Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: antenna>This may not help once you have covered the tail, but for new builders it>may be appropriate: BPAN #33 page 7 had an article by Maurice T. "Buz"Baer>about hiding a comm antenna in the vertical stabilizer. He used a 24">external braided shield over the RG58AU coax as a counterpoise>(groundplane). He measured a 1:1 VSWR, showing a good impedance match at>comm frequencies. No telephone number for him, but he was at KansasCollege>of Technology, Salina KS 67401. His number may be in Reed's directory.>>Al Swanson>swans071(at)gold.tc.umn.edu>>>>Mike C wrote:>>>>>>>Mike - I'm running a non-shielded ignition system and was wondering>>if you had shielded. I have a feeling I'd get lots of noise but stillhoping>>for a possible solution.>>>>MIke C. >>>>>>>Yes, I have a shielded igntion. I have been running an 0-200 for the past>10 years. Prior to that I had a Ford A and I can't remember if I had a>handheld at that time.>>>>Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If it works,>install the whip antenna.>>>>Mike B ( Piet N687MB )>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mike C wrote:>>>>Mike - I'm running a non-shielded>ignition>>system and was wonderingif you had shielded. I have afeeling>>I'd get lots of noise but still hopingfor a possible solution.>MIke>>C. >>>>Yes, I have a shielded>>igntion. I have been running an 0-200 for the past 10 years. Prior to>that>>I had a Ford A and I can't remember if I had a handheld at that>>time.>>>>Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If it works,>>install the whip antenna.>>>>Mike B ( Piet N687MB )>>>>>>>>________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: antenna
Pietenpol-List: Re: antenna
Original Posted By: Larry Ragan
I can tell you how I handled my antennas.>>I have two antennas, a handheld & a GPS. I placed the antennas on the>aluminum fairing, left & right, between the center section & wing.>>Mike B ( Piet N687MB )>Mike - I'm running a non-shielded ignition system and was wonderingif you had shielded. I have a feeling I'd get lots of noise but still hopingfor a possible solution. MIke C. ________________________________________________________________________________
I can tell you how I handled my antennas.>>I have two antennas, a handheld & a GPS. I placed the antennas on the>aluminum fairing, left & right, between the center section & wing.>>Mike B ( Piet N687MB )>Mike - I'm running a non-shielded ignition system and was wonderingif you had shielded. I have a feeling I'd get lots of noise but still hopingfor a possible solution. MIke C. ________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: antenna
Original Posted By: Greg Cardinal
-----Original Message-----
-----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Re: antenna
Original Posted By: Kevin Southwick
This may not help once you have covered the tail, but for new builders itmay be appropriate: BPAN #33 page 7 had an article by Maurice T. "Buz" Baerabout hiding a comm antenna in the vertical stabilizer. He used a 24"external braided shield over the RG58AU coax as a counterpoise(groundplane). He measured a 1:1 VSWR, showing a good impedance match atcomm frequencies. No telephone number for him, but he was at Kansas Collegeof Technology, Salina KS 67401. His number may be in Reed's directory.Al Swansonswans071(at)gold.tc.umn.edu >Mike C wrote:>>>Mike - I'm running a non-shielded ignition system and was wondering>if you had shielded. I have a feeling I'd get lots of noise but still hoping>for a possible solution. >>MIke C. >>>>>Yes, I have a shielded igntion. I have been running an 0-200 for the past10 years. Prior to that I had a Ford A and I can't remember if I had ahandheld at that time.>>Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If it works,install the whip antenna.>>Mike B ( Piet N687MB )>>>Mike C wrote:>>Mike - I'm running a non-shieldedignition >system and was wonderingif you had shielded. I have a feeling >I'd get lots of noise but still hopingfor a possible solution.MIke >C. >>Yes, I have a shielded >igntion. I have been running an 0-200 for the past 10 years. Prior tothat >I had a Ford A and I can't remember if I had a handheld at that >time.>>Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If it works, >install the whip antenna.>>Mike B ( Piet N687MB )>>________________________________________________________________________________
This may not help once you have covered the tail, but for new builders itmay be appropriate: BPAN #33 page 7 had an article by Maurice T. "Buz" Baerabout hiding a comm antenna in the vertical stabilizer. He used a 24"external braided shield over the RG58AU coax as a counterpoise(groundplane). He measured a 1:1 VSWR, showing a good impedance match atcomm frequencies. No telephone number for him, but he was at Kansas Collegeof Technology, Salina KS 67401. His number may be in Reed's directory.Al Swansonswans071(at)gold.tc.umn.edu >Mike C wrote:>>>Mike - I'm running a non-shielded ignition system and was wondering>if you had shielded. I have a feeling I'd get lots of noise but still hoping>for a possible solution. >>MIke C. >>>>>Yes, I have a shielded igntion. I have been running an 0-200 for the past10 years. Prior to that I had a Ford A and I can't remember if I had ahandheld at that time.>>Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If it works,install the whip antenna.>>Mike B ( Piet N687MB )>>>Mike C wrote:>>Mike - I'm running a non-shieldedignition >system and was wonderingif you had shielded. I have a feeling >I'd get lots of noise but still hopingfor a possible solution.MIke >C. >>Yes, I have a shielded >igntion. I have been running an 0-200 for the past 10 years. Prior tothat >I had a Ford A and I can't remember if I had a handheld at that >time.>>Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If it works, >install the whip antenna.>>Mike B ( Piet N687MB )>>________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: antenna
Original Posted By: Alan Swanson
Mike C wrote:>>Yes, I have a shielded igntion. I have been running an 0-200 for thepast 10 years. Prior to that I had a Ford A and I can't remember if Ihad a handheld at that time.Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If it works,install the whip antenna.Mike B ( Piet N687MB )Mike C wrote:Mike - I'm running a non-shieldedignitionsystem and was wonderingif you had shielded. I have afeelingI'd get lots of noise but still hopingfor a possible solution.MIkeC. Yes, I have ashieldedigntion. I have been running an 0-200 for the past 10 years. Prior tothatI had a Ford A and I can't remember if I had a handheld at thattime.Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If itworks,install the whip antenna.Mike B ( Piet N687MB )________________________________________________________________________________
Mike C wrote:>>Yes, I have a shielded igntion. I have been running an 0-200 for thepast 10 years. Prior to that I had a Ford A and I can't remember if Ihad a handheld at that time.Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If it works,install the whip antenna.Mike B ( Piet N687MB )Mike C wrote:Mike - I'm running a non-shieldedignitionsystem and was wonderingif you had shielded. I have afeelingI'd get lots of noise but still hopingfor a possible solution.MIkeC. Yes, I have ashieldedigntion. I have been running an 0-200 for the past 10 years. Prior tothatI had a Ford A and I can't remember if I had a handheld at thattime.Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If itworks,install the whip antenna.Mike B ( Piet N687MB )________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: antenna
Original Posted By: Alan Swanson
As an old timer in ham radio, I can suggest that good antenna design can behad by contacting a ham radio group. They are accustomed to desiging thissort of thing, esp. now days since it's one of the only components in aradio station using modern equipment that can still be designed by theoperator.Kevin SouthwickN5KDPdown here in Houston-----Original Message-----
As an old timer in ham radio, I can suggest that good antenna design can behad by contacting a ham radio group. They are accustomed to desiging thissort of thing, esp. now days since it's one of the only components in aradio station using modern equipment that can still be designed by theoperator.Kevin SouthwickN5KDPdown here in Houston-----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Re: antenna
Original Posted By: Greg Cardinal
>> Mike B. Wrote:>> Yes, I have a shielded igntion. I have been running an 0-200 for the past 10> years. Prior to that I had a Ford A and I can't remember if I had a handheld> at that time.> > Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If it works, install> the whip antenna.> > Mike B ( Piet N687MB )> > Mike- I did try just listening with a borrowed Icom handheld and it had> noise butcould still hear ok. I didn't try transmitting though. The whip antenna isbasicallya coaxial cable that is terminated to some antenna type whip or does the coaxserve as the antenna. We work on material science here so I'm lame in the radio dept. MIke C. >> > Mike B. Wrote:Yes, I have a shielded igntion. I have beenrunning an 0-200 for the past 10 years. Prior to that I had a FordA and I can't remember if I had a handheld at that time.Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If it works,install the whip antenna.Mike B ( Piet N687MB )Mike- I did try just listening with a borrowed Icom handheld and ithad noise butcould still hear ok. I didn't trytransmitting though. The whip antenna is basicallya coaxial cable that is terminated to some antenna type whip or does thecoaxserve as the antenna. We work on material science hereso I'm lame in the radio dept. MIke C. ________________________________________________________________________________
