Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - VOR Antenna Experiment

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

VOR Antenna Experiment - report

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

AirMike

Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 514
Location: Nevada

Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:05 pm Post subject: VOR Antenna Experiment - report

In building my RV10, I decided to bury my VOR antenna (running my Garmin SL30) in the upper front area of the cabin top using a thin copper tape that Vans sells as an antenna. I had checked it out on the Fallon NV VOR some time back, and it drove the NAV functions ok, but due to my phase 1 flight restrictions, I could not do an ILS over populated areas. Anyway today I did the Reno NV ILS and I was sorry to find quite a few anomalies as well as a general lack of sensitivity. By the way, it was pretty cool when the controller asked me to keep my speed up for a trailing 737, that we could run down the ILS at 165 kts.



At this point I do not think that I will mess with the Bob Archer thing. Looks like ugly or not that there are some cat whiskers in my RV10's future



Now the real question. Put it on top of the Vertical Stab or under the tail cone? Any suggestions on reception or sensitivity appreciated

_________________
See you OSH '18
Q/B - sold.

TimRVator(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:44 am Post subject: VOR Antenna Experiment - report

FWIW, I used an Archer antenna on my -6A and my -10.   I've had no 

problems using either for LOC or ILS approaches.



Tim



-- 

Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)

RV-6A N47TD -- 1090 hrs

RV-10 N31TD -- First Flight 20 Mar 2010

AirMike said the following on 8/18/2010 2:05 AM:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 In building my RV10, I decided to bury my VOR antenna (running my Garmin SL30) in the upper front area of the cabin top using a thin copper tape that Vans sells as an antenna. I had checked it out on the Fallon NV VOR some time back, and it drove the NAV functions ok, but due to my phase 1 flight restrictions, I could not do an ILS over populated areas. Anyway today I did the Reno NV ILS and I was sorry to find quite a few anomalies as well as a general lack of sensitivity. By the way, it was pretty cool when the controller asked me to keep my speed up for a trailing 737, that we could run down the ILS at 165 kts.



 At this point I do not think that I will mess with the Bob Archer thing. Looks like ugly or not that there are some cat whiskers in my RV10's future



 Now the real question. Put it on top of the Vertical Stab or under the tail cone? Any suggestions on reception or sensitivity appreciated



 --------

 OSH '10 or Bust

 Q/B - finally done





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309236#309236

bcondrey

Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 580

Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:22 am Post subject: VOR Antenna Experiment - report

"me too"  I've got an Archer in each wingtip and have zero reception issues on any sort of VOR/LOC/GS tracking.  With that said, they are apparently very sensitive to the installation, how wiring to other wingtip stuff is routed, etc.  If you follow the install instructions to the letter you'll have great success otherwise...  I've got one antenna feeding an SL-30 and the other feeding a GNS-430W.



The Archer comm antenna is a different story - nobody reports great success and even Bob Archer himself will tell you that they don't work well.



Bob

RV-10 N442PM



--

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872

Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:50 am Post subject: VOR Antenna Experiment - report

Sorry to hear about the homebuilt antenna.  At least

it's truly experimental then though.



I see probably 20% better reception with my whiskers

than the Archer.  That's not to say the archer is

bad, but if you're really planning to use it for

approaches and stuff, I would say don't compromise

on reception and all and risk having something that

is easily shadowed in one direction like that.

The archer would probably work ok much of the time,

but the people that are huge proponents are more

that way because they like the cost and hidden aspect,

and that it basically works...but they're not necessarily

concerned with getting the absolute best receiving

antenna that they can get.  It's personal choice

on priorities.  I figure though that when you're

in the clouds on an approach, I'm not willing to

sacrifice the quality of reception on a navigational

antenna.  Things like APRS antennas are non-critical,

and those are better served to prioritizing the

hidden aspect over performance if you choose.



