Date   

Re: [c-a] VE/LE rollover structure

Mike Tooze
 





As there seems to be a bit of a pause in group correspondence I thought I'd raise an idea sparked by a comment in March 2018 from David Frobe re. a possibly of a structure able to provide protection in the case of an inversion accident. - As an alternative to those 'roll-over steel bars'.


What I am asking is did anyone follow-up on this approach or have any subsequent comment?


I have added/attached a Word sketch that I did following the original emails.


Sincerely,


Mike Tooze

O-235 VE




------ Original Message ------
From: "Mike Tooze miketooze@... [canard-aviators]" <canard-aviators@...>
To: "canard-aviators@..." <canard-aviators@...>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 Mar, 18 At 16:11
Subject: Re: [c-a] Long EZ roll over structure



All this talk of inversions made me nervous such that I engaged brain....

I think that Dave Froble gave the clue.

>> Thinking a bit further, I asked myself if a hoop type structure, going totally around the fuselage and tied in tightly to the "tub" might provide some protection for the
"tub", which is where all the important stuff is. Possibly carbon. Not sure what else might work. Of course, I doubt such would lend itself very well to
retrofit.
>>

Well, there is such a belt - but it is internal and does, Dave, lend itself to a retrofit solution.
The pilot’s seat bulkhead is bonded to the fuselage by the floor and both fuselage sides so forming such a belt – of a kind. It is a sandwich (i.e.tension/sheer/compression) structure and I include with it the plans headrest.

By reinforcing both sides of this bulkhead with two or so plies of carbon on each of the front and rear extending up to and overlapping the headrest, also extending the lap onto the fuselage sides by 9 to 12 inches, we can form a strong cocoon/seat structure. Further lapping up to under the top longerons for a few inches will add linkage to the outer skin of the fuselage. . (The number of plies of carbon/Kevlar depends on personal preference, the weight of material used, etc. - This is given as an approach not a detailed design.)

In the even of an accident involving an inversion.
Forward sliding forces acting on the headrest are reacted by the front laminates in tension and the rear laminates in compression.
Rearwards sliding forces similarly are reacted by the rear and front laminates.
Sideways sliding forces are reacted by front and rear laminates in shear aiding the side laminates of the headrest lapping around and transferring load into the main front and rear laminates.
Loads directed down onto the seat are distributed via the laminates into the fuselage sides.

I have referenced the plans headrest here but the headrest could be any shape you please that fits the canopy and is able to transmit the side and vertical loads. i.e. ideally no concave surface

I estimate that this reinforcement procedure, with normal economy of lay-up, will weigh less than the bolted steel rollover bars seen thus far. Due to the load distribution characteristics of this composite solution, I believe that longeron/point secured solutions are more likely to fail at the attachment points than for my distributed load solution.
In support of my approach I have seen in the accounts/pictures of survivable Eze accidents/inversions and here in the UK, none involving displacement or a detachment of the pilot’s seat bulkhead from the fuselage sides.

Just a thought, OMV,

Sincerely,

Mike Tooze
O-235 VE G-EMMY
Rochester, England



Bill Allen billallensworld@... [canard-aviators] wrote:
>
>
> This subject has come up before, and I understand how Marc is a “rollbar
> sceptic” but there is at lease one documented rollbar “save” written up
> in an old CSA news with pics of a bent and twisted rollbar (instead of a
> bent and twisted neck)
>
> This is one of those areas where objectivity and data are balanced
> against probability and risk acceptance level.
>
> Are our engines reliable? Yes, in general.
> Do we have engine failures? Yes, it happens.
> How do our aircraft behave in off field, rough surface landings? Badly.
> Usually the noseleg breaks/collapses, the nose digs in and it flips. But
> it might not.
> What happens if it flips inverted? Well, with the pilots head being the
> high point (and Burt stating that the “rollover” structure is really a
> “headrest”) you may be lucky, or not.
>
> If your engine failure is over flat farmland or wide roads without dense
> traffic etc (or near a handy airfield) you could luck out, but that’s
> the Gold Standard of engine failures. I like to plan for the worst case,
> so have a 6 point harness, energy absorbing seat material and a rollbar.
> I’d wear a helmet too if I could (I do on a bicycle)
>
> It’s not just our aircraft that can be neck-breakers in an off field
> landing (Ken Brock died in his Thorpe this way) it’s just that any
> top-heavy wheelbarrow doing 70mph over a moonscape would need the divine
> intervention of Chtuhulu to make it work out well. I just prefer,
> subjectively, to stack the odds in my favour with a rollbar and other
> passive safety devices.
>
> I have made and sold several of them since Burt “approved” my design,
> but I no longer sell them because with the good ‘ole USA being
> lawyer-ridden it isn’t worth the risk - a rollbar won’t make one
> death-proof but I’m sure a case could be made that I said it would.
>
> There are lots of other folk out there quietly making a few here and
> there; I noticed many more installed at Rough River last year - my
> advice would be to copy one. They also make great hand-holds for ground
> handling, seatbelt attach points, antennae attach and canopy stay mounts.
>
> Roll-on summer!
>
> Bill Allen
> CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ
> LE160 N99BA FD51
> LE-Diesel G-LEZE EGBJ
> VE N2CR KMTH
>
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 at 19:20, 'Marc J. Zeitlin'
> marc_zeitlin@... <mailto:marc_zeitlin@...>
> [canard-aviators] <canard-aviators@...
> <mailto:canard-aviators@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Burrall Sanders wrote:
>
>
> We’re not the jet guys, but have built steel many rollover
> structures for Long-Ez’s
>
> Freeflightcomposdites.com
> <http://www.freeflightcomposites.com>. Can custom build one for
> you.
>
>
> I'm not the jet guys or Burrall (hell, I'm not even always sure that
> I'm me), but I'd like to see any evidence that these rollover
> structures have worked in a rollover. Certainly the idea is
> reasonable and rational - I'm just wondering if anyone's ever
> actually tested them in a rollover event (obviously not on purpose).
>
> I've seen some really good ones, from a structural design
> standpoint, which tend to make access to the rear seat difficult,
> and I've seen some that were useless from a structural standpoint
> (although they looked good) and didn't restrict access. There's a
> wide range of techniques...
>
> Just looking for evidence of efficacy, and obviously any evidence at
> this point will be anecdotal at best.
>
> --
> Marc J. Zeitlin <http://www.mdzeitlin.com/Marc/>
> marc_zeitlin@... <mailto:marc_zeitlin@...>

> http://www.cozybuilders.org/
> Copyright © 2018 Burnside Aerospace

> <http://www.burnsideaerospace.com/>

It's things like this that are a serious problem for home builders.

As an example, Boeing needed to seriously test the wings on the 777 Dreamliner.
Not as simple as one might think. It;s my impression that they built that
special purpose building to test the wings, pulling them into a rather good
imitation of a "U".

That wasn't cheap. But, they are building many aircraft, and they had to know
that the design was sound.

Home builders are a much tougher spot. If some entity with the resources and
desire to test something doesn't step forward, we have to do the best we can.
Now, that "should" avoid "that looks about right" engineering. Somehow I doubt
it does.

Sometimes one must "do the best one can" and accept that "this is as good as it
gets". Lot of that in experimental aircraft.

My concerns with a roll over structure is, what to attach it to so it doesn't
just rip out? Similar issues with whole aircraft parachutes. Just what is
strong enough in the aircraft to take a rather violent point load and remain
sort of intact.

After considering the roll over structure that Mike Melville designed, I thought
it had some good points, until the whole canopy got ripped off. Thinking a bit
further, I asked myself if a hoop type structure, going totally around the
fuselage and tied in tightly to the "tub" might provide some protection for the
"tub", which is where all the important stuff is. Possibly carbon. Not sure
what else might work. Of course, I doubt such would lend itself very well to
retrofit. Easier in a new build.