>> Mike B. Wrote:>> Yes, I have a shielded igntion. I have been running an 0-200 for the past 10> years. Prior to that I had a Ford A and I can't remember if I had a handheld> at that time.> > Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If it works, install> the whip antenna.> > Mike B ( Piet N687MB )> > Mike- I did try just listening with a borrowed Icom handheld and it had> noise butcould still hear ok. I didn't try transmitting though. The whip antenna isbasicallya coaxial cable that is terminated to some antenna type whip or does the coaxserve as the antenna. We work on material science here so I'm lame in the radio dept. MIke C. >> > Mike B. Wrote:Yes, I have a shielded igntion. I have beenrunning an 0-200 for the past 10 years. Prior to that I had a FordA and I can't remember if I had a handheld at that time.Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If it works,install the whip antenna.Mike B ( Piet N687MB )Mike- I did try just listening with a borrowed Icom handheld and ithad noise butcould still hear ok. I didn't trytransmitting though. The whip antenna is basicallya coaxial cable that is terminated to some antenna type whip or does thecoaxserve as the antenna. We work on material science hereso I'm lame in the radio dept. MIke C. ________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: RE: antenna
Original Posted By: Michael King
He measured a 1:1 VSWR, showing a good impedance match at> comm frequencies. No telephone number for him, but he was at> Kansas College> of Technology, Salina KS 67401. His number may be in Reed's directory.If he did this and can replicate the measurements, then I nominate him forthe Nobel Prize in Physics this year.Jim________________________________________________________________________________
He measured a 1:1 VSWR, showing a good impedance match at> comm frequencies. No telephone number for him, but he was at> Kansas College> of Technology, Salina KS 67401. His number may be in Reed's directory.If he did this and can replicate the measurements, then I nominate him forthe Nobel Prize in Physics this year.Jim________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: antenna
Original Posted By:> Alan Swanson
You are about right about the only thing a ham can build anymore. My first Hamradio was a Heath HW-8 and worked WAS with it QRP Homebuilt. I sure missHeathKit, My friend has an old Allied Catalog, Remember them?GordonKB6IEex WD6DTNNNN0TIK "MARS"Kevin Southwick wrote:> As an old timer in ham radio, I can suggest that good antenna design can be> had by contacting a ham radio group. They are accustomed to desiging this> sort of thing, esp. now days since it's one of the only components in a> radio station using modern equipment that can still be designed by the> operator.>> Kevin Southwick> N5KDP> down here in Houston>> -----Original Message-----
You are about right about the only thing a ham can build anymore. My first Hamradio was a Heath HW-8 and worked WAS with it QRP Homebuilt. I sure missHeathKit, My friend has an old Allied Catalog, Remember them?GordonKB6IEex WD6DTNNNN0TIK "MARS"Kevin Southwick wrote:> As an old timer in ham radio, I can suggest that good antenna design can be> had by contacting a ham radio group. They are accustomed to desiging this> sort of thing, esp. now days since it's one of the only components in a> radio station using modern equipment that can still be designed by the> operator.>> Kevin Southwick> N5KDP> down here in Houston>> -----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Re: antenna
Original Posted By: Gordon Brimhall
Jim Weir wrote:> He measured a 1:1 VSWR, showing a good impedance match at> > comm frequencies. No telephone number for him, but he was at> > Kansas College> > of Technology, Salina KS 67401. His number may be in Reed's directory.>> If he did this and can replicate the measurements, then I nominate him for> the Nobel Prize in Physics this year.>> JimAre you saying that it is impossible to get a 1 to 1 VSWR?I know it can change depending on other factors but it is possible to do it orall these VSWR Meters I have depended on for 22 yrs are garbage.No for my Disclaimer I have built mostly HF antennas and a few 2mtr quads and440 stuff for satellite Communications on the Mode J Birds and the 2mtr 10mtrstuff for the old Mode A Birds. Other than that I don't know much about allthis new stuff that Jim may know about.I worked both Oscar and the Russian Birds.GordonKB6IE Ham for 22 yrs.________________________________________________________________________________
Jim Weir wrote:> He measured a 1:1 VSWR, showing a good impedance match at> > comm frequencies. No telephone number for him, but he was at> > Kansas College> > of Technology, Salina KS 67401. His number may be in Reed's directory.>> If he did this and can replicate the measurements, then I nominate him for> the Nobel Prize in Physics this year.>> JimAre you saying that it is impossible to get a 1 to 1 VSWR?I know it can change depending on other factors but it is possible to do it orall these VSWR Meters I have depended on for 22 yrs are garbage.No for my Disclaimer I have built mostly HF antennas and a few 2mtr quads and440 stuff for satellite Communications on the Mode J Birds and the 2mtr 10mtrstuff for the old Mode A Birds. Other than that I don't know much about allthis new stuff that Jim may know about.I worked both Oscar and the Russian Birds.GordonKB6IE Ham for 22 yrs.________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re:
Original Posted By: Jim Weir
Sure like to make that 2008 AirVenture.I will be 66, Yes younger than some on this list but 72 seems to be majicnumber in my family.GordonMichael King wrote:> MARKING YOUR CALENDAR THROUGH 2008: Never let it be said> that the EAA doesn't plan ahead.>> Here are the EAA AirVenture "Oshkosh" dates through> the year 2008: July 28 - August 3, 1999; July 26 - August 1, 2000; July> 25 - July 31, 2001; July 24 - July 30, 2002; July 23 - July 29, 2003;> July 28 - August 3, 2004; July 27 - August 2, 2005; July 26 - August 1,> 2006; July 25 - July 31, 2007; and July 23 - July 29, 2008.________________________________________________________________________________
Sure like to make that 2008 AirVenture.I will be 66, Yes younger than some on this list but 72 seems to be majicnumber in my family.GordonMichael King wrote:> MARKING YOUR CALENDAR THROUGH 2008: Never let it be said> that the EAA doesn't plan ahead.>> Here are the EAA AirVenture "Oshkosh" dates through> the year 2008: July 28 - August 3, 1999; July 26 - August 1, 2000; July> 25 - July 31, 2001; July 24 - July 30, 2002; July 23 - July 29, 2003;> July 28 - August 3, 2004; July 27 - August 2, 2005; July 26 - August 1,> 2006; July 25 - July 31, 2007; and July 23 - July 29, 2008.________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: RE: antenna
Original Posted By: steve(at)byu.edu
>> Are you saying that it is impossible to get a 1 to 1 VSWR?Yup, just like it is impossible to get a 100% efficient engine or airfoil.You can get 1.1:1, you might even get 1.01:1, and under excruciating labconditions you might even eke out 1.001:1, but 1:1 is the theoreticallyperfect number that is not possible in practice.Even less is it possible to get those numbers "in the com band". You mightif you are very, very good get 1.1:1 at one spot frequency, but things getworse on either side of that. That is, you can get 1.1:1 at, say, 127 MHz.,but by the time you go out to the band edges at 118 and 137 the "goodnessquotient" or VSWR will go up to some larger number -- 3:1 is somewhatacceptable, 2:1 is better and doable.Even worse is the fact that a dipole, or a sleeve dipole made from braidpulled back over coax is a 1.4:1 mismatch at very best (72/50). By using afew tricks and such you can spread that mismatch out over a broad band andstill wind up with 2:1 or so at the band edges, but now we are into the artrather than the science.> I know it can change depending on other factors but it is> possible to do it or> all these VSWR Meters I have depended on for 22 yrs are garbage.No, you just need to be able to understand what they are telling you.> No for my Disclaimer I have built mostly HF antennas and a few> 2mtr quads and> 440 stuff for satellite Communications on the Mode J Birds and> the 2mtr 10mtr> stuff for the old Mode A Birds. Other than that I don't know much> about all> this new stuff that Jim may know about.Nothing new about ferrite balun matching on dipoles...we've been doing itfor a goodly number of years.>> I worked both Oscar and the Russian Birds.>> Gordon> KB6IE Ham for 22 yrs.JimWX6RST and I got mine somewhere around '59, lessee, that's (ohmigawd) 40years?________________________________________________________________________________
>> Are you saying that it is impossible to get a 1 to 1 VSWR?Yup, just like it is impossible to get a 100% efficient engine or airfoil.You can get 1.1:1, you might even get 1.01:1, and under excruciating labconditions you might even eke out 1.001:1, but 1:1 is the theoreticallyperfect number that is not possible in practice.Even less is it possible to get those numbers "in the com band". You mightif you are very, very good get 1.1:1 at one spot frequency, but things getworse on either side of that. That is, you can get 1.1:1 at, say, 127 MHz.,but by the time you go out to the band edges at 118 and 137 the "goodnessquotient" or VSWR will go up to some larger number -- 3:1 is somewhatacceptable, 2:1 is better and doable.Even worse is the fact that a dipole, or a sleeve dipole made from braidpulled back over coax is a 1.4:1 mismatch at very best (72/50). By using afew tricks and such you can spread that mismatch out over a broad band andstill wind up with 2:1 or so at the band edges, but now we are into the artrather than the science.> I know it can change depending on other factors but it is> possible to do it or> all these VSWR Meters I have depended on for 22 yrs are garbage.No, you just need to be able to understand what they are telling you.> No for my Disclaimer I have built mostly HF antennas and a few> 2mtr quads and> 440 stuff for satellite Communications on the Mode J Birds and> the 2mtr 10mtr> stuff for the old Mode A Birds. Other than that I don't know much> about all> this new stuff that Jim may know about.Nothing new about ferrite balun matching on dipoles...we've been doing itfor a goodly number of years.>> I worked both Oscar and the Russian Birds.>> Gordon> KB6IE Ham for 22 yrs.JimWX6RST and I got mine somewhere around '59, lessee, that's (ohmigawd) 40years?________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Go NORAD was RE: antenna
Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy
Sure is nice to tie down the tail, hand prop, and fly all day withouttalking to anyone at 1000' or less. Radio? I don't need no stinkingradio...Steve E.________________________________________________________________________________
Sure is nice to tie down the tail, hand prop, and fly all day withouttalking to anyone at 1000' or less. Radio? I don't need no stinkingradio...Steve E.________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: antenna
Original Posted By: Ken Beanlands
Well Pop's Congrats on your WX6RSTAlthough I don't see it in my 1960 Call Book.How did you get the WX I don't remember that prefix but then again they aredoing so many new things with call signs to raise money,I seeW6RSTK6RSTWA6RSTAnd none of them are Jim WeirAnd in my 1950 Call Book I see no W6RST's at all.Anyway I understand all about the center freq, I always cut my antennas for thecenter of what I am going to use most. At one time I build a Diamond Quad of myown design 7 ele on 10mtr and 5 on 15mtr and was amased what I could work with2watts input on my HW-8, then I would switch to my Yaesu 101-B and my Dentron 1KW on CW and really have a ball. Once I was on with a W7 with the HW-8 and thesecond time around he said my signal was dropping to a 553 or something likethat and I quickly switched on the Big rig and amp and then when my time to comeback I said, I just turned my antenna some is my signal any better. Such Fun attimes, I don't do much hamming anymore as I have no good antenna up yet on thisretirement property, I always wanted a large antenna farm, now I live on 2.6acres and only have a all band vert up. Someday I will put in a bunch oftelephone poles and have a 7 ele quad on 40 looking at Europe.Anyway Jim I know you are in the business so you should be a little moreinformed than us Hams that are not trying to make money with our hobby.Did you ever work in the Queen Mary ham Station as a Guest? I worked the firstSat of each month for 5 yrs as an operator, lots of fun in the first coupleyears as always a PileupGordonJim Weir wrote:> >> > Are you saying that it is impossible to get a 1 to 1 VSWR?>> Yup, just like it is impossible to get a 100% efficient engine or airfoil.> You can get 1.1:1, you might even get 1.01:1, and under excruciating lab> conditions you might even eke out 1.001:1, but 1:1 is the theoretically> perfect number that is not possible in practice.>> Even less is it possible to get those numbers "in the com band". You might> if you are very, very good get 1.1:1 at one spot frequency, but things get> worse on either side of that. That is, you can get 1.1:1 at, say, 127 MHz.,> but by the time you go out to the band edges at 118 and 137 the "goodness> quotient" or VSWR will go up to some larger number -- 3:1 is somewhat> acceptable, 2:1 is better and doable.>> Even worse is the fact that a dipole, or a sleeve dipole made from braid> pulled back over coax is a 1.4:1 mismatch at very best (72/50). By using a> few tricks and such you can spread that mismatch out over a broad band and> still wind up with 2:1 or so at the band edges, but now we are into the art> rather than the science.>> > I know it can change depending on other factors but it is> > possible to do it or> > all these VSWR Meters I have depended on for 22 yrs are garbage.>> No, you just need to be able to understand what they are telling you.>> > No for my Disclaimer I have built mostly HF antennas and a few> > 2mtr quads and> > 440 stuff for satellite Communications on the Mode J Birds and> > the 2mtr 10mtr> > stuff for the old Mode A Birds. Other than that I don't know much> > about all> > this new stuff that Jim may know about.>> Nothing new about ferrite balun matching on dipoles...we've been doing it> for a goodly number of years.>> >> > I worked both Oscar and the Russian Birds.> >> > Gordon> > KB6IE Ham for 22 yrs.>> Jim> WX6RST and I got mine somewhere around '59, lessee, that's (ohmigawd) 40> years?________________________________________________________________________________
Well Pop's Congrats on your WX6RSTAlthough I don't see it in my 1960 Call Book.How did you get the WX I don't remember that prefix but then again they aredoing so many new things with call signs to raise money,I seeW6RSTK6RSTWA6RSTAnd none of them are Jim WeirAnd in my 1950 Call Book I see no W6RST's at all.Anyway I understand all about the center freq, I always cut my antennas for thecenter of what I am going to use most. At one time I build a Diamond Quad of myown design 7 ele on 10mtr and 5 on 15mtr and was amased what I could work with2watts input on my HW-8, then I would switch to my Yaesu 101-B and my Dentron 1KW on CW and really have a ball. Once I was on with a W7 with the HW-8 and thesecond time around he said my signal was dropping to a 553 or something likethat and I quickly switched on the Big rig and amp and then when my time to comeback I said, I just turned my antenna some is my signal any better. Such Fun attimes, I don't do much hamming anymore as I have no good antenna up yet on thisretirement property, I always wanted a large antenna farm, now I live on 2.6acres and only have a all band vert up. Someday I will put in a bunch oftelephone poles and have a 7 ele quad on 40 looking at Europe.Anyway Jim I know you are in the business so you should be a little moreinformed than us Hams that are not trying to make money with our hobby.Did you ever work in the Queen Mary ham Station as a Guest? I worked the firstSat of each month for 5 yrs as an operator, lots of fun in the first coupleyears as always a PileupGordonJim Weir wrote:> >> > Are you saying that it is impossible to get a 1 to 1 VSWR?>> Yup, just like it is impossible to get a 100% efficient engine or airfoil.> You can get 1.1:1, you might even get 1.01:1, and under excruciating lab> conditions you might even eke out 1.001:1, but 1:1 is the theoretically> perfect number that is not possible in practice.>> Even less is it possible to get those numbers "in the com band". You might> if you are very, very good get 1.1:1 at one spot frequency, but things get> worse on either side of that. That is, you can get 1.1:1 at, say, 127 MHz.,> but by the time you go out to the band edges at 118 and 137 the "goodness> quotient" or VSWR will go up to some larger number -- 3:1 is somewhat> acceptable, 2:1 is better and doable.>> Even worse is the fact that a dipole, or a sleeve dipole made from braid> pulled back over coax is a 1.4:1 mismatch at very best (72/50). By using a> few tricks and such you can spread that mismatch out over a broad band and> still wind up with 2:1 or so at the band edges, but now we are into the art> rather than the science.>> > I know it can change depending on other factors but it is> > possible to do it or> > all these VSWR Meters I have depended on for 22 yrs are garbage.>> No, you just need to be able to understand what they are telling you.>> > No for my Disclaimer I have built mostly HF antennas and a few> > 2mtr quads and> > 440 stuff for satellite Communications on the Mode J Birds and> > the 2mtr 10mtr> > stuff for the old Mode A Birds. Other than that I don't know much> > about all> > this new stuff that Jim may know about.>> Nothing new about ferrite balun matching on dipoles...we've been doing it> for a goodly number of years.>> >> > I worked both Oscar and the Russian Birds.> >> > Gordon> > KB6IE Ham for 22 yrs.>> Jim> WX6RST and I got mine somewhere around '59, lessee, that's (ohmigawd) 40> years?________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Go NORAD was RE: antenna
Original Posted By: Greg Cardinal
So, do you talk to people OVER 1000' ;-)On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 steve(at)byu.edu wrote:> Sure is nice to tie down the tail, hand prop, and fly all day without> talking to anyone at 1000' or less. Radio? I don't need no stinking> radio...> > Steve E.> ________________________________________________________________________________
So, do you talk to people OVER 1000' ;-)On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 steve(at)byu.edu wrote:> Sure is nice to tie down the tail, hand prop, and fly all day without> talking to anyone at 1000' or less. Radio? I don't need no stinking> radio...> > Steve E.> ________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: RE: antenna
Original Posted By: Jim Weir
