusion and am getting some very poor results. The antennas are installed symmetrically on either side of the canopy rail (see photographs) in an ASW27b. They clip into a plastic adaptor printed from ABS, and each antenna has a clear 180 degree view out the side of the canopy. This seems to me like a pretty ideal setup to avoid the carbon in the cockpit, etc. Can anyone help me understand why the range is not better, and in particular, why the range is better on one antenna vs the other? that makes no sense to me.

Thanks,

Matt Herron


PastedGraphic-4.tiff

PastedGraphic-1.tiff

PastedGraphic-2.tiff



  #5  
Old April 21st 21, 02:16 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Matt Herron Jr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default FLARM Fusion Range

You make a lot of sense Dave. Thanks for the analysis and link. Interference might explain the lopsided reception as well. I have a ferrite sampler kit, but not much experience killing noise in a meaningful systematic way (M.E., not E.E.). I know switching power supplies are a common offender. Any other suggestions from RAS? I have a scope if that helps...

Matt

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 5:41:32 PM UTC-7, Dave Leonard wrote:
You might want to check the ktrax site that does a FLARM transmit range
analysis using OGN receivers, like the one at Williams. The most recent
report for your glider (at least it might be your glider, if not put in
the correct ICAO code) shows better than average transmit range:

https://ktrax.kisstech.ch/plot?device=A7D668

If your transmit range is good but receive range is bad, you might have
an RF noise maker on board jamming your receiver. Or there could be a
lot of interference from ground transmitters causing you range
degradation. Last time I was at Hobbs, 2019, my FLARM receive range
dropped showing mostly less than 1.5 miles. Out at Nephi the next week
it was up to about 6 miles with no changes other than a lot of driving.
I found a bunch of IGC files from other gliders from those two weeks
that had FLARM data in them that showed even worse while at Hobbs ( 1
mile) and a complete recovery to normal later in the season at other
sites. Kind of deceiving when a lot of gliders had ADS-B and very long
range on the display, but the tip off was how many gliders did not show
up at all until entering the same thermal.

-Dave
On 4/20/2021 4:17 PM, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
Fair enough, but there were 5-6 gliders in the air, including you. I thermaled with many of them in the same thermal.

Matt

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 11:44:15 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
Matt,

I suspect you only had couple of flights at Williams with only couple of gliders., possibly the same gliders. This is not enough variety of data. I suggest to collect more flights with more flarm targets first.

Ramy
On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 10:28:54 AM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
Hi guys,

I just installed a FLARM Fusion and am getting some very poor results.. The antennas are installed symmetrically on either side of the canopy rail (see photographs) in an ASW27b. They clip into a plastic adaptor printed from ABS, and each antenna has a clear 180 degree view out the side of the canopy. This seems to me like a pretty ideal setup to avoid the carbon in the cockpit, etc. Can anyone help me understand why the range is not better, and in particular, why the range is better on one antenna vs the other? that makes no sense to me.

Thanks,

Matt Herron


PastedGraphic-4.tiff

PastedGraphic-1.tiff

PastedGraphic-2.tiff

  #6  
Old April 21st 21, 02:43 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Daly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 718
Default FLARM Fusion Range

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 9:16:13 PM UTC-4, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
You make a lot of sense Dave. Thanks for the analysis and link. Interference might explain the lopsided reception as well. I have a ferrite sampler kit, but not much experience killing noise in a meaningful systematic way (M.E., not E.E.). I know switching power supplies are a common offender. Any other suggestions from RAS? I have a scope if that helps...

Matt
On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 5:41:32 PM UTC-7, Dave Leonard wrote:
You might want to check the ktrax site that does a FLARM transmit range
analysis using OGN receivers, like the one at Williams. The most recent
report for your glider (at least it might be your glider, if not put in
the correct ICAO code) shows better than average transmit range:

https://ktrax.kisstech.ch/plot?device=A7D668


The CORE (I assume the same on Fusion) GPS, on the 9 club PowerFLARMs I maintain, and my own, are usually showing 1.0 m average GPS accuracy in KTrax; yours is 2.3m. Perhaps GPS interference is part of the problem? Maybe swap with another Fusion GPS or CORE owner to see if the GPS accuracy moves to the other glider, or move the GPS until its accuracy improves, then see how the ranges are?

