Return-Path: Received: from post.mail.nl.demon.net (post-10.mail.nl.demon.net [194.159.73.20]) by truman.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-52269U2500L250S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 16:52:49 -0500 Received: from [194.159.224.164] (helo=colmar) by post.mail.nl.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0zsDHA-00004E-00; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 21:54:05 +0000 Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 22:50:45 +0200 To: "mtholland@halnet.com" , "lancair.list@olsusa.com" cc: "RHHELMS-VIENNA@worldnet.att.net" From: "colmar" Importance: medium Priority: normal Message-Id: <914277045-0-jones@colmar.demon.nl> Subject: Re:Nav.Antenna Placement X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I may have missed something in the beginning of this discussion, but why are you avoiding putting the Nav antenna in the wing, as described in Lancair Supplement #1 (Antennas)?. I have one nav. in the (old) kevlar tail and one in the wing, wired to the two Nav sets, and both work fine. At least, I have not been able to detect noticeable difference of sensitivity, and I have the extended wing tanks, so most of the antenna there is submerged. Remember "wet wing" does not mean wet like in wet water - Gasoline is not a dipole molecule like water, and hence not a conductive screen.