> Well Pop's Congrats on your WX6RST> Although I don't see it in my 1960 Call Book.> How did you get the WX I don't remember that prefix but then> again they are> doing so many new things with call signs to raise money,Gee, with all your experience I'd have expected you to go to the QRZ websiteand do a name search. I changed from my original WB6BHI last year to the Xcall. I figured what the hell, combine two passions -- flying (WXweather) and ham radio (RST - Readability, Strength, Tone) into a singlecall.Just like the C-182, you go back to the original '58 records, she is N5151D,but is 73CQ today. Get it? 73 CQ ??>> Anyway Jim I know you are in the business so you should be a little more> informed than us Hams that are not trying to make money with our hobby.Never made a dime with the hobby -- never mix business with pleasure. Thelivelihood comes from the profession of electronics engineering; they bear asmall resemblance to one another.>> Did you ever work in the Queen Mary ham Station as a Guest? I> worked the first> Sat of each month for 5 yrs as an operator, lots of fun in the> first couple> years as always a PileupNope, never had much use for the DC bands. Most of my work has been between50 MHz. and 14 GHz..Jim________________________________________________________________________________
> Well Pop's Congrats on your WX6RST> Although I don't see it in my 1960 Call Book.> How did you get the WX I don't remember that prefix but then> again they are> doing so many new things with call signs to raise money,Gee, with all your experience I'd have expected you to go to the QRZ websiteand do a name search. I changed from my original WB6BHI last year to the Xcall. I figured what the hell, combine two passions -- flying (WXweather) and ham radio (RST - Readability, Strength, Tone) into a singlecall.Just like the C-182, you go back to the original '58 records, she is N5151D,but is 73CQ today. Get it? 73 CQ ??>> Anyway Jim I know you are in the business so you should be a little more> informed than us Hams that are not trying to make money with our hobby.Never made a dime with the hobby -- never mix business with pleasure. Thelivelihood comes from the profession of electronics engineering; they bear asmall resemblance to one another.>> Did you ever work in the Queen Mary ham Station as a Guest? I> worked the first> Sat of each month for 5 yrs as an operator, lots of fun in the> first couple> years as always a PileupNope, never had much use for the DC bands. Most of my work has been between50 MHz. and 14 GHz..Jim________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: antenna
Original Posted By: steve(at)byu.edu
Jim Weir wrote:> > Well Pop's Congrats on your WX6RST> > Although I don't see it in my 1960 Call Book.> > How did you get the WX I don't remember that prefix but then> > again they are> > doing so many new things with call signs to raise money,>> Gee, with all your experience I'd have expected you to go to the QRZ website> and do a name search.Nope, I don't mix Ham radio with Internet Ham stuff. And I don't like the newfangled calls they now have, Can't tell which DX station you are talking toohalf the time now with all the speciality calls.> I changed from my original WB6BHI last year to the X> call. I figured what the hell, combine two passions -- flying (WX> weather) and ham radio (RST - Readability, Strength, Tone) into a single> call.>I like the RST though, Good on CW but My IE is short (dit dit - dit) I do mostof my contesting CW, Well used to, Probably so rusty now.>> Just like the C-182, you go back to the original '58 records, she is N5151D,> but is 73CQ today. Get it? 73 CQ ??>YEP>> >> > Anyway Jim I know you are in the business so you should be a little more> > informed than us Hams that are not trying to make money with our hobby.>> Never made a dime with the hobby -- never mix business with pleasure. The> livelihood comes from the profession of electronics engineering; they bear a> small resemblance to one another.>Anymore you are right, New Hams don't know what it is like to build a radioAircraft & Missle Elec Repairman Chanute AFB 1960>> >> > Did you ever work in the Queen Mary ham Station as a Guest? I> > worked the first> > Sat of each month for 5 yrs as an operator, lots of fun in the> > first couple> > years as always a Pileup>> Nope, never had much use for the DC bands. Most of my work has been between> 50 MHz. and 14 GHz..>You mean DX Bands or do you Elec Engineers call it DC?I always wanted to use those high Freqs and try Moon Bounce but never did.So you never really got into DX, That was the most fun part, 130 plus countriesworked, I also did my duty as QSL manager for the I's, Board member for LongBeach Radio Amatures and aalso Field Day Co Chairman, Navy Mars.Well this has nothing to do with aircraft and someone already told me to keepOff Topic out of here. But glad to know you are a fellow ham.Thanks Jim, And again I am sorry for my out of place comment to you, glad youstayed on the list.Gordon>> Jim________________________________________________________________________________
Jim Weir wrote:> > Well Pop's Congrats on your WX6RST> > Although I don't see it in my 1960 Call Book.> > How did you get the WX I don't remember that prefix but then> > again they are> > doing so many new things with call signs to raise money,>> Gee, with all your experience I'd have expected you to go to the QRZ website> and do a name search.Nope, I don't mix Ham radio with Internet Ham stuff. And I don't like the newfangled calls they now have, Can't tell which DX station you are talking toohalf the time now with all the speciality calls.> I changed from my original WB6BHI last year to the X> call. I figured what the hell, combine two passions -- flying (WX> weather) and ham radio (RST - Readability, Strength, Tone) into a single> call.>I like the RST though, Good on CW but My IE is short (dit dit - dit) I do mostof my contesting CW, Well used to, Probably so rusty now.>> Just like the C-182, you go back to the original '58 records, she is N5151D,> but is 73CQ today. Get it? 73 CQ ??>YEP>> >> > Anyway Jim I know you are in the business so you should be a little more> > informed than us Hams that are not trying to make money with our hobby.>> Never made a dime with the hobby -- never mix business with pleasure. The> livelihood comes from the profession of electronics engineering; they bear a> small resemblance to one another.>Anymore you are right, New Hams don't know what it is like to build a radioAircraft & Missle Elec Repairman Chanute AFB 1960>> >> > Did you ever work in the Queen Mary ham Station as a Guest? I> > worked the first> > Sat of each month for 5 yrs as an operator, lots of fun in the> > first couple> > years as always a Pileup>> Nope, never had much use for the DC bands. Most of my work has been between> 50 MHz. and 14 GHz..>You mean DX Bands or do you Elec Engineers call it DC?I always wanted to use those high Freqs and try Moon Bounce but never did.So you never really got into DX, That was the most fun part, 130 plus countriesworked, I also did my duty as QSL manager for the I's, Board member for LongBeach Radio Amatures and aalso Field Day Co Chairman, Navy Mars.Well this has nothing to do with aircraft and someone already told me to keepOff Topic out of here. But glad to know you are a fellow ham.Thanks Jim, And again I am sorry for my out of place comment to you, glad youstayed on the list.Gordon>> Jim________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Go NORAD was RE: antenna
Original Posted By: Alan Swanson
Why yes I do! Pray quite regularly in fact, Glad you asked..-Steve E.-----Original Message-----BeanlandsSent: Tuesday, January 12, 1999 12:38 PMSubject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Go NORAD was RE: antennaSo, do you talk to people OVER 1000' ;-)On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 steve(at)byu.edu wrote:> Sure is nice to tie down the tail, hand prop, and fly all day without> talking to anyone at 1000' or less. Radio? I don't need no stinking> radio...> > Steve E.> ________________________________________________________________________________
Why yes I do! Pray quite regularly in fact, Glad you asked..-Steve E.-----Original Message-----BeanlandsSent: Tuesday, January 12, 1999 12:38 PMSubject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Go NORAD was RE: antennaSo, do you talk to people OVER 1000' ;-)On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 steve(at)byu.edu wrote:> Sure is nice to tie down the tail, hand prop, and fly all day without> talking to anyone at 1000' or less. Radio? I don't need no stinking> radio...> > Steve E.> ________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: RE: antenna
Original Posted By: Michael Hinchman
Jim- You are absolutely right- I apologize for the sloppiness in my numbers.What I should have said was that he claimed a vswr as low as he couldmeasure on his meter at a frequency near the center of the comm band. Yoursleeve dipole figure of 72/50 would seem to indicate that maybe he was notaccurate in his measurement. Thanks for the tutorial. This is what I likeabout this NG.Al SwansonKD0BK>>>> Are you saying that it is impossible to get a 1 to 1 VSWR?>>Yup, just like it is impossible to get a 100% efficient engine or airfoil.>You can get 1.1:1, you might even get 1.01:1, and under excruciating lab>conditions you might even eke out 1.001:1, but 1:1 is the theoretically>perfect number that is not possible in practice.>>Even less is it possible to get those numbers "in the com band". You might>if you are very, very good get 1.1:1 at one spot frequency, but things get>worse on either side of that. That is, you can get 1.1:1 at, say, 127 MHz.,>but by the time you go out to the band edges at 118 and 137 the "goodness>quotient" or VSWR will go up to some larger number -- 3:1 is somewhat>acceptable, 2:1 is better and doable.>>Even worse is the fact that a dipole, or a sleeve dipole made from braid>pulled back over coax is a 1.4:1 mismatch at very best (72/50). By using a>few tricks and such you can spread that mismatch out over a broad band and>still wind up with 2:1 or so at the band edges, but now we are into the art>rather than the science.>>>> I know it can change depending on other factors but it is>> possible to do it or>> all these VSWR Meters I have depended on for 22 yrs are garbage.>>No, you just need to be able to understand what they are telling you.>>>> No for my Disclaimer I have built mostly HF antennas and a few>> 2mtr quads and>> 440 stuff for satellite Communications on the Mode J Birds and>> the 2mtr 10mtr>> stuff for the old Mode A Birds. Other than that I don't know much>> about all>> this new stuff that Jim may know about.>>Nothing new about ferrite balun matching on dipoles...we've been doing it>for a goodly number of years.>>>>> I worked both Oscar and the Russian Birds.>>>> Gordon>> KB6IE Ham for 22 yrs.>>Jim>WX6RST and I got mine somewhere around '59, lessee, that's (ohmigawd) 40>years?>>________________________________________________________________________________