Dan
snow tomorrow - yay
  #7  
Old April 21st 21, 03:21 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
George Haeh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 257
Default FLARM Fusion Range

I get great results from my Core 1.1 with antennas mounted on the canopy sides of my ASW-27.

I'm not able to view the tiff files. Any hints on viewing these files from https://groups.google.com/g/rec.aviation.soaring?
  #8  
Old April 21st 21, 08:11 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Martin Gregorie[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 699
Default FLARM Fusion Range

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 18:16:11 -0700, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:

You make a lot of sense Dave. Thanks for the analysis and link.
Interference might explain the lopsided reception as well. I have a
ferrite sampler kit, but not much experience killing noise in a
meaningful systematic way (M.E., not E.E.). I know switching power
supplies are a common offender. Any other suggestions from RAS? I have
a scope if that helps...

Put switch mode power supplies in a metal box rather than a plastic one.
Clip ferrite chokes round lines connected to the box if you're really
keen. Both items are available from electronic parts sources. Some
plastic boxes have a metal lining: these work too and are cheaper/lighter/
easier to drill holes in than metal ones.

Works for me, anyway.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

  #9  
Old April 21st 21, 02:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Richard Livingston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default FLARM Fusion Range

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 8:16:13 PM UTC-5, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
You make a lot of sense Dave. Thanks for the analysis and link. Interference might explain the lopsided reception as well. I have a ferrite sampler kit, but not much experience killing noise in a meaningful systematic way (M.E., not E.E.). I know switching power supplies are a common offender. Any other suggestions from RAS? I have a scope if that helps...

Matt
On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 5:41:32 PM UTC-7, Dave Leonard wrote:
You might want to check the ktrax site that does a FLARM transmit range
analysis using OGN receivers, like the one at Williams. The most recent
report for your glider (at least it might be your glider, if not put in
the correct ICAO code) shows better than average transmit range:

https://ktrax.kisstech.ch/plot?device=A7D668

If your transmit range is good but receive range is bad, you might have
an RF noise maker on board jamming your receiver. Or there could be a
lot of interference from ground transmitters causing you range
degradation. Last time I was at Hobbs, 2019, my FLARM receive range
dropped showing mostly less than 1.5 miles. Out at Nephi the next week
it was up to about 6 miles with no changes other than a lot of driving.
I found a bunch of IGC files from other gliders from those two weeks
that had FLARM data in them that showed even worse while at Hobbs ( 1
mile) and a complete recovery to normal later in the season at other
sites. Kind of deceiving when a lot of gliders had ADS-B and very long
range on the display, but the tip off was how many gliders did not show
up at all until entering the same thermal.

-Dave
On 4/20/2021 4:17 PM, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
Fair enough, but there were 5-6 gliders in the air, including you. I thermaled with many of them in the same thermal.

Matt

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 11:44:15 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
Matt,

I suspect you only had couple of flights at Williams with only couple of gliders., possibly the same gliders. This is not enough variety of data. I suggest to collect more flights with more flarm targets first.

Ramy
On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 10:28:54 AM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
Hi guys,

I just installed a FLARM Fusion and am getting some very poor results. The antennas are installed symmetrically on either side of the canopy rail (see photographs) in an ASW27b. They clip into a plastic adaptor printed from ABS, and each antenna has a clear 180 degree view out the side of the canopy. This seems to me like a pretty ideal setup to avoid the carbon in the cockpit, etc. Can anyone help me understand why the range is not better, and in particular, why the range is better on one antenna vs the other? that makes no sense to me.

Thanks,

Matt Herron


PastedGraphic-4.tiff

PastedGraphic-1.tiff

PastedGraphic-2.tiff

Matt,

A scope is not likely to help unless an exceptionally fast one. These signals are at 1 GHz.

I can't see your photos on Google Groups. Make sure the antennas are clear of any other objects, including the canopy plastic, especially the ends. Make sure there are no nearby metal objects aligned with the antenna as these will reflect the signal and can cause interference. Check the antenna cable for crimps, these can cause reflections that can seriously degrade the reception. Finally, verify that the antennas are tuned to the correct frequency (902 to 928 MHz in North America).

As for in-cockpit interference, that can be quite difficult to track down and cure. Most commercial instruments are probably safe to assume are OK. Additional commercial items like an iPad, Oudie, cell phone, etc. are possible but unlikely and can be more difficult (Oudie interference on COMM frequencies is a known issue, but I haven't heard of FLARM or ADSB interference from these devices). If you have something like a 12v USB port adapter I would be suspicious of that. Try disconnecting it and see if the situation improves. I've had little luck with ferrite beads because at these frequencies the PCBs themselves can radiate very well, bypassing the wires and beads.

Good luck,

Rich L.
  #10  
Old April 21st 21, 02:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Richard Livingston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default FLARM Fusion Range

On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 8:32:08 AM UTC-5, Richard Livingston wrote:
On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 8:16:13 PM UTC-5, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
You make a lot of sense Dave. Thanks for the analysis and link. Interference might explain the lopsided reception as well. I have a ferrite sampler kit, but not much experience killing noise in a meaningful systematic way (M.E., not E.E.). I know switching power supplies are a common offender. Any other suggestions from RAS? I have a scope if that helps...

Matt
On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 5:41:32 PM UTC-7, Dave Leonard wrote:
You might want to check the ktrax site that does a FLARM transmit range
analysis using OGN receivers, like the one at Williams. The most recent
report for your glider (at least it might be your glider, if not put in
the correct ICAO code) shows better than average transmit range:

https://ktrax.kisstech.ch/plot?device=A7D668

If your transmit range is good but receive range is bad, you might have
an RF noise maker on board jamming your receiver. Or there could be a
lot of interference from ground transmitters causing you range
degradation. Last time I was at Hobbs, 2019, my FLARM receive range
dropped showing mostly less than 1.5 miles. Out at Nephi the next week
it was up to about 6 miles with no changes other than a lot of driving.
I found a bunch of IGC files from other gliders from those two weeks
that had FLARM data in them that showed even worse while at Hobbs ( 1
mile) and a complete recovery to normal later in the season at other
sites. Kind of deceiving when a lot of gliders had ADS-B and very long
range on the display, but the tip off was how many gliders did not show
up at all until entering the same thermal.

-Dave
On 4/20/2021 4:17 PM, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
Fair enough, but there were 5-6 gliders in the air, including you. I thermaled with many of them in the same thermal.

Matt

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 11:44:15 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
Matt,

I suspect you only had couple of flights at Williams with only couple of gliders., possibly the same gliders. This is not enough variety of data. I suggest to collect more flights with more flarm targets first.

Ramy
On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 10:28:54 AM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
Hi guys,

I just installed a FLARM Fusion and am getting some very poor results. The antennas are installed symmetrically on either side of the canopy rail (see photographs) in an ASW27b. They clip into a plastic adaptor printed from ABS, and each antenna has a clear 180 degree view out the side of the canopy. This seems to me like a pretty ideal setup to avoid the carbon in the cockpit, etc. Can anyone help me understand why the range is not better, and in particular, why the range is better on one antenna vs the other? that makes no sense to me.

Thanks,

Matt Herron


PastedGraphic-4.tiff

PastedGraphic-1.tiff

PastedGraphic-2.tiff

Matt,

One last comment: Make sure the SMA connectors on the FLARM unit are tight.. A loose connector can have significant loss.

Rich L.
 




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
Flarm Range Analysis Dan Marotta Soaring 22 June 16th 17 10:54 AM
Information for all users of Flarm, OEM FLARM supplier and Flarm PowerFlarm [email protected] Soaring 28 March 12th 16 05:31 AM
FLARM Range [email protected] Soaring 11 June 16th 15 11:44 PM
Flarm range Ramy[_2_] Soaring 7 May 7th 15 11:02 PM
long range aircraft flying short-range routes? tupolev204 Piloting 10 April 22nd 11 07:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.