Rob and Fred,
Use of metallic paint will have a detrimental affect on performance of
internally
mounted antennas, specifically reception and transmit range. Degree of
signal
losses in db not mathematically quantifiable, but would be variably
proportional
to percentage of metallic material in the mix: less metal=less signal loss and
more metal=more signal loss. Worst case could be total signal blockage, not
the
most joyous thing to find out about after the paint is dry.
Perhaps there is someone already flying a composite with metallic color coat
that
can enlighten further on radio performance of internal antennae.
Jim Stoutemyer
Al Fuller wrote:
> Rob:
>
> I'm not an engineer, but my common sense tells me that a metallic paint
> will reflect more solar energy, leaving less to be absorbed by the
> structure - thereby making your contemplated choice better than
> non-metallic. In fact, aren't the UV barrier paints just metallics?
>
> Keep up the good comments.
>
> Yours,
>
> Al Fuller.
>
> At Friday 03:46 PM9/14/2001, you wrote:
> >Having said all this I must admit I have considered painting the bird a
> >metallic silver, but not without making some measurements first. Your
> >observation regarding metallic tan gives pause to that idea, however. Have
> >you made any measurements at higher ambient temperatures (and I do
> >understand that you won't experience anything close to desert heat so near
> >to Lake Erie)? Will you elaborate, off list if appropriate, about your
> >measurement scheme?
> >
> >Now for the interesting off topic part: my business is manufacturing
> >components for infrared cameras so I had considered asking one of my
> >customers to make elevated temperature emissivity measurements of a metallic
> >silver painted epoxy-fiberglass surface, and also of a white sample for
> >comparison
>
|