Jim- You are absolutely right- I apologize for the sloppiness in my numbers.What I should have said was that he claimed a vswr as low as he couldmeasure on his meter at a frequency near the center of the comm band. Yoursleeve dipole figure of 72/50 would seem to indicate that maybe he was notaccurate in his measurement. Thanks for the tutorial. This is what I likeabout this NG.Al SwansonKD0BK>>>> Are you saying that it is impossible to get a 1 to 1 VSWR?>>Yup, just like it is impossible to get a 100% efficient engine or airfoil.>You can get 1.1:1, you might even get 1.01:1, and under excruciating lab>conditions you might even eke out 1.001:1, but 1:1 is the theoretically>perfect number that is not possible in practice.>>Even less is it possible to get those numbers "in the com band". You might>if you are very, very good get 1.1:1 at one spot frequency, but things get>worse on either side of that. That is, you can get 1.1:1 at, say, 127 MHz.,>but by the time you go out to the band edges at 118 and 137 the "goodness>quotient" or VSWR will go up to some larger number -- 3:1 is somewhat>acceptable, 2:1 is better and doable.>>Even worse is the fact that a dipole, or a sleeve dipole made from braid>pulled back over coax is a 1.4:1 mismatch at very best (72/50). By using a>few tricks and such you can spread that mismatch out over a broad band and>still wind up with 2:1 or so at the band edges, but now we are into the art>rather than the science.>>>> I know it can change depending on other factors but it is>> possible to do it or>> all these VSWR Meters I have depended on for 22 yrs are garbage.>>No, you just need to be able to understand what they are telling you.>>>> No for my Disclaimer I have built mostly HF antennas and a few>> 2mtr quads and>> 440 stuff for satellite Communications on the Mode J Birds and>> the 2mtr 10mtr>> stuff for the old Mode A Birds. Other than that I don't know much>> about all>> this new stuff that Jim may know about.>>Nothing new about ferrite balun matching on dipoles...we've been doing it>for a goodly number of years.>>>>> I worked both Oscar and the Russian Birds.>>>> Gordon>> KB6IE Ham for 22 yrs.>>Jim>WX6RST and I got mine somewhere around '59, lessee, that's (ohmigawd) 40>years?>>________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: GONAD was RE: antenna
Original Posted By: "D.J.H."
Sure is nice to tie down the tail, hand prop, and fly all day withouttalking to anyone at 1000' or less. Radio? I don't need no stinkingradio...Steve E.________________________________________________________________________________
Sure is nice to tie down the tail, hand prop, and fly all day withouttalking to anyone at 1000' or less. Radio? I don't need no stinkingradio...Steve E.________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: antenna
Original Posted By:> Kevin Southwick
Hello from a fellow "HAM" Doug VE6ZH up in Alberta. 73
Hello from a fellow "HAM" Doug VE6ZH up in Alberta. 73
Pietenpol-List:
Original Posted By: Gordon Brimhall
MARKING YOUR CALENDAR THROUGH 2008: Never let it be said that the EAA doesn't plan ahead. Here are the EAA AirVenture "Oshkosh" dates throughthe year 2008: July 28 - August 3, 1999; July 26 - August 1, 2000; July25 - July 31, 2001; July 24 - July 30, 2002; July 23 - July 29, 2003;July 28 - August 3, 2004; July 27 - August 2, 2005; July 26 - August 1,2006; July 25 - July 31, 2007; and July 23 - July 29, 2008. ________________________________________________________________________________
MARKING YOUR CALENDAR THROUGH 2008: Never let it be said that the EAA doesn't plan ahead. Here are the EAA AirVenture "Oshkosh" dates throughthe year 2008: July 28 - August 3, 1999; July 26 - August 1, 2000; July25 - July 31, 2001; July 24 - July 30, 2002; July 23 - July 29, 2003;July 28 - August 3, 2004; July 27 - August 2, 2005; July 26 - August 1,2006; July 25 - July 31, 2007; and July 23 - July 29, 2008. ________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: antenna
Original Posted By: clif
Pietenpol-List: antenna
Original Posted By: clif
Pietenpol-List: antenna
Original Posted By: clif
Original Posted By: "TOM STINEMETZE"
I got the cheapest one I could find- the ACK E-01 from everything I have readit's still legal and once it's signed off I'm not going to worry too much aboutthem fir a while.just have to get that airworthiness certificate.that is oneof the things on the list the DAR will not sign off withoutRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:03:51 -0500
I got the cheapest one I could find- the ACK E-01 from everything I have readit's still legal and once it's signed off I'm not going to worry too much aboutthem fir a while.just have to get that airworthiness certificate.that is oneof the things on the list the DAR will not sign off withoutRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:03:51 -0500
Pietenpol-List: Re: antenna
Original Posted By: "Catdesigns"
I just sent out the list to all that shared their information. If you wouldlike to be included in the next update please fill out row # 3 of theattached Excel worksheet and return to my home email jack(at)textors.com.Please input as shown in row # 2.Thanks,JackJack Textor29 SW 58th DriveDes Moines, IA 50312www.textors.com________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: antenna
I just sent out the list to all that shared their information. If you wouldlike to be included in the next update please fill out row # 3 of theattached Excel worksheet and return to my home email jack(at)textors.com.Please input as shown in row # 2.Thanks,JackJack Textor29 SW 58th DriveDes Moines, IA 50312www.textors.com________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: antenna
Original Posted By: "TOM STINEMETZE"
This is just my opinion and I will admit it is probably not a great idea to makethe DAR mad at you BUT according to the FARs you do not need an ELT until youare done with flight testing. Therefore an ELT is not requires to receive yourairworthiness certificate. It is required (paragraph a) as soon as you transitionout of the test phase and can carry passengers . Look at 91.207 paragraph f (snipped below)(f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to (paragraph 'a 'requires anELT)..(4) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to design and testing;..(5) New aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to their manufacture,preparation, and delivery;As for mounting the ELT it is not stated it has to be in the tail, just as faraft as practical.(b) Each emergency locator transmitter required by paragraph (a) of this sectionmust be attached to the airplane in such a manner that the probability of damageto the transmitter in the event of crash impact is minimized. Fixed and deployableautomatic type transmitters must be attached to the airplane as faraft as practicable.Read the complete FAR 91.207 belowTitle 14: Aeronautics and SpacePART 91GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES 91.207 Emergency locator transmitters.(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, no person mayoperate a U.S.-registered civil airplane unless(1) There is attached to the airplane an approved automatic type emergency locatortransmitter that is in operable condition for the following operations, exceptthat after June 21, 1995, an emergency locator transmitter that meets therequirements of TSO-C91 may not be used for new installations:(i) Those operations governed by the supplemental air carrier and commercial operatorrules of parts 121 and 125;(ii) Charter flights governed by the domestic and flag air carrier rules of part121 of this chapter; and(iii) Operations governed by part 135 of this chapter; or(2) For operations other than those specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section,there must be attached to the airplane an approved personal type or an approvedautomatic type emergency locator transmitter that is in operable condition,except that after June 21, 1995, an emergency locator transmitter that meetsthe requirements of TSO-C91 may not be used for new installations.(b) Each emergency locator transmitter required by paragraph (a) of this sectionmust be attached to the airplane in such a manner that the probability of damageto the transmitter in the event of crash impact is minimized. Fixed and deployableautomatic type transmitters must be attached to the airplane as faraft as practicable.(c) Batteries used in the emergency locator transmitters required by paragraphs(a) and (b) of this section must be replaced (or recharged, if the batteriesare rechargeable)(1) When the transmitter has been in use for more than 1 cumulative hour; or(2) When 50 percent of their useful life (or, for rechargeable batteries, 50 percentof their useful life of charge) has expired, as established by the transmittermanufacturer under its approval.The new expiration date for replacing (or recharging) the battery must be legiblymarked on the outside of the transmitter and entered in the aircraft maintenancerecord. Paragraph (c)(2) of this section does not apply to batteries (suchas water-activated batteries) that are essentially unaffected during probablestorage intervals.