Since I'm rather partial to the Berkut style canopys, such a structure would
work well with such.

Just thinking ...

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@...
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486


------------------------------------
Posted by: David Froble <davef@...>
------------------------------------


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canard-aviators/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo..com/group/canard-aviators/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
canard-aviators-digest@...
canard-aviators-fullfeatured@...

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
canard-aviators-unsubscribe@...

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/






__._,_.___

Posted by: Mike Tooze <miketooze@...>



__,_._,___


Re: Bruce Smith Long EZ project for sale

Keith Spreuer
 

Sounds like a good project for someone wanting in the air quick.
Keith

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 10:36 AM Larry Pilkington <lopilk@...> wrote:
Canardians-
 
As noted in Mr. Orr's newsletter, we lost Bruce Smith over the winter. His family is trying to move his project Long EZ on to a new owner.  I've been up to see the project, and this is what I know:
 
Project is located at Dallesport, just over the Columbia from The Dalles, OR.
Project started by Rufus Yent in CA
Purchased by Bruce in 2009. At that point it was structurally done and needed systems installed. 
Bruce worked with Bob Holliston of Hood River, a name we are all familiar with, but moved to his own hangar about a year ago.
All sanding is complete, and the airframe is in primer. 
All systems are installed (controls, etc).
Extended nose
EarthX battery
Electric nose lift
Front brake cylinders
Advanced/Dynon instrument panel with remote radios (not sure if XPDR is ADS-B compliant; this was pretty recent so might be the latest revision)
Interior painted/upholstery complete
Metal roll bar (wrapped in carbon/kevlar)
NACA belly duct
Zero-time O-320 installed. It was rebuilt in 1991, was inspected recently and has been ground-run
Airflow performance fuel injection system installed
One of Klaus' props installed
Complete in-cowl exhaust
Oil cooled mounted low with exit in front of prop
Cooling flap installed in top cowl over the mags
 
Bruce was in the middle of trouble-shooting the fuel injection system for a high-idle issue, but had slow-taxi tested and was almost ready for flight. He was fiddling with a change to the fuel knob (swapped to a t-handle), that is incomplete but all present. One of the inserts for the remote radio head unit was striped, and that was in repair. That is it as far as I can tell.  Bruce told me and Bob that his weight was about 1060, though I could not find record of that. Included is the normal set of plans and a file cabinet full of papers from both Rufus and Bruce.  Some small spare stuff, maybe three tubs worth- small covers for the wings bolts, trailing edge fences, leading edge flow guides, a spinner, boxes for the installed components, etc. Far as I can tell, this is a straight and clean (if a bit heavy) Long EZ that needs a good home.  I have my own project in the garage and no hangar, or I'd have brought it home. I've uploaded a bunch of photos here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1a7mELSeQB2U6DN0AqJMM_fZqiuN9jT8e?usp=sharing

Bruce had quite a bit into the project with purchase and labor costs, but this is a non-flying project...  If you are interested, make a reasonable offer.
 
Point of contact is Gary Englund, gbe14@... or 509-481-0727 (text or call). Gary is Bruce's best friend and is helping the family with this sale. He has a hangar at Dallesport with his own projects, but is not familiar with canard aircraft.  I can answer questions if you have canard-specific ones.  
 
Thanks,
 
Larry in Portland


Bruce Smith Long EZ project for sale

Larry Pilkington
 

Canardians-
 
As noted in Mr. Orr's newsletter, we lost Bruce Smith over the winter. His family is trying to move his project Long EZ on to a new owner.  I've been up to see the project, and this is what I know:
 
Project is located at Dallesport, just over the Columbia from The Dalles, OR.
Project started by Rufus Yent in CA
Purchased by Bruce in 2009. At that point it was structurally done and needed systems installed. 
Bruce worked with Bob Holliston of Hood River, a name we are all familiar with, but moved to his own hangar about a year ago.
All sanding is complete, and the airframe is in primer. 
All systems are installed (controls, etc).
Extended nose
EarthX battery
Electric nose lift
Front brake cylinders
Advanced/Dynon instrument panel with remote radios (not sure if XPDR is ADS-B compliant; this was pretty recent so might be the latest revision)
Interior painted/upholstery complete
Metal roll bar (wrapped in carbon/kevlar)
NACA belly duct
Zero-time O-320 installed. It was rebuilt in 1991, was inspected recently and has been ground-run
Airflow performance fuel injection system installed
One of Klaus' props installed
Complete in-cowl exhaust
Oil cooled mounted low with exit in front of prop
Cooling flap installed in top cowl over the mags
 
Bruce was in the middle of trouble-shooting the fuel injection system for a high-idle issue, but had slow-taxi tested and was almost ready for flight. He was fiddling with a change to the fuel knob (swapped to a t-handle), that is incomplete but all present. One of the inserts for the remote radio head unit was striped, and that was in repair. That is it as far as I can tell.  Bruce told me and Bob that his weight was about 1060, though I could not find record of that. Included is the normal set of plans and a file cabinet full of papers from both Rufus and Bruce.  Some small spare stuff, maybe three tubs worth- small covers for the wings bolts, trailing edge fences, leading edge flow guides, a spinner, boxes for the installed components, etc. Far as I can tell, this is a straight and clean (if a bit heavy) Long EZ that needs a good home.  I have my own project in the garage and no hangar, or I'd have brought it home. I've uploaded a bunch of photos here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1a7mELSeQB2U6DN0AqJMM_fZqiuN9jT8e?usp=sharing

Bruce had quite a bit into the project with purchase and labor costs, but this is a non-flying project...  If you are interested, make a reasonable offer.
 
Point of contact is Gary Englund, gbe14@... or 509-481-0727 (text or call). Gary is Bruce's best friend and is helping the family with this sale. He has a hangar at Dallesport with his own projects, but is not familiar with canard aircraft.  I can answer questions if you have canard-specific ones.  
 
Thanks,
 
Larry in Portland


Re: iPad WiFi only or cellular

KEN4ZZ
 

I flew professionally w/ iPads for about 10 years.  The first generation was a joke the processor was so slow.  Only good for reading the flight and operations manuals - on the ground.  When the company went to the iPad Air 2 (9.7") everything, including approach charts (domestic and international), enroute charts (high and low, domestic, international, and oceanic), ops and flight manuals, training manuals and documents, and more was migrated to the iPad.  The company provided them with world wide roaming cellular accounts.  The EFB program used was a sort of super-big brother to Foreflight, Jepp-Pro.

I found the cellular function exceptionally valuable.  Yes you can tether to your phone, but many times that will range from mildly inconvenient to a real PITA. If you're in a bit of a hurry it might even influence you to forgo that one last weather and notam check before you depart.  When tethered to your phone, you're discharging 2 batteries instead of one. Your phone may very well have a much stronger battery than mine, but I find when I fire up my phone's hot spot function the battery drain more than triples.

Also, as mentioned, w/ cellular you get built in GPS.  Seeing your precise position on an airport diagram at a sprawling unfamiliar airport, at night, in bad weather can be worth its weight in gold.  While as stated the GPS isn't 100% reliable in the air (even at FL390 w/ an excellent view of the sky), it for some reason seems to nearly always work on or near the ground.  Yes, you can pipe GPS position to your iPad from an on board source, but again consider battery drain; wifi both transmits and receives while GPS only receives.  "No problem, I'll just plug it into my on board USB charge outlet".  Potentially then there could be one or 2 iPads, a Stratus, and maybe a cell phone plugged in.  Perhaps add in a music source.  Just how big a spaghetti jungle of cords are you willing to put up with in YOUR cockpit?

I've got a 7" android tablet w/ cellular that I use w/ Avare in my VariEze.  That said, I'm well aware that the IOS versions of various EFB apps are generally better than the android versions and that some of the best are IOS only.  I'm a realist.  Shortly after I retired, I bought a refurbished iPad that is identical - including cellular - to the one I used at work.  As an experiment, I took the sim card out of my android tablet and tried it in my new-to-me iPad.  It worked great and even showed up on my cell carrier's website as an iPad.  When I get my Defiant up to speed for serious IFR traveling, there's a good chance that sim will migrate to the iPad nearly full time.

Just my $0.02. 

Ken

On 7/18/2020 9:48 AM, aviationeyes wrote:
I've recently been using my old original iPad-mini in my long-ez. It is a wifi only version running iFly-GPS. It readily picks up the GPS signal from my uavionics based ADSB in/out system. I get maps, position, traffic, weather, although there have been rare instances of the iPad or iFly not acquiring the GPS. (It's a bug I have to figure out)   Overall it has been very satisfactory, although I find even the mini iPad kinda big in the Long-EZ cockpit (it is ram mounted to the longeron). Btw, I recently compared it to he latest mini and I wasn't impressed by how much better (brightness and contrast) the newer screen display was. 
--Jose


On Sat, Jul 18, 2020, at 3:40 AM, JOHN STEICHEN wrote:
Absolutely Neil. I had forgotten the gps aspect. Very important distinction John s

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:12 AM Neil K <neil.kruiswyk@...> wrote:
If you have an alternate gps source like Stratus or Stratux then wifi only works fine (although the cell model has gps which makes a good backup)

Neil K.


On Jul 17, 2020, at 10:36 AM, JOHN STEICHEN <nn27gz@...> wrote:

I have, in the past always purchased iPads with cellular. I continue to do so with my traveling ( ergo aviation ) iPad same with my wife’s mini iPad. We only do mini iPads. We have no professional use for the iPads. 
I just replaced my wife’s mini iPad for what looked like a hardware failure of the wifi component. since we dont travel as much and wifi is more available, I opted not to add the cellular component to her new mini ipad. 
for me,  the full size ipad is too large for my aviation uses.   In my cockpit I have 2 ipads.  One is nothing but a approach plate backup as I carry no paper plates or maps anymore. It is cheaper to buy a bottom of the line ipad for your backup than to maintain ANY current paper products. No that my 
Dynon has the seattle avionics maping and plates, the extra belt and suspenders extra ipad probablly over kill.  BTW  the extra backup ipad has always been wifi. 
although my phone has foreflight on it, i dont tend to use it for aviation very much, but probably could substitute for the cellular connection that you need for filing flight plans away from home.  Also  the asdb weather might substitute for a cellular connection  for pre takeoff weather from my ipad.  Do I have you confused?  LOL

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 8:21 AM Spencer Boesch via groups.io <spencersouthbend=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Good morning all,
Looking at upgrading and just asking for current thoughts or experiences.
Thanks in advance!






-- 
  



Re: iPad WiFi only or cellular

aviationeyes
 

I've recently been using my old original iPad-mini in my long-ez. It is a wifi only version running iFly-GPS. It readily picks up the GPS signal from my uavionics based ADSB in/out system. I get maps, position, traffic, weather, although there have been rare instances of the iPad or iFly not acquiring the GPS. (It's a bug I have to figure out)   Overall it has been very satisfactory, although I find even the mini iPad kinda big in the Long-EZ cockpit (it is ram mounted to the longeron). Btw, I recently compared it to he latest mini and I wasn't impressed by how much better (brightness and contrast) the newer screen display was. 
--Jose


On Sat, Jul 18, 2020, at 3:40 AM, JOHN STEICHEN wrote:
Absolutely Neil. I had forgotten the gps aspect. Very important distinction John s

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:12 AM Neil K <neil.kruiswyk@...> wrote:
If you have an alternate gps source like Stratus or Stratux then wifi only works fine (although the cell model has gps which makes a good backup)

Neil K.


On Jul 17, 2020, at 10:36 AM, JOHN STEICHEN <nn27gz@...> wrote:

I have, in the past always purchased iPads with cellular. I continue to do so with my traveling ( ergo aviation ) iPad same with my wife’s mini iPad. We only do mini iPads. We have no professional use for the iPads. 
I just replaced my wife’s mini iPad for what looked like a hardware failure of the wifi component. since we dont travel as much and wifi is more available, I opted not to add the cellular component to her new mini ipad. 
for me,  the full size ipad is too large for my aviation uses.   In my cockpit I have 2 ipads.  One is nothing but a approach plate backup as I carry no paper plates or maps anymore. It is cheaper to buy a bottom of the line ipad for your backup than to maintain ANY current paper products. No that my 
Dynon has the seattle avionics maping and plates, the extra belt and suspenders extra ipad probablly over kill.  BTW  the extra backup ipad has always been wifi. 
although my phone has foreflight on it, i dont tend to use it for aviation very much, but probably could substitute for the cellular connection that you need for filing flight plans away from home.  Also  the asdb weather might substitute for a cellular connection  for pre takeoff weather from my ipad.  Do I have you confused?  LOL

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 8:21 AM Spencer Boesch via groups.io <spencersouthbend=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Good morning all,
Looking at upgrading and just asking for current thoughts or experiences.
Thanks in advance!






-- 
  



Re: iPad WiFi only or cellular

JOHN STEICHEN
 

Absolutely Neil. I had forgotten the gps aspect. Very important distinction John s

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:12 AM Neil K <neil.kruiswyk@...> wrote:
If you have an alternate gps source like Stratus or Stratux then wifi only works fine (although the cell model has gps which makes a good backup)

Neil K.

On Jul 17, 2020, at 10:36 AM, JOHN STEICHEN <nn27gz@...> wrote:


I have, in the past always purchased iPads with cellular. I continue to do so with my traveling ( ergo aviation ) iPad same with my wife’s mini iPad. We only do mini iPads. We have no professional use for the iPads. 
I just replaced my wife’s mini iPad for what looked like a hardware failure of the wifi component. since we dont travel as much and wifi is more available, I opted not to add the cellular component to her new mini ipad. 
for me,  the full size ipad is too large for my aviation uses.   In my cockpit I have 2 ipads.  One is nothing but a approach plate backup as I carry no paper plates or maps anymore. It is cheaper to buy a bottom of the line ipad for your backup than to maintain ANY current paper products. No that my 
Dynon has the seattle avionics maping and plates, the extra belt and suspenders extra ipad probablly over kill.  BTW  the extra backup ipad has always been wifi. 
although my phone has foreflight on it, i dont tend to use it for aviation very much, but probably could substitute for the cellular connection that you need for filing flight plans away from home.  Also  the asdb weather might substitute for a cellular connection  for pre takeoff weather from my ipad.  Do I have you confused?  LOL

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 8:21 AM Spencer Boesch via groups.io <spencersouthbend=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Good morning all,
Looking at upgrading and just asking for current thoughts or experiences.
Thanks in advance!


Re: iPad WiFi only or cellular

Jim Evans
 

I don't think I would tell anyone that you were flying with a Maxipad!!


On Fri, Jul 17, 2020, 20:13 Vernon Asper <vernon.asper@...> wrote:
FWIW, I haven’t extra large version that I call the Maxi Pad.  I like the larger size and haven’t had any problems with it getting in the way.  No cell connection; just WiFi to me ADSB.

Vernon

On Jul 17, 2020, at 10:36 AM, JOHN STEICHEN <nn27gz@...> wrote:


I have, in the past always purchased iPads with cellular. I continue to do so with my traveling ( ergo aviation ) iPad same with my wife’s mini iPad. We only do mini iPads. We have no professional use for the iPads. 
I just replaced my wife’s mini iPad for what looked like a hardware failure of the wifi component. since we dont travel as much and wifi is more available, I opted not to add the cellular component to her new mini ipad. 
for me,  the full size ipad is too large for my aviation uses.   In my cockpit I have 2 ipads.  One is nothing but a approach plate backup as I carry no paper plates or maps anymore. It is cheaper to buy a bottom of the line ipad for your backup than to maintain ANY current paper products. No that my 
Dynon has the seattle avionics maping and plates, the extra belt and suspenders extra ipad probablly over kill.  BTW  the extra backup ipad has always been wifi. 
although my phone has foreflight on it, i dont tend to use it for aviation very much, but probably could substitute for the cellular connection that you need for filing flight plans away from home.  Also  the asdb weather might substitute for a cellular connection  for pre takeoff weather from my ipad.  Do I have you confused?  LOL

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 8:21 AM Spencer Boesch via groups.io <spencersouthbend=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Good morning all,
Looking at upgrading and just asking for current thoughts or experiences.
Thanks in advance!


Re: iPad WiFi only or cellular

Vernon Asper
 

FWIW, I haven’t extra large version that I call the Maxi Pad.  I like the larger size and haven’t had any problems with it getting in the way.  No cell connection; just WiFi to me ADSB.

Vernon

On Jul 17, 2020, at 10:36 AM, JOHN STEICHEN <nn27gz@...> wrote:


I have, in the past always purchased iPads with cellular. I continue to do so with my traveling ( ergo aviation ) iPad same with my wife’s mini iPad. We only do mini iPads. We have no professional use for the iPads. 
I just replaced my wife’s mini iPad for what looked like a hardware failure of the wifi component. since we dont travel as much and wifi is more available, I opted not to add the cellular component to her new mini ipad. 
for me,  the full size ipad is too large for my aviation uses.   In my cockpit I have 2 ipads.  One is nothing but a approach plate backup as I carry no paper plates or maps anymore. It is cheaper to buy a bottom of the line ipad for your backup than to maintain ANY current paper products. No that my 
Dynon has the seattle avionics maping and plates, the extra belt and suspenders extra ipad probablly over kill.  BTW  the extra backup ipad has always been wifi. 
although my phone has foreflight on it, i dont tend to use it for aviation very much, but probably could substitute for the cellular connection that you need for filing flight plans away from home.  Also  the asdb weather might substitute for a cellular connection  for pre takeoff weather from my ipad.  Do I have you confused?  LOL

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 8:21 AM Spencer Boesch via groups.io <spencersouthbend=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Good morning all,
Looking at upgrading and just asking for current thoughts or experiences.
Thanks in advance!


Re: iPad WiFi only or cellular

Neil K
 

If you have an alternate gps source like Stratus or Stratux then wifi only works fine (although the cell model has gps which makes a good backup)

Neil K.

On Jul 17, 2020, at 10:36 AM, JOHN STEICHEN <nn27gz@...> wrote:


I have, in the past always purchased iPads with cellular. I continue to do so with my traveling ( ergo aviation ) iPad same with my wife’s mini iPad. We only do mini iPads. We have no professional use for the iPads. 
I just replaced my wife’s mini iPad for what looked like a hardware failure of the wifi component. since we dont travel as much and wifi is more available, I opted not to add the cellular component to her new mini ipad. 
for me,  the full size ipad is too large for my aviation uses.   In my cockpit I have 2 ipads.  One is nothing but a approach plate backup as I carry no paper plates or maps anymore. It is cheaper to buy a bottom of the line ipad for your backup than to maintain ANY current paper products. No that my 
Dynon has the seattle avionics maping and plates, the extra belt and suspenders extra ipad probablly over kill.  BTW  the extra backup ipad has always been wifi. 
although my phone has foreflight on it, i dont tend to use it for aviation very much, but probably could substitute for the cellular connection that you need for filing flight plans away from home.  Also  the asdb weather might substitute for a cellular connection  for pre takeoff weather from my ipad.  Do I have you confused?  LOL

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 8:21 AM Spencer Boesch via groups.io <spencersouthbend=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Good morning all,
Looking at upgrading and just asking for current thoughts or experiences.
Thanks in advance!


Re: iPad WiFi only or cellular

JOHN STEICHEN
 

I have, in the past always purchased iPads with cellular. I continue to do so with my traveling ( ergo aviation ) iPad same with my wife’s mini iPad. We only do mini iPads. We have no professional use for the iPads. 
I just replaced my wife’s mini iPad for what looked like a hardware failure of the wifi component. since we dont travel as much and wifi is more available, I opted not to add the cellular component to her new mini ipad. 
for me,  the full size ipad is too large for my aviation uses.   In my cockpit I have 2 ipads.  One is nothing but a approach plate backup as I carry no paper plates or maps anymore. It is cheaper to buy a bottom of the line ipad for your backup than to maintain ANY current paper products. No that my 
Dynon has the seattle avionics maping and plates, the extra belt and suspenders extra ipad probablly over kill.  BTW  the extra backup ipad has always been wifi. 
although my phone has foreflight on it, i dont tend to use it for aviation very much, but probably could substitute for the cellular connection that you need for filing flight plans away from home.  Also  the asdb weather might substitute for a cellular connection  for pre takeoff weather from my ipad.  Do I have you confused?  LOL

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 8:21 AM Spencer Boesch via groups.io <spencersouthbend=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Good morning all,
Looking at upgrading and just asking for current thoughts or experiences.
Thanks in advance!


iPad WiFi only or cellular

Spencer Boesch
 

Good morning all,
Looking at upgrading and just asking for current thoughts or experiences.
Thanks in advance!


Re: ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

Jim Weir
 

I don’t use them for baluns. (BALanced to Unbalanced)     The ONLY reason I use them is to strip the always-present RF being reflected down the outside of the shield from getting into the rest of the electronics by radiation.  There is nothing inherently wrong with a dipole connected one ear to center conductor and one ear to the shield with (as I said above) RF being reflected down the outside of the shield.

 

Jim

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io [mailto:members@canardzone.groups.io] On Behalf Of Steve Stearns
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 12:36 PM
To: members@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

"With your dipole arrangement, what did you use to decouple the feedline? Did you use ferrites etc.? "

 

I didn't use anything.  But then my dipole is receive-only and the feed line is very short and it's going into two paralleled high impedance inputs (two SDR receivers).  I've found that, generally, dipoles, though not 50 ohms at resonance, still provide low enough SWR to not be a problem for transmitters when on 50 unbalanced feedline.   I expect our aircraft environment is also acceptably tolerant of some shield current but I haven't explicitly tested this configuration.  Jim Weir seemed to like-feed through (aka "current") baluns in his stuff, Bob Nuckolls seems to think they usually don't provide much benefit except for lab measurements and, on other projects where I've wanted them, I've designed full up matching baluns rather than used so called "current baluns".

In short, your mileage may vary.  :-)  If I went this route for transmit on 900 MHz, I'd check the SWR.  I've got parallel dipoles (again, no balun) fed with 50 ohm coax for my ELT antenna (406MHz and 121.5MHz) and its SWR is lower  on both frequencies than the supplied antennas (both the monopole and the "rubber ducky" portable).

 

Steve Stearns

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:57 PM Phillip Johnson <phillip.johnson@...> wrote:

Steve,

 

With your dipole arrangement, what did you use to decouple the feedline? Did you use ferrites etc.?

 

Regards,

 

Phillip Johnson
Cozy MKIV RG Powered by Subaru IO-200 (SN 0030)

http://www.canardaviation.com/PhillipJohnson

 

 

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io <members@canardzone.groups.io> On Behalf Of Steve Stearns
Sent: 24 June 2020 10:18
To: members@canardzone.groups.io; sondergun@...
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

P.S. Note that the measurements shown in my picture are for a wide-band (to cover both bands) receive only antenna whereas an antenna for transmit/receive on the 900 MHz band should be a little shorter.  (i.e. twice the length of your monopole antenna)

 

Steve Stearns

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 7:52 AM Steve Stearns <steve@...> wrote:

"You're less likely to go wrong sticking with a more conventional solution"

 

It looks like you have enough room for a dipole antenna (see my previous picture) if you ever decide to upgrade.  It will at least give you better coverage for the volume on the other side of the virtual ground plane and should be more cylindrically symmetric.

