X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:50:35 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from web57508.mail.re1.yahoo.com ([66.196.100.75] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c2o) with SMTP id 4882274 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 07:39:46 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.196.100.75; envelope-from=casey.gary@yahoo.com Received: (qmail 22774 invoked by uid 60001); 25 Feb 2011 12:39:11 -0000 DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=nOpovQv7rfJU+UauzBtOCMEDFLUANn7o9xl3zfngiUi4tyvjHbldtA0EWfiqeK3G3mg1FETsQEPrzK1mf8PVAcXxgUMHsE1mE88dcPA/zxy3R7yS3mWXCO84NcJafJlm7ZT/N37uW3U7xQJrmxZ6VuiaandhxZ52VAeV32z7N9k=; X-Original-Message-ID: <256809.22626.qm@web57508.mail.re1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: tQfWZNcVM1lMxkXE78EqOrbLfh4saOmQ8GUFG1Vu6eX7hY_ _arhg1JOX_UPAkwWp3Qs..mqkC7zVp9shyfQScDXae3i4Xln7IAwAbFRngFN UCJ9zx3SWsQDA2N_SoCYrb9gpiCIvH.gT_8U3X4kM5Awo6tdBC7DoKfsxy7a I2H0M.H2r1sXXz0w_oVcvwFMcNkLtBVWJDfT10dAPbiVwPF.BERXp.ayp4qq xcXniXIqzJC2argBHag9KHVJ0VzVlVRqYvkXDHYEEumh8fDoqueoDz1USMrb SMhmOlQzEsP3NZAMo504aY9yBvI9JIh_EPlclrEbFRFcVPPk8eRCL4w1bSsV TFn1y51o6SrrbWzyhQoJ8Zp.2tApkzACHtTsLWZ4UtaKJ Received: from [96.35.96.95] by web57508.mail.re1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:39:10 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/555 YahooMailWebService/0.8.109.292656 References: X-Original-Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:39:10 -0800 (PST) From: Gary Casey Subject: Re: com antennas X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1612587657-1298637550=:22626" --0-1612587657-1298637550=:22626 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I can add little in the way of intelligence to this discussion, but here wa= s my =0Aexperience:=A0 I built my ES with a Lancair-supplied antenna in the= vertical tail =0Aand I added a bent-whip=A0external antenna in the belly j= ust ahead of the front =0Aseat.=A0 The belly antenna was bolted to a brass = plate (I don't trust the =0Aelectrical conductivity of an aluminum connecti= on) with soldered-on=A0copper =0Aribbons radiating outward.=A0 I connected = this antenna to the #1 radio (Garmin =0A430) assuming it would give the bet= ter performance.=A0 I had many complaints of =0Apoor reception.=A0 Since th= ere was a ground braid that went by the antenna I =0Aconnected it to the br= ass plate - the reception was then normal.=A0 However, I =0Astill have an o= ccasional problem when operating in "poor coverage" areas, but =0Acan usual= ly fix it by talking on the #2 radio, which is connected to the =0Atail-mou= nted antenna.=A0 So for me, the internal tail-mounted antenna has =0Aperfor= med better than the external belly antenna, even with its "correctly done" = =0Aground plane.=A0 However, it might be partly because of my "down and wel= ded" =0Alanding gear that surrounds it.=0AGary Casey=0AES #157=0A=0AFrom Jo= hn:=0ATo get maximum performance from your com radios use an external anten= na like the =0Acomant CI 122 with an acceptable size ground plane construct= ed from thin =0Aaluminum.=0A=0A=0A-- =0AJon Hadlich=0A=0A=0A=0A --0-1612587657-1298637550=:22626 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=0A

=0A

I can add little in the way of intelligence to= this discussion, but here was my experience: I built my ES with a La= ncair-supplied antenna in the vertical tail and I added a bent-whip ex= ternal antenna in the belly just ahead of the front seat. The belly a= ntenna was bolted to a brass plate (I don't trust the electrical conductivi= ty of an aluminum connection) with soldered-on copper ribbons radiatin= g outward. I connected this antenna to the #1 radio (Garmin 430) assu= ming it would give the better performance. I had many complaints of p= oor reception. Since there was a ground braid that went by the antenn= a I connected it to the brass plate - the reception was then normal. = However, I still have an occasional problem when operating in "poor coverag= e" areas, but can usually fix it by talking on the #2 radio, which is conne= cted to the tail-mounted antenna. So for me, the internal tail-mounte= d antenna has performed better than the external belly antenna, even with it= s "correctly done" ground plane. However, it might be partly because = of my "down and welded" landing gear that surrounds it.

=0A

Gary Casey

=0A

ES #157

=0A

=0A

From John:

=0A

=0A

=0A

To get maximum performance from your com radios use an external ante= nna like the comant CI 122 with an acceptable size ground plane constructed= from thin aluminum.

--
Jon Hadlich

=0A=0A --0-1612587657-1298637550=:22626--