(d) Each emergency locator transmitter required by paragraph (a) of this sectionmust be inspected within 12 calendar months after the last inspection for(1) Proper installation;(2) Battery corrosion;(3) Operation of the controls and crash sensor; and(4) The presence of a sufficient signal radiated from its antenna.(e) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a person may(1) Ferry a newly acquired airplane from the place where possession of it was takento a place where the emergency locator transmitter is to be installed; and(2) Ferry an airplane with an inoperative emergency locator transmitter from aplace where repairs or replacements cannot be made to a place where they can bemade.No person other than required crewmembers may be carried aboard an airplane beingferried under paragraph (e) of this section.(f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to(1) Before January 1, 2004, turbojet-powered aircraft;(2) Aircraft while engaged in scheduled flights by scheduled air carriers;(3) Aircraft while engaged in training operations conducted entirely within a 50-nauticalmile radius of the airport from which such local flight operationsbegan;(4) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to design and testing;(5) New aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to their manufacture,preparation, and delivery;(6) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to the aerial applicationof chemicals and other substances for agricultural purposes;(7) Aircraft certificated by the Administrator for research and development purposes;(8) Aircraft while used for showing compliance with regulations, crew training,exhibition, air racing, or market surveys;(9) Aircraft equipped to carry not more than one person.(10) An aircraft during any period for which the transmitter has been temporarilyremoved for inspection, repair, modification, or replacement, subject to thefollowing:(i) No person may operate the aircraft unless the aircraft records contain an entrywhich includes the date of initial removal, the make, model, serial number,and reason for removing the transmitter, and a placard located in view of thepilot to show ELT not installed.(ii) No person may operate the aircraft more than 90 days after the ELT is initiallyremoved from the aircraft; and(11) On and after January 1, 2004, aircraft with a maximum payload capacity ofmore than 18,000 pounds when used in air transportation.[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34304, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91242, 59 FR 32057,June 21, 1994; 59 FR 34578, July 6, 1994; Amdt. 91265, 65 FR 81319, Dec.22, 2000; 66 FR 16316, Mar. 23, 2001]http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te ... Sacramento, CAWestCoastPiet.comRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:17:56 -0500
This is just my opinion and I will admit it is probably not a great idea to makethe DAR mad at you BUT according to the FARs you do not need an ELT until youare done with flight testing. Therefore an ELT is not requires to receive yourairworthiness certificate. It is required (paragraph a) as soon as you transitionout of the test phase and can carry passengers . Look at 91.207 paragraph f (snipped below)(f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to (paragraph 'a 'requires anELT)..(4) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to design and testing;..(5) New aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to their manufacture,preparation, and delivery;As for mounting the ELT it is not stated it has to be in the tail, just as faraft as practical.(b) Each emergency locator transmitter required by paragraph (a) of this sectionmust be attached to the airplane in such a manner that the probability of damageto the transmitter in the event of crash impact is minimized. Fixed and deployableautomatic type transmitters must be attached to the airplane as faraft as practicable.Read the complete FAR 91.207 belowTitle 14: Aeronautics and SpacePART 91GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES 91.207 Emergency locator transmitters.(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, no person mayoperate a U.S.-registered civil airplane unless(1) There is attached to the airplane an approved automatic type emergency locatortransmitter that is in operable condition for the following operations, exceptthat after June 21, 1995, an emergency locator transmitter that meets therequirements of TSO-C91 may not be used for new installations:(i) Those operations governed by the supplemental air carrier and commercial operatorrules of parts 121 and 125;(ii) Charter flights governed by the domestic and flag air carrier rules of part121 of this chapter; and(iii) Operations governed by part 135 of this chapter; or(2) For operations other than those specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section,there must be attached to the airplane an approved personal type or an approvedautomatic type emergency locator transmitter that is in operable condition,except that after June 21, 1995, an emergency locator transmitter that meetsthe requirements of TSO-C91 may not be used for new installations.(b) Each emergency locator transmitter required by paragraph (a) of this sectionmust be attached to the airplane in such a manner that the probability of damageto the transmitter in the event of crash impact is minimized. Fixed and deployableautomatic type transmitters must be attached to the airplane as faraft as practicable.(c) Batteries used in the emergency locator transmitters required by paragraphs(a) and (b) of this section must be replaced (or recharged, if the batteriesare rechargeable)(1) When the transmitter has been in use for more than 1 cumulative hour; or(2) When 50 percent of their useful life (or, for rechargeable batteries, 50 percentof their useful life of charge) has expired, as established by the transmittermanufacturer under its approval.The new expiration date for replacing (or recharging) the battery must be legiblymarked on the outside of the transmitter and entered in the aircraft maintenancerecord. Paragraph (c)(2) of this section does not apply to batteries (suchas water-activated batteries) that are essentially unaffected during probablestorage intervals.(d) Each emergency locator transmitter required by paragraph (a) of this sectionmust be inspected within 12 calendar months after the last inspection for(1) Proper installation;(2) Battery corrosion;(3) Operation of the controls and crash sensor; and(4) The presence of a sufficient signal radiated from its antenna.(e) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a person may(1) Ferry a newly acquired airplane from the place where possession of it was takento a place where the emergency locator transmitter is to be installed; and(2) Ferry an airplane with an inoperative emergency locator transmitter from aplace where repairs or replacements cannot be made to a place where they can bemade.No person other than required crewmembers may be carried aboard an airplane beingferried under paragraph (e) of this section.(f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to(1) Before January 1, 2004, turbojet-powered aircraft;(2) Aircraft while engaged in scheduled flights by scheduled air carriers;(3) Aircraft while engaged in training operations conducted entirely within a 50-nauticalmile radius of the airport from which such local flight operationsbegan;(4) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to design and testing;(5) New aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to their manufacture,preparation, and delivery;(6) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to the aerial applicationof chemicals and other substances for agricultural purposes;(7) Aircraft certificated by the Administrator for research and development purposes;(8) Aircraft while used for showing compliance with regulations, crew training,exhibition, air racing, or market surveys;(9) Aircraft equipped to carry not more than one person.(10) An aircraft during any period for which the transmitter has been temporarilyremoved for inspection, repair, modification, or replacement, subject to thefollowing:(i) No person may operate the aircraft unless the aircraft records contain an entrywhich includes the date of initial removal, the make, model, serial number,and reason for removing the transmitter, and a placard located in view of thepilot to show ELT not installed.(ii) No person may operate the aircraft more than 90 days after the ELT is initiallyremoved from the aircraft; and(11) On and after January 1, 2004, aircraft with a maximum payload capacity ofmore than 18,000 pounds when used in air transportation.[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34304, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91242, 59 FR 32057,June 21, 1994; 59 FR 34578, July 6, 1994; Amdt. 91265, 65 FR 81319, Dec.22, 2000; 66 FR 16316, Mar. 23, 2001]http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te ... Sacramento, CAWestCoastPiet.comRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:17:56 -0500
Pietenpol-List: Re: Split Landing Gear Question
Original Posted By: "kevinpurtee"
I put mine on a bracket behind the pilot seat (not in accordance with the instructions)and it was acceptable to the DAR -- he said only a/c he has refused weredue to lack of ELT's.Tom BernieOn Aug 31, 2010, at 9:54 PM, skellytown flyer wrote:> > Well though there are exceptions for installing one right away- the check listI have from the only DAR I know of close enough to do the inspection statesELT installed with operational check in accordance with FAR 91.207(d) if morethan one place airplane.I realize I could argue the point but for 150 bucks I'llgo along and try to keep it simple.basically I still would like to find outif it is acceptable to have the antenna inside the tail out of sight. I guessonce it comes in if there isn't specific instructions concerning it I'll startcalling someone.> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 876#310876> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Split Landing Gear Question
