X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 21:01:15 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from sccrmhc14.comcast.net ([63.240.77.84] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.2) with ESMTP id 1283815 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:20:54 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=63.240.77.84; envelope-from=j.hafen@comcast.net Received: from hafenj1 (unknown[160.7.232.232]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc14) with SMTP id <20060719212009014008cvhge>; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 21:20:09 +0000 From: "John Hafen" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: =?us-ascii?Q?Pilot_or_Poser:__One_Man's_Quest_to_Build_the_Ugliest_Lancai?= =?us-ascii?Q?r_Ever...?= X-Original-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:19:50 -0600 X-Original-Message-ID: <001001c6ab79$1b4ad780$6d01a8c0@engagethoughtware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_01C6AB46.D0B06780" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C6AB46.D0B06780 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As a new guy on the list, it is interesting to observe various "camps" within the mailing list. It's at least three dimensional. Two clear/simple camps seem to be a little at odds. Call them "function" versus "form." It seems a guy can go to great lengths to burry antennas (VOR, GPS, Com, TCAD, Transponder, ELT etc.) within the skin of a plane (so it is beautiful and fast) or do it the old fashion way - screw them onto the outside of the plane in full view for all the world to see. I'm interested in your opinions relative to internal versus external antennas. Do you give up clarity/range/dependability/accessibility burying an antenna inside the plane, or does it matter? Please advise, should you feel so inclined. Also, any great stock tips would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. John Hafen j.hafen@comcast.net ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C6AB46.D0B06780 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

As a new guy on the list, it is interesting to observe various = “camps” within the mailing list.  It’s at least three = dimensional.

 

Two clear/simple camps seem to be a little at odds.  Call = them “function” versus “form.”

 

It seems a guy can go to great lengths to burry antennas (VOR, = GPS, Com, TCAD, Transponder, ELT etc.) within the skin of a plane (so it is = beautiful and fast) or do it the old fashion way – screw them onto the outside = of the plane in full view for all the world to see.

 

I’m interested in your opinions relative to internal = versus external antennas.  Do you give up = clarity/range/dependability/accessibility burying an antenna inside the plane, or does it = matter?

 

Please advise, should you feel so inclined.

 

Also, any great stock tips would be much = appreciated.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

John Hafen

j.hafen@comcast.net

 

 

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C6AB46.D0B06780--