| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1421.1 | No problem on the ground | VTLAKE::VTLAKE::WHITE_R | Pigs don't Intermodal | Fri Apr 17 1992 14:13 | 5 |
| Eric, I've seen them used on car radios (pistol grip and 2 stick) with
no problems of glitching or radio interference from neighboring
channels. Have not seem them used in the air.
Robert
|
| 1421.2 | Whip it good | LEDS::COHEN | What do I drive? a Taylor-Made! | Thu Apr 23 1992 15:04 | 13 |
|
Range experienced in ground application is typically less than 100
Yards. Airborne systems typically go out beyond 400.
That means what's suitable for ground based use is not necessarily good
for airborne use.
And, if you do go out of range on the ground, you just have to wait till
you run into something. If you go out of range in the air, you also
have to wait to run into something. There are more somethings to run
into on the ground than in the air. I prefer to go out of range on the
ground, thank you.
|
| 1421.3 | Range reduced to half with whip aerials | KBOMFG::KLINGENBERG | | Fri Apr 24 1992 05:34 | 17 |
| As far as I know, the whip aerials are offered by Multiplex for most
all systems that have usually aerials without coil (since late
seventies). They (Multiplex) warn however that the range might be
reduced to half. If you take into account that many Multplex systems
are used for big sailplanes, this is definately an application where
you would not want to change for a whip aerial. For small planes that
can't be controlled over long distances anyway because of their size,
the whip aerials work flawlessly. I assume that for most power flyers
they are okay as well (since power planes usually are kept close to the
field and the pilot). Not sure about cases where interference is an
issue (big gas engines etc.). And the whip aerials are offered here (in
Germany) for use in 27, 35 and 40 MHz applications. I have no idea
whether they work as well in 72 Mhz ranges.
Best regards,
Hartmut
|
| 1421.4 | Why Sacrafice Range | LEDS::WATT | | Fri Apr 24 1992 08:57 | 5 |
| I surely wouldn't sacrafice range (safety margin) for the convenience
of a whip antenna! It ain't worth it.
Charlie
|
| 1421.5 | Insufficient motivation to try them myself. | ELMAGO::TTOMBAUGH | Ceramic Nose Puppys here now ! | Fri Apr 24 1992 11:02 | 13 |
| There's a guy in Calif. that sells these small black, fat, ~12" long
flexible antennas as used on walkie-talkies, hand-held CBs, etc.
I assume that this is what we're talking about.
His models are for Airtronics and other popular American brands.
I've only seen them used for gliders at a couple of the Az. contests,
and I've asked the users how they like them and how they affect the
range. They've all said that they've noticed no difference.
FWIW.
Terry
|
| 1421.6 | output loading | PCL::JAMES | Object Disoriented | Fri Apr 24 1992 17:58 | 9 |
| Hey, guys, doesn't shortening the antenna load up the output stage more?
Seems to me that the antenna is part of a tuned system that resonates at
the Tx frequency. Messing with the length, at least without a coil, will
create standing waves that can cook the output transistor.
Is true? And don't the Tx instructions say not to operate with the antenna
pushed in?
|
| 1421.7 | Base loaded | VTLAKE::VTLAKE::WHITE_R | Pigs don't Intermodal | Sun Apr 26 1992 20:32 | 6 |
| re -1
You're right, but the whip antennaes alleviate this problem with a
large coil at the base of the antennae. Thus the term "base loaded."
Robert
|
| 1421.8 | | GALVIA::ECULLEN | It will never fly, Wright ! | Mon Apr 27 1992 10:22 | 5 |
| Interesting replies. Looks like I might just stick to the normal
antennae. I might write to Futaba to see if they recommend any and
what are the limitations if any.
Eric.
|