I put mine on a bracket behind the pilot seat (not in accordance with the instructions)and it was acceptable to the DAR -- he said only a/c he has refused weredue to lack of ELT's.Tom BernieOn Aug 31, 2010, at 9:54 PM, skellytown flyer wrote:> > Well though there are exceptions for installing one right away- the check listI have from the only DAR I know of close enough to do the inspection statesELT installed with operational check in accordance with FAR 91.207(d) if morethan one place airplane.I realize I could argue the point but for 150 bucks I'llgo along and try to keep it simple.basically I still would like to find outif it is acceptable to have the antenna inside the tail out of sight. I guessonce it comes in if there isn't specific instructions concerning it I'll startcalling someone.> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 876#310876> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Split Landing Gear Question
Pietenpol-List: Re: antenna
Original Posted By: "kevinpurtee"
Hi Jack - I upgraded to the heavier gauge. The attach points failed on my leftV, not the tubing. The tubing didn't even seem to be aware there was a problem.I'm not known to build light (thus the nickname Fat Bottomed Girl for theplane), but that's one area you might be forgiven for going sturdier.Axel--------Kevin PurteeNX899KPAustin/Georgetown, TXRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: antenna
Hi Jack - I upgraded to the heavier gauge. The attach points failed on my leftV, not the tubing. The tubing didn't even seem to be aware there was a problem.I'm not known to build light (thus the nickname Fat Bottomed Girl for theplane), but that's one area you might be forgiven for going sturdier.Axel--------Kevin PurteeNX899KPAustin/Georgetown, TXRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: antenna
Original Posted By: shad bell
Raymond - I'm REALLY not qualified to offer an opinion but that's not going tostop me: I believe you can put the antenna in a convenient place in the tail witha light piece of metal for a ground plane. I also believe the antenna canbe internal if you want it to be.Hopefully knowledgeable people will correct me as needed.--------Kevin PurteeNX899KPAustin/Georgetown, TXRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
Raymond - I'm REALLY not qualified to offer an opinion but that's not going tostop me: I believe you can put the antenna in a convenient place in the tail witha light piece of metal for a ground plane. I also believe the antenna canbe internal if you want it to be.Hopefully knowledgeable people will correct me as needed.--------Kevin PurteeNX899KPAustin/Georgetown, TXRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
Re: Pietenpol-List: The next future piet'er is here
Original Posted By: Ryan Mueller
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: The next future piet'er is here
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: The next future piet'er is here
Pietenpol-List: antenna
Original Posted By: "TOM STINEMETZE"
Raymond: as I've mentioned before, Corky installeda piece of aluminum sheet about 18 or 20" squareon the lower longerons behind the pilot's seat in41CC and mounted a VHF COMM antenna to it for usewith a handheld.I moved the ELT back to this area and mounted it tothe plate as well, then mounted the ELT antennato it. The antenna is vertical, concealedinside the aft fuselage along with the COMM antenna. Ifound that the ELT instructions said that anapproved, compatible antenna must be used so Ibought one that was listed and it turns out tobe one of the cheapest, simplest ones anyway...the thin black whippy one.Oscar ZunigaAir Camper NX41CCSan Antonio, TXmailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.comwebsite at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 08:05:31 -0500
Raymond: as I've mentioned before, Corky installeda piece of aluminum sheet about 18 or 20" squareon the lower longerons behind the pilot's seat in41CC and mounted a VHF COMM antenna to it for usewith a handheld.I moved the ELT back to this area and mounted it tothe plate as well, then mounted the ELT antennato it. The antenna is vertical, concealedinside the aft fuselage along with the COMM antenna. Ifound that the ELT instructions said that anapproved, compatible antenna must be used so Ibought one that was listed and it turns out tobe one of the cheapest, simplest ones anyway...the thin black whippy one.Oscar ZunigaAir Camper NX41CCSan Antonio, TXmailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.comwebsite at http://www.flysquirrel.net ________________________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 08:05:31 -0500
Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol airlines shirts
Original Posted By:> John Hofmann
Hi Shad,First, congrats on the new addition. I have been a little slow with work and my mother in the hospital. Seeing this email may spur me to get this done over the weekend.-john-John HofmannVice-President, Information TechnologyThe Rees Group, Inc.2424 American LaneMadison, WI 53704Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150Fax: 608.443.2474Email: jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.comOn Sep 1, 2010, at 7:14 PM, shad bell wrote:> > John, Did you ever print any of the shirts with this really cool logo on them? I missed Brodhead this year, so I was out of the In person, loop.> > Shad> --- On Sat, 7/3/10, John Hofmann wrote:>
Hi Shad,First, congrats on the new addition. I have been a little slow with work and my mother in the hospital. Seeing this email may spur me to get this done over the weekend.-john-John HofmannVice-President, Information TechnologyThe Rees Group, Inc.2424 American LaneMadison, WI 53704Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150Fax: 608.443.2474Email: jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.comOn Sep 1, 2010, at 7:14 PM, shad bell wrote:> > John, Did you ever print any of the shirts with this really cool logo on them? I missed Brodhead this year, so I was out of the In person, loop.> > Shad> --- On Sat, 7/3/10, John Hofmann wrote:>
Re: Pietenpol-List: antenna
Original Posted By: Andrew M Eldredge
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: antenna
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: antenna
Pietenpol-List: Re: Stits vs. Ceconite
Original Posted By: Jim Boyer
Hi Dave - I messed with Ceconite a tiny bit on another project and used Stittsto good effect on Fat Girl. The solvents in both systems require respectful handling.That really only involves a half-faced, air-purifying respirator fromhome depot/lowes with standard organic vapor filters. You also want to wearlatex gloves. You really just want to keep it off of you with common-sense chemicalhandling techniques.I can't comment on the Stewart system because I know nothing about it.Adrian - pretty struts!Axel--------Kevin PurteeNX899KPAustin/Georgetown, TXRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:32:36 +0000 (UTC)
Hi Dave - I messed with Ceconite a tiny bit on another project and used Stittsto good effect on Fat Girl. The solvents in both systems require respectful handling.That really only involves a half-faced, air-purifying respirator fromhome depot/lowes with standard organic vapor filters. You also want to wearlatex gloves. You really just want to keep it off of you with common-sense chemicalhandling techniques.I can't comment on the Stewart system because I know nothing about it.Adrian - pretty struts!Axel--------Kevin PurteeNX899KPAustin/Georgetown, TXRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:32:36 +0000 (UTC)
Pietenpol-List: Re: Try some paste wax....
Original Posted By: "JGriff"
The groundplane does not have to be solid. Mine is analuminum mesh acquired from an art supply house.I've added this antenna article also.My understanding is that you don't have to ground thegroundplane to anything else. It IS the " ground " . Thecoax from the radio is attached to the groundplane.The only concern I have with mine is how it will beaffected by the control cabling when I finaly get thething in the air.Clifoo.com>> > This is good information. I like the idea of an internal ground plane sheet even if it isn't too big. I am guessing it needs to be grounded to the negative battery terminal since it's mounted in a wood fuselage? or maybe only the radio grounding from the antenna coax? probably wouldn't matter for the ELT but might with a radio antenna as far as interference.=0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Try some paste wax....
The groundplane does not have to be solid. Mine is analuminum mesh acquired from an art supply house.I've added this antenna article also.My understanding is that you don't have to ground thegroundplane to anything else. It IS the " ground " . Thecoax from the radio is attached to the groundplane.The only concern I have with mine is how it will beaffected by the control cabling when I finaly get thething in the air.Clifoo.com>> > This is good information. I like the idea of an internal ground plane sheet even if it isn't too big. I am guessing it needs to be grounded to the negative battery terminal since it's mounted in a wood fuselage? or maybe only the radio grounding from the antenna coax? probably wouldn't matter for the ELT but might with a radio antenna as far as interference.=0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Try some paste wax....