 

Steve Stearns

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:04 PM Marlon Gunderson <sondergun@...> wrote:

Thanks James, you're right, this is totally experimental and may not work reliably for someone else. I have not done any kind of formal testing, just flown with it for 3 years and checked the FAA ADSB performance test a couple of times a year.  It hasn't shown anything other than 0% failures (of about 10K pings/hr) when I've checked but there's nothing to say I won't see some failures in the future. You're less likely to go wrong sticking with a more conventional solution.

-Marlon

 

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:36 PM berkut13 <berkut13@...> wrote:

It may indeed “work”, but the radiation pattern is going to be significantly affected by the asymmetrical ground plane radials.  Could cause some reception issues by ground stations in certain directions. No way to really know without extensive testing.

 

-James

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io [mailto:members@canardzone.groups.io] On Behalf Of Marlon Gunderson
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:26 PM
To: members@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

Virtual ground plane in the strake cavity has worked well for me for an Echo UAT. Good separation from the Mode C antenna under the front seat.

-Marlon  Cozy3  N129GR

Attachments:


Re: ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

Phillip Johnson
 

I was more concerned about the feedline impacting the beampattern rather than the impedance.

 

Regards,

 

Phillip Johnson
Cozy MKIV RG Powered by Subaru IO-200 (SN 0030)

http://www.canardaviation.com/PhillipJohnson

 

 

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io <members@canardzone.groups.io> On Behalf Of Steve Stearns
Sent: 24 June 2020 15:36
To: members@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

"With your dipole arrangement, what did you use to decouple the feedline? Did you use ferrites etc.? "

 

I didn't use anything.  But then my dipole is receive-only and the feed line is very short and it's going into two paralleled high impedance inputs (two SDR receivers).  I've found that, generally, dipoles, though not 50 ohms at resonance, still provide low enough SWR to not be a problem for transmitters when on 50 unbalanced feedline.   I expect our aircraft environment is also acceptably tolerant of some shield current but I haven't explicitly tested this configuration.  Jim Weir seemed to like-feed through (aka "current") baluns in his stuff, Bob Nuckolls seems to think they usually don't provide much benefit except for lab measurements and, on other projects where I've wanted them, I've designed full up matching baluns rather than used so called "current baluns".

In short, your mileage may vary.  :-)  If I went this route for transmit on 900 MHz, I'd check the SWR.  I've got parallel dipoles (again, no balun) fed with 50 ohm coax for my ELT antenna (406MHz and 121.5MHz) and its SWR is lower  on both frequencies than the supplied antennas (both the monopole and the "rubber ducky" portable).

 

Steve Stearns

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:57 PM Phillip Johnson <phillip.johnson@...> wrote:

Steve,

 

With your dipole arrangement, what did you use to decouple the feedline? Did you use ferrites etc.?

 

Regards,

 

Phillip Johnson
Cozy MKIV RG Powered by Subaru IO-200 (SN 0030)

http://www.canardaviation.com/PhillipJohnson

 

 

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io <members@canardzone.groups.io> On Behalf Of Steve Stearns
Sent: 24 June 2020 10:18
To: members@canardzone.groups.io; sondergun@...
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

P.S. Note that the measurements shown in my picture are for a wide-band (to cover both bands) receive only antenna whereas an antenna for transmit/receive on the 900 MHz band should be a little shorter.  (i.e. twice the length of your monopole antenna)

 

Steve Stearns

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 7:52 AM Steve Stearns <steve@...> wrote:

"You're less likely to go wrong sticking with a more conventional solution"

 

It looks like you have enough room for a dipole antenna (see my previous picture) if you ever decide to upgrade.  It will at least give you better coverage for the volume on the other side of the virtual ground plane and should be more cylindrically symmetric.

 

Steve Stearns

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:04 PM Marlon Gunderson <sondergun@...> wrote:

Thanks James, you're right, this is totally experimental and may not work reliably for someone else. I have not done any kind of formal testing, just flown with it for 3 years and checked the FAA ADSB performance test a couple of times a year.  It hasn't shown anything other than 0% failures (of about 10K pings/hr) when I've checked but there's nothing to say I won't see some failures in the future. You're less likely to go wrong sticking with a more conventional solution.

-Marlon

 

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:36 PM berkut13 <berkut13@...> wrote:

It may indeed “work”, but the radiation pattern is going to be significantly affected by the asymmetrical ground plane radials.  Could cause some reception issues by ground stations in certain directions. No way to really know without extensive testing.

 

-James

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io [mailto:members@canardzone.groups.io] On Behalf Of Marlon Gunderson
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:26 PM
To: members@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

Virtual ground plane in the strake cavity has worked well for me for an Echo UAT. Good separation from the Mode C antenna under the front seat.

-Marlon  Cozy3  N129GR

Attachments:


Re: ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

Steve Stearns
 

Del, 

Did you it's two j-poles or use one for both SDRs?

Steve.


On Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 6:09 PM Del Schier <cozypilot@...> wrote:

Your right Steve, I was not commenting on what you posted but to whomever asked: "With your dipole arrangement, what did you use to decouple the feedline? Did you use ferrites etc.? "

For ADS-B in (receive) I don’t think it matters much what you use for antennas as long as they are made out of metal and not mounted with metal nearby, or blocking the signal.

 

When I first put in the Stratux I was using the magnetic mount telescoping whips that came with the USB sticks.  I had them set to ~ ¼ wave long and set on top of my COM radio tray near the top of the panel.  I had to use double sided tape as magnets don’t stick to aluminum.

 

I didn’t get ADS-B “Towers” everywhere so I mad the J poles for up in the nose.  On a flight in an area where I got no signal the J pole antennas got 6 Towers at the same altitude so I stuck with that.  The J poles are easy, cheap, light, have gain, 50 ohm and don’t need baluns, not that you need baluns.  What I didn’t do is tune them for 978 and 1090 as I couldn’t figure out which USB rcvr was on which band with the Stratux.  I just cut them for about ½ way in between.

 

With my ADS-B transponder I did make the annular slot antenna tuned and tested for SWR at 978. That was a huge project compared to the receiver setup.

 

Del Schier,

Ham Radio: K1UHF

Cozy IV N197DL

Cannon Creek Airpark 15FL

 

 

 

 

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io <members@canardzone.groups.io> On Behalf Of Steve Stearns
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 5:20 PM
To: members@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

Hi Del,

 

I think you meant to address that to Phillip.  I believe you and I are are on the same page with the possible exception that I am lazier than you and wouldn't bother with any balun unless I believed I would notice the difference.

 

Steve Stearns AB0KB

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 3:06 PM Del Schier <cozypilot@...> wrote:

Steve I would not know how to use ferrite at those frequencies.  A coax balun is easy to make especially if you use 1/8” UT141 semi-rigid coax which solders nicely. See attached.

 

You can make a folded dipole with a 4:1 balun or a simple dipole with a 1:1 balun.  Either way it would work well.  Either way you are making a 75 ohm antenna which would have a slight mismatch with our 50 ohm systems.

 

Del Schier

Cozy IV N197DL

Cannon Creek Airpark 15FL

 

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io <members@canardzone.groups.io> On Behalf Of Steve Stearns
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 3:36 PM
To: members@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

"With your dipole arrangement, what did you use to decouple the feedline? Did you use ferrites etc.? "

 

I didn't use anything.  But then my dipole is receive-only and the feed line is very short and it's going into two paralleled high impedance inputs (two SDR receivers).  I've found that, generally, dipoles, though not 50 ohms at resonance, still provide low enough SWR to not be a problem for transmitters when on 50 unbalanced feedline.   I expect our aircraft environment is also acceptably tolerant of some shield current but I haven't explicitly tested this configuration.  Jim Weir seemed to like-feed through (aka "current") baluns in his stuff, Bob Nuckolls seems to think they usually don't provide much benefit except for lab measurements and, on other projects where I've wanted them, I've designed full up matching baluns rather than used so called "current baluns".

