The point that I was trying to make was not one type over another, but a way
to install a cheap and temporary alternative to confirm that there is really
an antenna problem, nothing more. That having been said, the shape of the
fuselage would seem to lend itself well to the construction of a ground
plane, and that would probably be the easiest way to go if the commercially
purchased antenna is not going to work well.
Jim
>From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
>Reply-To: europa-list@matronics.com
>To: <europa-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Europa-List: RE: Com Radio Antenna Problem
>Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:22:27 -0400
>
>
>Well, when you get down to it, a quarterwave whip above a quarterwave
>radius
>ground cone is really much like a halfwave dipole, only less directive. the
>cone gives it 50ohm nominal impedance but they both radiate in a doughnut
>(circular toroid?) shape centre on the horizon - if the dipole is vertical
>like ours. The cone just centres the pattern more accurately. I don't think
>there's an 'above' or 'below' factor otherwise.
>More intellectual minds may differ........
>Ferg
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <n3eu@comcast.net>
>To: <europa-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Europa-List: RE: Com Radio Antenna Problem
>
>
>|
>| Jim Puglise wrote:
>|
>| > There are multiple grades of coax and you want to use high grade coax
>| > and "type N" fittings.
>|
>| I can't agree that an "N" connector verses BNC will add anything at VHF,
>Jim, though it would be better where it's subject to environmental
>contamination. I've seen specs on factory male-female BNC connector pairs
>at a nothing .2db insertion loss, and even if user-fabricated connectors -
>true of any connector, any additional loss is still very small.
>|
>| At VHF also, any RG-58/whatever at less than 20 feet is perfectly
>adequate, though solid conductor is arguably not good mechanically.
>Lower-loss cable (400, 142) will be specified at transponder and GPS
>frequencies, though.
>|
>| > The other thing I would do is build a simple
>| > vertical dipole and jury rig a piece of cable to the radio and try it.
>|
>| The interesting thing about that is whether a 1/2-wave dipole behaves any
>different from a 1/4-wave monopole whip antenna, if in free space (an
>airplane). You'll find long/lively threads about this on ham newsgroups,
>so
>I once posed the question to an actual engineer from an actual aircraft
>antenna company. He said that despite the stuff in many texts on antenna
>theory, they're exactly the same well above the earth. At least it mostly
>answers the question as to why airframe mfrs don't mind comm antenna
>installations on the top of fuselage, contrary to the insistence of the
>1/4-wave "half-donut" purists that it shouldn't work well at all where an
>ATC antenna is perforce below your altitude.
>|
>| It's also been written that a dipole is more sensitive to interference
>from nearby metal elements than a monopole whip mounted inside a plastic
>airplane, but if my antenna engineer friend is right, that might not be
>true
>either. Maybe like the three rules of real estate valuation - location,
>location, location!
>|
>| Regards,
>| Fred F.
>|
>|
>|
>|
>|
>|
>
>
Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your current Internet access and enjoy
patented spam control and more. Get two months FREE!
|