Pietenpol-List: Re: antenna
Original Posted By: John Hofmann
This is good information. I like the idea of an internal ground plane sheet evenif it isn't too big. I am guessing it needs to be grounded to the negative batteryterminal since it's mounted in a wood fuselage? or maybe only the radiogrounding from the antenna coax? probably wouldn't matter for the ELT but mightwith a radio antenna as far as interference.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
This is good information. I like the idea of an internal ground plane sheet evenif it isn't too big. I am guessing it needs to be grounded to the negative batteryterminal since it's mounted in a wood fuselage? or maybe only the radiogrounding from the antenna coax? probably wouldn't matter for the ELT but mightwith a radio antenna as far as interference.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: antenna
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Centre of the coax goes to the antenna, shield to the ground plane. No needto earth the ground plane to the battery.I actually used a ground plane antenna mounted behind the rear seat. Checkout http://www.cpc-world.com/new_card_image ... 13_JPG.jpg orhttp://www.cpc-world.com/new_card_images/image ... 14_JPG.jpg. Theantenna is mounted upside down to get it in but the radio waves don't knowthat.CheersPeterWonthaggi Australiahttp://www.cpc-world.com-----Original Message-----
Centre of the coax goes to the antenna, shield to the ground plane. No needto earth the ground plane to the battery.I actually used a ground plane antenna mounted behind the rear seat. Checkout http://www.cpc-world.com/new_card_image ... 13_JPG.jpg orhttp://www.cpc-world.com/new_card_images/image ... 14_JPG.jpg. Theantenna is mounted upside down to get it in but the radio waves don't knowthat.CheersPeterWonthaggi Australiahttp://www.cpc-world.com-----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Re: antenna
Original Posted By: Jim Boyer
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: antenna
Original Posted By: "Dave Sornborger"
The groundplane does not have to be solid. Mine is analuminum mesh acquired from an art supply house.I've added this antenna article also.My understanding is that you don't have to ground thegroundplane to anything else. It IS the " ground " . Thecoax from the radio is attached to the groundplane.The only concern I have with mine is how it will beaffected by the control cabling when I finaly get thething in the air.Clif> >> This is good information. I like the idea of an internal ground plane > sheet even if it isn't too big. I am guessing it needs to be grounded to > the negative battery terminal since it's mounted in a wood fuselage? or > maybe only the radio grounding from the antenna coax? probably wouldn't > matter for the ELT but might with a radio antenna as far as interference.________________________________________________________________________________
The groundplane does not have to be solid. Mine is analuminum mesh acquired from an art supply house.I've added this antenna article also.My understanding is that you don't have to ground thegroundplane to anything else. It IS the " ground " . Thecoax from the radio is attached to the groundplane.The only concern I have with mine is how it will beaffected by the control cabling when I finaly get thething in the air.Clif> >> This is good information. I like the idea of an internal ground plane > sheet even if it isn't too big. I am guessing it needs to be grounded to > the negative battery terminal since it's mounted in a wood fuselage? or > maybe only the radio grounding from the antenna coax? probably wouldn't > matter for the ELT but might with a radio antenna as far as interference.________________________________________________________________________________
> Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: antenna
Original Posted By: Michael Perez
Pietenpol-List: Re: Try some paste wax....
Original Posted By: "kevinpurtee"
That is a great idea! Thanks!.Do not archive.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Try some paste wax....
That is a great idea! Thanks!.Do not archive.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Try some paste wax....
Pietenpol-List: antenna
Original Posted By: Ben Charvet
Hey all,I'm not much of an electronics guy, so I'm putting this out there.Those of you flying, and using a handheld radio, do you find you need anexternal antenna or are you fine without?Then, if an antenna is a helpful thing, can a large piece of sheet metal,such as covering the lower bay behind my seat bulkhead do? (is this what Ihear called a "ground plane"?) or does one need a regular antenna?Since she's "naked" again, this is a good time to address those littlethings rather than retrofitting.ThanksDouwe________________________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 08:36:43 -0500
Hey all,I'm not much of an electronics guy, so I'm putting this out there.Those of you flying, and using a handheld radio, do you find you need anexternal antenna or are you fine without?Then, if an antenna is a helpful thing, can a large piece of sheet metal,such as covering the lower bay behind my seat bulkhead do? (is this what Ihear called a "ground plane"?) or does one need a regular antenna?Since she's "naked" again, this is a good time to address those littlethings rather than retrofitting.ThanksDouwe________________________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 08:36:43 -0500
Re: Pietenpol-List: antenna
Original Posted By: Douwe Blumberg
Douwe, I used to be a radio amateur operator and know just a bit about antennae. The radio would definately have more range with an outside antenna, preferably mounted vertically. The antenna and ground plane would then be connected to the radio with coaxial cable. The vertical antenna should be connected to the center connector of the cable and the ground plane connected to the metallic sleeve (or shield). The antenna would be called a 'quarter-wave' ground plane antenna. The antenna should be cut to a quarter wave length at the center of the operating range. I have forgotten what the range of frequencies you would be transmitting on, but figure the center of that range (not including the VOR/ILS frequencies). Then use the following formula to calculate the length of the vertical antenna. The ground plane should be as large as you can convieniently make it. Mount the antenna vertically over the ground plane, if possible (the two should not touch each other). For instance, if you put the ground plane in the area directly behind the rear seat you could mount the antenna on the rounded part of the fuselage ( I've forgotten what it's called.) If you can find a "feed through" insulator that's the best way to mount the antenna. Solder all connections. The ground plane could be either aluminum (no solder) or a sheet of thin steel. Thickness doesn't matter.Antenna length (in feet)=234/Freq. (MHz) ie. for 121.7 megahertz the antenna length would be 234/121.7=1.92 ft, (23inches). Something happened to this post that caused the squiggly line. Sorry about that. `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` ----- Original Message -----
Douwe, I used to be a radio amateur operator and know just a bit about antennae. The radio would definately have more range with an outside antenna, preferably mounted vertically. The antenna and ground plane would then be connected to the radio with coaxial cable. The vertical antenna should be connected to the center connector of the cable and the ground plane connected to the metallic sleeve (or shield). The antenna would be called a 'quarter-wave' ground plane antenna. The antenna should be cut to a quarter wave length at the center of the operating range. I have forgotten what the range of frequencies you would be transmitting on, but figure the center of that range (not including the VOR/ILS frequencies). Then use the following formula to calculate the length of the vertical antenna. The ground plane should be as large as you can convieniently make it. Mount the antenna vertically over the ground plane, if possible (the two should not touch each other). For instance, if you put the ground plane in the area directly behind the rear seat you could mount the antenna on the rounded part of the fuselage ( I've forgotten what it's called.) If you can find a "feed through" insulator that's the best way to mount the antenna. Solder all connections. The ground plane could be either aluminum (no solder) or a sheet of thin steel. Thickness doesn't matter.Antenna length (in feet)=234/Freq. (MHz) ie. for 121.7 megahertz the antenna length would be 234/121.7=1.92 ft, (23inches). Something happened to this post that caused the squiggly line. Sorry about that. `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` ----- Original Message -----
Pietenpol-List: antenna
Original Posted By: Steve Ruse
Re: Pietenpol-List: antenna
Original Posted By: Douwe Blumberg
Douwe, I sent you an epistle about antennas but it doesn't show up in my 'Sent items' box. I'll try to resend the important part. The main thing is that the antenna should be the correct length - size of ground plane doesn't really matter, the bigger the better. Formula for antenna length: 234/frequency in MHz. For instance: For 121.7 MHz, antenna would be 234/121.7=1.9 feet (23 inches) long. Cut the antenna for the center of the band of frequencies you would be transmitting on (I've forgotten the range).Chuck ----- Original Message -----
Douwe, I sent you an epistle about antennas but it doesn't show up in my 'Sent items' box. I'll try to resend the important part. The main thing is that the antenna should be the correct length - size of ground plane doesn't really matter, the bigger the better. Formula for antenna length: 234/frequency in MHz. For instance: For 121.7 MHz, antenna would be 234/121.7=1.9 feet (23 inches) long. Cut the antenna for the center of the band of frequencies you would be transmitting on (I've forgotten the range).Chuck ----- Original Message -----
Re: Pietenpol-List: antenna
Original Posted By: Douwe Blumberg
Douwe, a piece of welding rod cut to the proper length would work for the antenna. Because of recent posts on the net maybe you should streamline it
There is a commercially available vertical antenna that goes vertical for a few inches and is then bent backward at about 45 degrees. The designer was probably trying to reduce the drag. If you're going to mount it on a large hunk of metal, find yourself a 'feed-thru' insulator to mount it with. Chuck ----- Original Message -----
Douwe, a piece of welding rod cut to the proper length would work for the antenna. Because of recent posts on the net maybe you should streamline it
There is a commercially available vertical antenna that goes vertical for a few inches and is then bent backward at about 45 degrees. The designer was probably trying to reduce the drag. If you're going to mount it on a large hunk of metal, find yourself a 'feed-thru' insulator to mount it with. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
Original Posted By: "TriScout"
While working on streamlining your Piet, don't forget turnbuckle fairings. Here'san example of a simple installation.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/turn ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
While working on streamlining your Piet, don't forget turnbuckle fairings. Here'san example of a simple installation.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/turn ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brace cables, pulleys, wing supports
Original Posted By: "Barry Davis"
I like this discussion. That should be worth about another 10mph?.. Speaking ofless drag, are there any Lopresti speed fairing kits out there for the Piet?It would be nice to tweak an extra 50-60 mph out of an A65.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
I like this discussion. That should be worth about another 10mph?.. Speaking ofless drag, are there any Lopresti speed fairing kits out there for the Piet?It would be nice to tweak an extra 50-60 mph out of an A65.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________