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD

do not archive

On 8/18/2010 1:05 AM, AirMike wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 In building my RV10, I decided to bury my VOR antenna (running my

 Garmin SL30) in the upper front area of the cabin top using a thin

 copper tape that Vans sells as an antenna. I had checked it out on

 the Fallon NV VOR some time back, and it drove the NAV functions ok,

 but due to my phase 1 flight restrictions, I could not do an ILS over

 populated areas. Anyway today I did the Reno NV ILS and I was sorry

 to find quite a few anomalies as well as a general lack of

 sensitivity. By the way, it was pretty cool when the controller asked

 me to keep my speed up for a trailing 737, that we could run down the

 ILS at 165 kts.



 At this point I do not think that I will mess with the Bob Archer

 thing. Looks like ugly or not that there are some cat whiskers in my

 RV10's future



 Now the real question. Put it on top of the Vertical Stab or under

 the tail cone? Any suggestions on reception or sensitivity

 appreciated



 -------- OSH '10 or Bust Q/B - finally done





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309236#309236

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:08 pm Post subject: VOR Antenna Experiment - report

Since the Glideslope is rarely usable beyond 10nm, and you normally aren't using it beyond 5nm, signal strength should not be an issue. And you are not going to be in more than a 15 degree bank on an ILS(lets hope) so directional blanking should never be an issue. Only if you are using the VOR at great distance, say 100nm is signal strength going to be a big issue.  Given most are using GPS for primary and VOR for secondary nav, max signal strength to the VOR receiver really should not be an issue. As long as there isn't strobe or other electrical interference with the Archer antenna, it should be a non-issue for navigation. Even the cat whisker antennas are expensive, and the blade antennas are obscene in price.

 

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com (Tim(at)myrv10.com)> wrote:

[quote] --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com (Tim(at)myrv10.com)>

 

 Sorry to hear about the homebuilt antenna.  At least

 it's truly experimental then though.

 

 I see probably 20% better reception with my whiskers

 than the Archer.  That's not to say the archer is

 bad, but if you're really planning to use it for

 approaches and stuff, I would say don't compromise

 on reception and all and risk having something that

 is easily shadowed in one direction like that.

 The archer would probably work ok much of the time,

 but the people that are huge proponents are more

 that way because they like the cost and hidden aspect,

 and that it basically works...but they're not necessarily

 concerned with getting the absolute best receiving

 antenna that they can get.  It's personal choice

 on priorities.  I figure though that when you're

 in the clouds on an approach, I'm not willing to

 sacrifice the quality of reception on a navigational

 antenna.  Things like APRS antennas are non-critical,

 and those are better served to prioritizing the

 hidden aspect over performance if you choose.

 

 Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD

 do not archive

 

 

 On 8/18/2010 1:05 AM, AirMike wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		   -->  RV10-List message posted by: "AirMike"<Mikeabel(at)Pacbell.net>

 

 In building my RV10, I decided to bury my VOR antenna (running my

 Garmin SL30) in the upper front area of the cabin top using a thin

 copper tape that Vans sells as an antenna. I had checked it out on

 the Fallon NV VOR some time back, and it drove the NAV functions ok,

 but due to my phase 1 flight restrictions, I could not do an ILS over

 populated areas. Anyway today I did the Reno NV ILS and I was sorry

 to find quite a few anomalies as well as a general lack of

 sensitivity. By the way, it was pretty cool when the controller asked

 me to keep my speed up for a trailing 737, that we could run down the

 ILS at 165 kts.

 

 At this point I do not think that I will mess with the Bob Archer

 thing. Looks like ugly or not that there are some cat whiskers in my

 RV10's future

 

 Now the real question. Put it on top of the Vertical Stab or under

 the tail cone? Any suggestions on reception or sensitivity

 appreciated

 

 -------- OSH '10 or Bust Q/B - finally done

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309236#309236

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 	
 

 ===========

 arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 ===========

 http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 le, List Admin.

 ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

 

 

 

 



[b]

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:45 pm Post subject: Re: VOR Antenna Experiment - report

I'd guess the only localizer issue would be if you are, say, 10 miles out, and vectored onto the localizer with a 30 degree intercept that requires the wingtip antenna to look through the fuselage to "see" the localizer antenna. e.g., airport to your right if the antenna is in the left wing tip.



Can anyone comment on this scenario? Real world, is it an issue?

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB

AirMike

Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 514
Location: Nevada

Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:36 pm Post subject: VOR Antenna Experiment - report

I appreciate all of the thoughtful responses to my comments ( especially Tim L, Tim O, and Kelly). We asked Reno APP for vectors to the ILS. They essentially sent us in a teardrop pattern. Approaching from close to the airport we had some reception problems at 90 degrees off our rt wingtip - presumably the wingtip blanketing the signal.



Then the N to So. approach is VERY long due to the Sierra Mtns at 8000 to 10000 ft to the west. Reno sits at 4200 ft. At 5-6 miles and on in (Loc & G/S) there was no problem. It was out a ways like Kelly said on the intercept and even after the intercept (10-12 miles) that the signal was erratic. Reno is a real acid test of these antennas.

_________________
See you OSH '18
Q/B - sold.

MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 6:55 am Post subject: VOR Antenna Experiment - report

This raises the question I keep wanting to ask of the G430W folks flying 

IFR - Are you still routinely and primarily flying precision approaches 

using the ILS or RNAV?  At controlled airports, do they gdefault to the 

ILS or RNAV for vectored approaches?  Can you freely use either when 

available?



I haven't been flying in the system for a couple of years now and have 

never seen/touched a precision RNAV approach.  Just wondering what 

reality is like out there now.



Bill "really wanting to fly this thing" Watson



AirMike wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 I appreciate all of the thoughtful responses to my comments ( especially Tim L, Tim O, and Kelly). We asked Reno APP for vectors to the ILS. They essentially sent us in a teardrop pattern. Approaching from close to the airport we had some reception problems at 90 degrees off our rt wingtip - presumably the wingtip blanketing the signal.



 Then the N to So. approach is VERY long due to the Sierra Mtns at 8000 to 10000 ft to the west. Reno sits at 4200 ft. At 5-6 miles and on in (Loc & G/S) there was no problem. It was out a ways like Kelly said on the intercept and even after the intercept (10-12 miles) that the signal was erratic. Reno is a real acid test of these antennas.



 --------

 OSH '10 or Bust 

 Q/B - finally done





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309356#309356

robertbrunk(at)mac.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:39 am Post subject: VOR Antenna Experiment - report

i general fly rnav approaches with vectors. they work great. robert

On Aug 19, 2010, at 9:53 AM, Bill Mauledriver Watson wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 This raises the question I keep wanting to ask of the G430W folks flying IFR - Are you still routinely and primarily flying precision approaches using the ILS or RNAV?  At controlled airports, do they gdefault to the ILS or RNAV for vectored approaches?  Can you freely use either when available?

 I haven't been flying in the system for a couple of years now and have never seen/touched a precision RNAV approach.  Just wondering what reality is like out there now.

 Bill "really wanting to fly this thing" Watson

 AirMike wrote:

> 

> 

> I appreciate all of the thoughtful responses to my comments ( especially Tim L, Tim O, and Kelly). We asked Reno APP for vectors to the ILS. They essentially sent us in a teardrop pattern. Approaching from close to the airport we had some reception problems at 90 degrees off our rt wingtip - presumably the wingtip blanketing the signal.

> 

> Then the N to So. approach is VERY long due to the Sierra Mtns at 8000 to 10000 ft to the west. Reno sits at 4200 ft. At 5-6 miles and on in (Loc & G/S) there was no problem. It was out a ways like Kelly said on the intercept and even after the intercept (10-12 miles) that the signal was erratic. Reno is a real acid test of these antennas.

