CPattinson@aol.com wrote:
>
> Has anyone any thoughts on the fitment on antennae. I believe most are opting
> for the factory reccommended comms fit, but what about navs, xponders and
> GPS. Have priced most of the commercially available aerials but they are
> horrendously expensive, also most tend to be for metal aircraft.
> The most awkward one appears to be the VOR as this is usually fairly large
> and needs to be mounted horizontally. Does anyone have a design for a folded
> dipole suitable for VOR use (also possibly glideslope) . Im not a radio
> boffin so answers in plain English please. Also do the aerials interfere with
> eachother and therefore require spacing out along the fuselage.
>
> Is the standard radio 50 ohm cable suitable for connecting all these radios
> up or does the impedance depend on the frequency.
>
> Am nowhere near fitting any of these devices but am close to putting on the
> top. I would hate to think that I am going to be crawling about in the boot
> space to fit all these afterthoughts.
> PS - How easy is it to get into the rear fuselage after lid on. Answers only
> from qualified Europa potholers.
>
> Carl Pattinson
I would plan to use 2 comm radios which I think would need 2 separate
antenae, but after having a glimps at the latest news letter I might have
to reconsider due to extra weight.
I too would have a GPS with an antena for that.
Different topic now------
Has any one considered using the Vision Micro Systems brand of
(digital) engine instruments? What do you think?? They have a web site ->
http://beginning.larc.nasa.gov/oshkosh/vm1000.html
or do a search on Vision Micro Systems (alta vist works well and is the
top item on the search results.
Regards Denys Gover
Canberra, AUST.
(no Plane No Gain }:-))
|