Return-Path: <lancair.list-request@olsusa.com>
Received: from [144.54.3.2] (HELO picker.com)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.3)
  with ESMTP id 735736 for lancair.list@logan.com; Mon, 09 Apr 2001 06:53:23 -0400
Received: from <lancair.list-request@olsusa.com>
  by picker.com (CommuniGate Pro RULES 3.3b1)
  with RULES id 3686376; Mon, 09 Apr 2001 06:53:22 -0400
X-Autogenerated: Mirror
X-Mirrored-by: <lancair.list-request@olsusa.com>
Received: from [144.54.37.11] (HELO ct.picker.com)
  by picker.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.3b1)
  with ESMTP id 3686375 for rob@med.marconi.com; Mon, 09 Apr 2001 06:53:21 -0400
Received: from picker.com (central.picker.com [144.54.3.2])
	by ct.picker.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA19887
	for <rob>; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 06:53:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from pop3.olsusa.com ([63.150.212.2] verified)
  by picker.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.3b1)
  with ESMTP id 3686374 for rob@ct.picker.com; Mon, 09 Apr 2001 06:53:19 -0400
Received: from spdmgaac.compuserve.com ([149.174.206.136])
          by pop3.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223
          ID# 0-71175U5500L550S0V35) with ESMTP id com
          for <lancair.list@olsusa.com>; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 06:47:12 -0400
Received: (from mailgate@localhost)
	by spdmgaac.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.9) id GAA27153
	for lancair.list@olsusa.com; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 06:53:04 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 06:49:59 -0400
From: Marvin Kaye <74740.231@compuserve.com>
Subject: Antennae
Sender: Marvin Kaye <74740.231@compuserve.com>
To: Lancair Mail List <lancair.list@olsusa.com>
Message-ID: <200104090652_MC2-CBC8-70A9@compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	 charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com
Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
Posted for Wclarkstill@aol.com:

Yeah Brent, we all know about the signal polarization difference of COM &
NAV 
signals...and the ideal world of no scatter and perfectly perpendicular 
antenna polarization you might worry.  But most belly antennas are swept
back 
pretty close to 45 degrees and my W-shaped tail antenna probably has a 
significant horizontal component too.  So I'll bet that a real world COM 
antenna (even if the length isn't optimal) would do pretty well with a NAV 
receiver.  As you say, modern receivers are very sensitive and even the
coat 
hanger antenna from your old Impala would probably work.   No doubt you
could 
use that too but since coat hangers don't come with RG400 and BNC
connectors, 
a COM antenna should provide a simpler and adequate test for a NAV
receiver.

I've had several other IV flyers tell me the winglet setup works fine so my

concerns about signal shielding by nearby carbon must not be much of a 
problem.  But I would still like to know how the carbon parts of the
winglet 
effect signal-to-noise ratio and antenna directivity.  One might like all
the 
signal sensitivity one could get if flying low and far from a VOR.  Wish I 
were farther along in my plane so I could measure some signal strengths
with 
and without the winglets in place.   But - I've more important fish to fry 
right now - like getting the gear doors to work properly...Clark Still (20%

LIVP)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML website:   http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html
LML Builders' Bookstore:   http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair

Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>