> 

> --------

> OSH '10 or Bust Q/B - finally done

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Read this topic online here:

> 

> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309356#309356

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:13 am Post subject: Re: VOR Antenna Experiment - report

At most (all?) airports around here ATC will let you fly whatever approach you want, except for maybe opposite to the traffic direction. Even then they often let you do it, asking you to break off and circle early (if vfr) for opposing traffic reasons.

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:06 pm Post subject: VOR Antenna Experiment - report

They always give me whichever I ask for.  I usually do the rnav.

Jesse Saint

I-TEC, Inc.

jesse(at)itecusa.org

www.itecusa.org

www.mavericklsa.com

C: 352-427-0285

O: 352-465-4545

F: 815-377-3694

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 19, 2010, at 10:53 AM, Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 This raises the question I keep wanting to ask of the G430W folks flying IFR - Are you still routinely and primarily flying precision approaches using the ILS or RNAV?  At controlled airports, do they gdefault to the ILS or RNAV for vectored approaches?  Can you freely use either when available?

 I haven't been flying in the system for a couple of years now and have never seen/touched a precision RNAV approach.  Just wondering what reality is like out there now.

 Bill "really wanting to fly this thing" Watson

 AirMike wrote:

> 

> 

> I appreciate all of the thoughtful responses to my comments ( especially Tim L, Tim O, and Kelly). We asked Reno APP for vectors to the ILS. They essentially sent us in a teardrop pattern. Approaching from close to the airport we had some reception problems at 90 degrees off our rt wingtip - presumably the wingtip blanketing the signal.

> 

> Then the N to So. approach is VERY long due to the Sierra Mtns at 8000 to 10000 ft to the west. Reno sits at 4200 ft. At 5-6 miles and on in (Loc & G/S) there was no problem. It was out a ways like Kelly said on the intercept and even after the intercept (10-12 miles) that the signal was erratic. Reno is a real acid test of these antennas.

> 

> --------

> OSH '10 or Bust Q/B - finally done

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Read this topic online here:

> 

> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309356#309356

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>

MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:29 pm Post subject: VOR Antenna Experiment - report

When I was flying non-precision RNAV approaches, it was still 'awkward' 

to get properly vectored or cleared for them.  They controllers tended 

to not be familiar with the T-style approaches at non-controlled 

airports.  The overlays worked fine.  Never even tried to do an RNAV 

non-precision at a controlled AP - just took vectors for the ILS.



Do you ever do the ILS for something other than proficiency?



Jesse Saint wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 They always give me whichever I ask for.  I usually do the rnav.



 Jesse Saint

 I-TEC, Inc.

 jesse(at)itecusa.org

 www.itecusa.org

 www.mavericklsa.com

 C: 352-427-0285

 O: 352-465-4545

 F: 815-377-3694



 Sent from my iPhone



 On Aug 19, 2010, at 10:53 AM, Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> wrote:



   

> 

>

> This raises the question I keep wanting to ask of the G430W folks flying IFR - Are you still routinely and primarily flying precision approaches using the ILS or RNAV?  At controlled airports, do they gdefault to the ILS or RNAV for vectored approaches?  Can you freely use either when available?

>

> I haven't been flying in the system for a couple of years now and have never seen/touched a precision RNAV approach.  Just wondering what reality is like out there now.

>

> Bill "really wanting to fly this thing" Watson

>

> AirMike wrote:

>     

>> 

>>

>> I appreciate all of the thoughtful responses to my comments ( especially Tim L, Tim O, and Kelly). We asked Reno APP for vectors to the ILS. They essentially sent us in a teardrop pattern. Approaching from close to the airport we had some reception problems at 90 degrees off our rt wingtip - presumably the wingtip blanketing the signal.

>>

>> Then the N to So. approach is VERY long due to the Sierra Mtns at 8000 to 10000 ft to the west. Reno sits at 4200 ft. At 5-6 miles and on in (Loc & G/S) there was no problem. It was out a ways like Kelly said on the intercept and even after the intercept (10-12 miles) that the signal was erratic. Reno is a real acid test of these antennas.