In short, your mileage may vary.  :-)  If I went this route for transmit on 900 MHz, I'd check the SWR.  I've got parallel dipoles (again, no balun) fed with 50 ohm coax for my ELT antenna (406MHz and 121.5MHz) and its SWR is lower  on both frequencies than the supplied antennas (both the monopole and the "rubber ducky" portable).

 

Steve Stearns

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:57 PM Phillip Johnson <phillip.johnson@...> wrote:

Steve,

 

With your dipole arrangement, what did you use to decouple the feedline? Did you use ferrites etc.?

 

Regards,

 

Phillip Johnson
Cozy MKIV RG Powered by Subaru IO-200 (SN 0030)

http://www.canardaviation.com/PhillipJohnson

 

 

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io <members@canardzone.groups.io> On Behalf Of Steve Stearns
Sent: 24 June 2020 10:18
To: members@canardzone.groups.io; sondergun@...
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

P.S. Note that the measurements shown in my picture are for a wide-band (to cover both bands) receive only antenna whereas an antenna for transmit/receive on the 900 MHz band should be a little shorter.  (i.e. twice the length of your monopole antenna)

 

Steve Stearns

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 7:52 AM Steve Stearns <steve@...> wrote:

"You're less likely to go wrong sticking with a more conventional solution"

 

It looks like you have enough room for a dipole antenna (see my previous picture) if you ever decide to upgrade.  It will at least give you better coverage for the volume on the other side of the virtual ground plane and should be more cylindrically symmetric.

 

Steve Stearns

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:04 PM Marlon Gunderson <sondergun@...> wrote:

Thanks James, you're right, this is totally experimental and may not work reliably for someone else. I have not done any kind of formal testing, just flown with it for 3 years and checked the FAA ADSB performance test a couple of times a year.  It hasn't shown anything other than 0% failures (of about 10K pings/hr) when I've checked but there's nothing to say I won't see some failures in the future. You're less likely to go wrong sticking with a more conventional solution.

-Marlon

 

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:36 PM berkut13 <berkut13@...> wrote:

It may indeed “work”, but the radiation pattern is going to be significantly affected by the asymmetrical ground plane radials.  Could cause some reception issues by ground stations in certain directions. No way to really know without extensive testing.

 

-James

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io [mailto:members@canardzone.groups.io] On Behalf Of Marlon Gunderson
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:26 PM
To: members@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

Virtual ground plane in the strake cavity has worked well for me for an Echo UAT. Good separation from the Mode C antenna under the front seat.

-Marlon  Cozy3  N129GR

Attachments:


Re: ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

Del Schier
 

Your right Steve, I was not commenting on what you posted but to whomever asked: "With your dipole arrangement, what did you use to decouple the feedline? Did you use ferrites etc.? "

For ADS-B in (receive) I don’t think it matters much what you use for antennas as long as they are made out of metal and not mounted with metal nearby, or blocking the signal.

 

When I first put in the Stratux I was using the magnetic mount telescoping whips that came with the USB sticks.  I had them set to ~ ¼ wave long and set on top of my COM radio tray near the top of the panel.  I had to use double sided tape as magnets don’t stick to aluminum.

 

I didn’t get ADS-B “Towers” everywhere so I mad the J poles for up in the nose.  On a flight in an area where I got no signal the J pole antennas got 6 Towers at the same altitude so I stuck with that.  The J poles are easy, cheap, light, have gain, 50 ohm and don’t need baluns, not that you need baluns.  What I didn’t do is tune them for 978 and 1090 as I couldn’t figure out which USB rcvr was on which band with the Stratux.  I just cut them for about ½ way in between.

 

With my ADS-B transponder I did make the annular slot antenna tuned and tested for SWR at 978. That was a huge project compared to the receiver setup.

 

Del Schier,

Ham Radio: K1UHF

Cozy IV N197DL

Cannon Creek Airpark 15FL

 

 

 

 

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io <members@canardzone.groups.io> On Behalf Of Steve Stearns
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 5:20 PM
To: members@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

Hi Del,

 

I think you meant to address that to Phillip.  I believe you and I are are on the same page with the possible exception that I am lazier than you and wouldn't bother with any balun unless I believed I would notice the difference.

 

Steve Stearns AB0KB

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 3:06 PM Del Schier <cozypilot@...> wrote:

Steve I would not know how to use ferrite at those frequencies.  A coax balun is easy to make especially if you use 1/8” UT141 semi-rigid coax which solders nicely. See attached.

 

You can make a folded dipole with a 4:1 balun or a simple dipole with a 1:1 balun.  Either way it would work well.  Either way you are making a 75 ohm antenna which would have a slight mismatch with our 50 ohm systems.

 

Del Schier

Cozy IV N197DL

Cannon Creek Airpark 15FL

 

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io <members@canardzone.groups.io> On Behalf Of Steve Stearns
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 3:36 PM
To: members@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

"With your dipole arrangement, what did you use to decouple the feedline? Did you use ferrites etc.? "

 

I didn't use anything.  But then my dipole is receive-only and the feed line is very short and it's going into two paralleled high impedance inputs (two SDR receivers).  I've found that, generally, dipoles, though not 50 ohms at resonance, still provide low enough SWR to not be a problem for transmitters when on 50 unbalanced feedline.   I expect our aircraft environment is also acceptably tolerant of some shield current but I haven't explicitly tested this configuration.  Jim Weir seemed to like-feed through (aka "current") baluns in his stuff, Bob Nuckolls seems to think they usually don't provide much benefit except for lab measurements and, on other projects where I've wanted them, I've designed full up matching baluns rather than used so called "current baluns".

In short, your mileage may vary.  :-)  If I went this route for transmit on 900 MHz, I'd check the SWR.  I've got parallel dipoles (again, no balun) fed with 50 ohm coax for my ELT antenna (406MHz and 121.5MHz) and its SWR is lower  on both frequencies than the supplied antennas (both the monopole and the "rubber ducky" portable).

 

Steve Stearns

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:57 PM Phillip Johnson <phillip.johnson@...> wrote:

Steve,

 

With your dipole arrangement, what did you use to decouple the feedline? Did you use ferrites etc.?

 

Regards,

 

Phillip Johnson
Cozy MKIV RG Powered by Subaru IO-200 (SN 0030)

http://www.canardaviation.com/PhillipJohnson

 

 

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io <members@canardzone.groups.io> On Behalf Of Steve Stearns
Sent: 24 June 2020 10:18
To: members@canardzone.groups.io; sondergun@...
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

P.S. Note that the measurements shown in my picture are for a wide-band (to cover both bands) receive only antenna whereas an antenna for transmit/receive on the 900 MHz band should be a little shorter.  (i.e. twice the length of your monopole antenna)

 

Steve Stearns

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 7:52 AM Steve Stearns <steve@...> wrote:

"You're less likely to go wrong sticking with a more conventional solution"

 

It looks like you have enough room for a dipole antenna (see my previous picture) if you ever decide to upgrade.  It will at least give you better coverage for the volume on the other side of the virtual ground plane and should be more cylindrically symmetric.

 

Steve Stearns

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:04 PM Marlon Gunderson <sondergun@...> wrote:

Thanks James, you're right, this is totally experimental and may not work reliably for someone else. I have not done any kind of formal testing, just flown with it for 3 years and checked the FAA ADSB performance test a couple of times a year.  It hasn't shown anything other than 0% failures (of about 10K pings/hr) when I've checked but there's nothing to say I won't see some failures in the future. You're less likely to go wrong sticking with a more conventional solution.

-Marlon

 

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:36 PM berkut13 <berkut13@...> wrote:

It may indeed “work”, but the radiation pattern is going to be significantly affected by the asymmetrical ground plane radials.  Could cause some reception issues by ground stations in certain directions. No way to really know without extensive testing.

 

-James

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io [mailto:members@canardzone.groups.io] On Behalf Of Marlon Gunderson
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:26 PM
To: members@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

Virtual ground plane in the strake cavity has worked well for me for an Echo UAT. Good separation from the Mode C antenna under the front seat.

-Marlon  Cozy3  N129GR

Attachments:


Re: ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

Steve Stearns
 

Hi Del,

I think you meant to address that to Phillip.  I believe you and I are are on the same page with the possible exception that I am lazier than you and wouldn't bother with any balun unless I believed I would notice the difference.

Steve Stearns AB0KB
O235 Longeze
Boulder / Longmont CO


On Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 3:06 PM Del Schier <cozypilot@...> wrote:

Steve I would not know how to use ferrite at those frequencies.  A coax balun is easy to make especially if you use 1/8” UT141 semi-rigid coax which solders nicely. See attached.

 

You can make a folded dipole with a 4:1 balun or a simple dipole with a 1:1 balun.  Either way it would work well.  Either way you are making a 75 ohm antenna which would have a slight mismatch with our 50 ohm systems.

 

Del Schier

Cozy IV N197DL

Cannon Creek Airpark 15FL

 

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io <members@canardzone.groups.io> On Behalf Of Steve Stearns
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 3:36 PM
To: members@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

"With your dipole arrangement, what did you use to decouple the feedline? Did you use ferrites etc.? "

 

I didn't use anything.  But then my dipole is receive-only and the feed line is very short and it's going into two paralleled high impedance inputs (two SDR receivers).  I've found that, generally, dipoles, though not 50 ohms at resonance, still provide low enough SWR to not be a problem for transmitters when on 50 unbalanced feedline.   I expect our aircraft environment is also acceptably tolerant of some shield current but I haven't explicitly tested this configuration.  Jim Weir seemed to like-feed through (aka "current") baluns in his stuff, Bob Nuckolls seems to think they usually don't provide much benefit except for lab measurements and, on other projects where I've wanted them, I've designed full up matching baluns rather than used so called "current baluns".

In short, your mileage may vary.  :-)  If I went this route for transmit on 900 MHz, I'd check the SWR.  I've got parallel dipoles (again, no balun) fed with 50 ohm coax for my ELT antenna (406MHz and 121.5MHz) and its SWR is lower  on both frequencies than the supplied antennas (both the monopole and the "rubber ducky" portable).

 

Steve Stearns

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:57 PM Phillip Johnson <phillip.johnson@...> wrote:

Steve,

 

With your dipole arrangement, what did you use to decouple the feedline? Did you use ferrites etc.?

 

Regards,

 

Phillip Johnson
Cozy MKIV RG Powered by Subaru IO-200 (SN 0030)

http://www.canardaviation.com/PhillipJohnson

 

 

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io <members@canardzone.groups.io> On Behalf Of Steve Stearns
Sent: 24 June 2020 10:18
To: members@canardzone.groups.io; sondergun@...
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

P.S. Note that the measurements shown in my picture are for a wide-band (to cover both bands) receive only antenna whereas an antenna for transmit/receive on the 900 MHz band should be a little shorter.  (i.e. twice the length of your monopole antenna)

 

Steve Stearns

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 7:52 AM Steve Stearns <steve@...> wrote:

"You're less likely to go wrong sticking with a more conventional solution"

 

It looks like you have enough room for a dipole antenna (see my previous picture) if you ever decide to upgrade.  It will at least give you better coverage for the volume on the other side of the virtual ground plane and should be more cylindrically symmetric.

 

Steve Stearns

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:04 PM Marlon Gunderson <sondergun@...> wrote:

Thanks James, you're right, this is totally experimental and may not work reliably for someone else. I have not done any kind of formal testing, just flown with it for 3 years and checked the FAA ADSB performance test a couple of times a year.  It hasn't shown anything other than 0% failures (of about 10K pings/hr) when I've checked but there's nothing to say I won't see some failures in the future. You're less likely to go wrong sticking with a more conventional solution.

-Marlon

 

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:36 PM berkut13 <berkut13@...> wrote:

It may indeed “work”, but the radiation pattern is going to be significantly affected by the asymmetrical ground plane radials.  Could cause some reception issues by ground stations in certain directions. No way to really know without extensive testing.

 

-James

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io [mailto:members@canardzone.groups.io] On Behalf Of Marlon Gunderson
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:26 PM
To: members@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

Virtual ground plane in the strake cavity has worked well for me for an Echo UAT. Good separation from the Mode C antenna under the front seat.

-Marlon  Cozy3  N129GR

Attachments:


Re: ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

Del Schier
 

Steve I would not know how to use ferrite at those frequencies.  A coax balun is easy to make especially if you use 1/8” UT141 semi-rigid coax which solders nicely. See attached.

 

You can make a folded dipole with a 4:1 balun or a simple dipole with a 1:1 balun.  Either way it would work well.  Either way you are making a 75 ohm antenna which would have a slight mismatch with our 50 ohm systems.

 

Del Schier

Cozy IV N197DL

Cannon Creek Airpark 15FL

 

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io <members@canardzone.groups.io> On Behalf Of Steve Stearns
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 3:36 PM
To: members@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

"With your dipole arrangement, what did you use to decouple the feedline? Did you use ferrites etc.? "

 

I didn't use anything.  But then my dipole is receive-only and the feed line is very short and it's going into two paralleled high impedance inputs (two SDR receivers).  I've found that, generally, dipoles, though not 50 ohms at resonance, still provide low enough SWR to not be a problem for transmitters when on 50 unbalanced feedline.   I expect our aircraft environment is also acceptably tolerant of some shield current but I haven't explicitly tested this configuration.  Jim Weir seemed to like-feed through (aka "current") baluns in his stuff, Bob Nuckolls seems to think they usually don't provide much benefit except for lab measurements and, on other projects where I've wanted them, I've designed full up matching baluns rather than used so called "current baluns".

In short, your mileage may vary.  :-)  If I went this route for transmit on 900 MHz, I'd check the SWR.  I've got parallel dipoles (again, no balun) fed with 50 ohm coax for my ELT antenna (406MHz and 121.5MHz) and its SWR is lower  on both frequencies than the supplied antennas (both the monopole and the "rubber ducky" portable).

 

Steve Stearns

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:57 PM Phillip Johnson <phillip.johnson@...> wrote:

Steve,

 

With your dipole arrangement, what did you use to decouple the feedline? Did you use ferrites etc.?

 

Regards,

 

Phillip Johnson
Cozy MKIV RG Powered by Subaru IO-200 (SN 0030)

http://www.canardaviation.com/PhillipJohnson

 

 

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io <members@canardzone.groups.io> On Behalf Of Steve Stearns
Sent: 24 June 2020 10:18
To: members@canardzone.groups.io; sondergun@...
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

P.S. Note that the measurements shown in my picture are for a wide-band (to cover both bands) receive only antenna whereas an antenna for transmit/receive on the 900 MHz band should be a little shorter.  (i.e. twice the length of your monopole antenna)

 

Steve Stearns

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 7:52 AM Steve Stearns <steve@...> wrote:

"You're less likely to go wrong sticking with a more conventional solution"

 

It looks like you have enough room for a dipole antenna (see my previous picture) if you ever decide to upgrade.  It will at least give you better coverage for the volume on the other side of the virtual ground plane and should be more cylindrically symmetric.

 

Steve Stearns

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:04 PM Marlon Gunderson <sondergun@...> wrote:

Thanks James, you're right, this is totally experimental and may not work reliably for someone else. I have not done any kind of formal testing, just flown with it for 3 years and checked the FAA ADSB performance test a couple of times a year.  It hasn't shown anything other than 0% failures (of about 10K pings/hr) when I've checked but there's nothing to say I won't see some failures in the future. You're less likely to go wrong sticking with a more conventional solution.

-Marlon

 

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:36 PM berkut13 <berkut13@...> wrote:

It may indeed “work”, but the radiation pattern is going to be significantly affected by the asymmetrical ground plane radials.  Could cause some reception issues by ground stations in certain directions. No way to really know without extensive testing.

 

-James

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io [mailto:members@canardzone.groups.io] On Behalf Of Marlon Gunderson
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:26 PM
To: members@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

Virtual ground plane in the strake cavity has worked well for me for an Echo UAT. Good separation from the Mode C antenna under the front seat.

-Marlon  Cozy3  N129GR

Attachments:


Re: ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

Steve Stearns
 

"With your dipole arrangement, what did you use to decouple the feedline? Did you use ferrites etc.? "

I didn't use anything.  But then my dipole is receive-only and the feed line is very short and it's going into two paralleled high impedance inputs (two SDR receivers).  I've found that, generally, dipoles, though not 50 ohms at resonance, still provide low enough SWR to not be a problem for transmitters when on 50 unbalanced feedline.   I expect our aircraft environment is also acceptably tolerant of some shield current but I haven't explicitly tested this configuration.  Jim Weir seemed to like-feed through (aka "current") baluns in his stuff, Bob Nuckolls seems to think they usually don't provide much benefit except for lab measurements and, on other projects where I've wanted them, I've designed full up matching baluns rather than used so called "current baluns".

In short, your mileage may vary.  :-)  If I went this route for transmit on 900 MHz, I'd check the SWR.  I've got parallel dipoles (again, no balun) fed with 50 ohm coax for my ELT antenna (406MHz and 121.5MHz) and its SWR is lower  on both frequencies than the supplied antennas (both the monopole and the "rubber ducky" portable).

Steve Stearns
O235 Longeze
Boulder / Longmont CO

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:57 PM Phillip Johnson <phillip.johnson@...> wrote:

Steve,

 

With your dipole arrangement, what did you use to decouple the feedline? Did you use ferrites etc.?

 

Regards,

 

Phillip Johnson
Cozy MKIV RG Powered by Subaru IO-200 (SN 0030)

http://www.canardaviation.com/PhillipJohnson

 

 

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io <members@canardzone.groups.io> On Behalf Of Steve Stearns
Sent: 24 June 2020 10:18
To: members@canardzone.groups.io; sondergun@...
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

P.S. Note that the measurements shown in my picture are for a wide-band (to cover both bands) receive only antenna whereas an antenna for transmit/receive on the 900 MHz band should be a little shorter.  (i.e. twice the length of your monopole antenna)

 

Steve Stearns

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 7:52 AM Steve Stearns <steve@...> wrote:

"You're less likely to go wrong sticking with a more conventional solution"

 

It looks like you have enough room for a dipole antenna (see my previous picture) if you ever decide to upgrade.  It will at least give you better coverage for the volume on the other side of the virtual ground plane and should be more cylindrically symmetric.

 

Steve Stearns

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:04 PM Marlon Gunderson <sondergun@...> wrote:

Thanks James, you're right, this is totally experimental and may not work reliably for someone else. I have not done any kind of formal testing, just flown with it for 3 years and checked the FAA ADSB performance test a couple of times a year.  It hasn't shown anything other than 0% failures (of about 10K pings/hr) when I've checked but there's nothing to say I won't see some failures in the future. You're less likely to go wrong sticking with a more conventional solution.

-Marlon

 

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:36 PM berkut13 <berkut13@...> wrote:

It may indeed “work”, but the radiation pattern is going to be significantly affected by the asymmetrical ground plane radials.  Could cause some reception issues by ground stations in certain directions. No way to really know without extensive testing.

 

-James

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io [mailto:members@canardzone.groups.io] On Behalf Of Marlon Gunderson
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:26 PM
To: members@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

Virtual ground plane in the strake cavity has worked well for me for an Echo UAT. Good separation from the Mode C antenna under the front seat.

-Marlon  Cozy3  N129GR

Attachments:


Re: ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

Phillip Johnson
 

Steve,

 

With your dipole arrangement, what did you use to decouple the feedline? Did you use ferrites etc.?

 

Regards,

 

Phillip Johnson
Cozy MKIV RG Powered by Subaru IO-200 (SN 0030)

http://www.canardaviation.com/PhillipJohnson

 

 

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io <members@canardzone.groups.io> On Behalf Of Steve Stearns
Sent: 24 June 2020 10:18
To: members@canardzone.groups.io; sondergun@...
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

P.S. Note that the measurements shown in my picture are for a wide-band (to cover both bands) receive only antenna whereas an antenna for transmit/receive on the 900 MHz band should be a little shorter.  (i.e. twice the length of your monopole antenna)

 

Steve Stearns

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 7:52 AM Steve Stearns <steve@...> wrote:

"You're less likely to go wrong sticking with a more conventional solution"

 

It looks like you have enough room for a dipole antenna (see my previous picture) if you ever decide to upgrade.  It will at least give you better coverage for the volume on the other side of the virtual ground plane and should be more cylindrically symmetric.

 

Steve Stearns

O235 Longeze

Boulder / Longmont CO

 

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:04 PM Marlon Gunderson <sondergun@...> wrote:

Thanks James, you're right, this is totally experimental and may not work reliably for someone else. I have not done any kind of formal testing, just flown with it for 3 years and checked the FAA ADSB performance test a couple of times a year.  It hasn't shown anything other than 0% failures (of about 10K pings/hr) when I've checked but there's nothing to say I won't see some failures in the future. You're less likely to go wrong sticking with a more conventional solution.

-Marlon

 

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:36 PM berkut13 <berkut13@...> wrote:

It may indeed “work”, but the radiation pattern is going to be significantly affected by the asymmetrical ground plane radials.  Could cause some reception issues by ground stations in certain directions. No way to really know without extensive testing.

 

-James

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io [mailto:members@canardzone.groups.io] On Behalf Of Marlon Gunderson
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:26 PM
To: members@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

Virtual ground plane in the strake cavity has worked well for me for an Echo UAT. Good separation from the Mode C antenna under the front seat.

-Marlon  Cozy3  N129GR

Attachments:


Re: ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

Del Schier
 

I agree those ground plane wires may not work well.  Any piece of wire will “work”, so would a wet noodle LOL.  A half wave antenna is easier to make and would work predictably if you can find a nice place to put it.

 

I have two ADS-B receivers in my Cozy, one inside my ADS-B transponder and the other a dual band homemade Stratux.  I have a printed circuit board J pole antenna made by the transponder mfg in the back upper side of the Cozy for that receiver.  The Stratux has two home made J pole antennas in the nose, one for each band.  See attached.

 

The J pole (see Wikipedia): is very easy and cheap to make and has a good omnidirectional pattern with about 2 dB gain over a dipole or ¼ wave with ground plane. Here is a page to calculate the dimensions: J Pole Calculator

 

With my antenna setup the factory made setup does not work as well as the Stratux with the home made antennas but both work most everywhere I fly.

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io <members@canardzone.groups.io> On Behalf Of berkut13
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 7:36 PM
To: members@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

It may indeed “work”, but the radiation pattern is going to be significantly affected by the asymmetrical ground plane radials.  Could cause some reception issues by ground stations in certain directions. No way to really know without extensive testing.

 

-James

 

From: members@canardzone.groups.io [mailto:members@canardzone.groups.io] On Behalf Of Marlon Gunderson
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:26 PM
To: members@canardzone.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] ADSB In - Classic Cozy 3 Antenna Placement Experience

 

Virtual ground plane in the strake cavity has worked well for me for an Echo UAT. Good separation from the Mode C antenna under the front seat.

-Marlon  Cozy3  N129GR

Attachments:

61 - 80 of 363