>>

>> --------

>> OSH '10 or Bust Q/B - finally done

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Read this topic online here:

>>

>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309356#309356

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>  

>>       

>

>

>

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 6:51 am Post subject: VOR Antenna Experiment - report

Actually, now that you mention it, I do remember one time that I was flying a non-precision GPS approach and when I asked for vectors to final, the controller said she didn't have the final approach fix on her map.  That pretty much blew me away, but she cleared me to final anyway.  I just had to get there by myself.  That was actual conditions, and my first flight in actual conditions, but it all worked out well.

I will do an ILS if there is no precision RNAV/GPS and the conditions may require it, although I realize there may be very few of those left, and for proficiency.  Very few of my flights actually require an approach, but I often ask for an approach just to keep current and proficient.  I don't fly as much as I'd like to, which is likely the case for most of us.

Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

jesse(at)saintaviation.com

C: 352-427-0285

F: 815-377-3694

On Aug 19, 2010, at 5:27 PM, Bill Mauledriver Watson wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 When I was flying non-precision RNAV approaches, it was still 'awkward' to get properly vectored or cleared for them.  They controllers tended to not be familiar with the T-style approaches at non-controlled airports.  The overlays worked fine.  Never even tried to do an RNAV non-precision at a controlled AP - just took vectors for the ILS.

 Do you ever do the ILS for something other than proficiency?

 Jesse Saint wrote:

> 

> 

> They always give me whichever I ask for.  I usually do the rnav.

> 

> Jesse Saint

> I-TEC, Inc.

> jesse(at)itecusa.org

> www.itecusa.org

> www.mavericklsa.com

> C: 352-427-0285

> O: 352-465-4545

> F: 815-377-3694

> 

> Sent from my iPhone

> 

> On Aug 19, 2010, at 10:53 AM, Bill Mauledriver Watson <MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com> wrote:

> 

>  

>> 

>> 

>> This raises the question I keep wanting to ask of the G430W folks flying IFR - Are you still routinely and primarily flying precision approaches using the ILS or RNAV?  At controlled airports, do they gdefault to the ILS or RNAV for vectored approaches?  Can you freely use either when available?

>> 

>> I haven't been flying in the system for a couple of years now and have never seen/touched a precision RNAV approach.  Just wondering what reality is like out there now.

>> 

>> Bill "really wanting to fly this thing" Watson

>> 

>> AirMike wrote:

>>    

>>> 

>>> 

>>> I appreciate all of the thoughtful responses to my comments ( especially Tim L, Tim O, and Kelly). We asked Reno APP for vectors to the ILS. They essentially sent us in a teardrop pattern. Approaching from close to the airport we had some reception problems at 90 degrees off our rt wingtip - presumably the wingtip blanketing the signal.

>>> 

>>> Then the N to So. approach is VERY long due to the Sierra Mtns at 8000 to 10000 ft to the west. Reno sits at 4200 ft. At 5-6 miles and on in (Loc & G/S) there was no problem. It was out a ways like Kelly said on the intercept and even after the intercept (10-12 miles) that the signal was erratic. Reno is a real acid test of these antennas.

>>> 

>>> --------

>>> OSH '10 or Bust Q/B - finally done

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> Read this topic online here:

>>> 

>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309356#309356

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>>       

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>>    

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>

pilotdds(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:04 am Post subject: VOR Antenna Experiment - report

My home airport defaults to ILS for vectors.The waas approaches are very cool but that extra 50 feet often makes a differnce in our tule fog.I woud be curious to  here the CA central coast guys chime in.-Jim loving waas but still defaulting to ILS when possible

 PS they will give you waas when you ask for it but if they {norcal} is busy at all you will get delaying vectors or a hold if weather is IMC..Just my 2 cents

   

 

 

   --

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum