X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:06:46 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from web82704.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.201.85] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.2) with SMTP id 1284246 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 21:47:50 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.142.201.85; envelope-from=earleschroeder@yahoo.com Received: (qmail 37397 invoked by uid 60001); 20 Jul 2006 01:47:06 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=puSHHFFKBIM+eyqrT+2Mkh2cegn7VLPwxpjaaqg9CgxVVQRYp+9TVVpNwtUd8aDlPZ0Ca1szerUeszeUgGrsX84NZj5t7KF9ib/rRk0MW8/1a+12IXzhBgJygrOvBbcIeDPG+EOMlhWRhRymDo60gsDFkXCpq76vJuI2dBgtXpo= ; X-Original-Message-ID: <20060720014706.37395.qmail@web82704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [75.16.230.2] by web82704.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:47:06 PDT X-Original-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:47:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Earl Schroeder Subject: Re: [LML] Pilot or Poser: One Man's Quest to Build the Ugliest Lancair Ever... X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1590633346-1153360026=:37154" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --0-1590633346-1153360026=:37154 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Welcome John, A big difference if skin is carbon or fiberglass. My fiberglass skin hides all but the transponder which I believe is the acceptable norm these days. Those carbon guys will jump in with their findings. Earl John Hafen wrote: 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 --0-1590633346-1153360026=:37154 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Welcome John,
A big difference if skin is carbon or fiberglass.  My fiberglass skin hides all but the transponder which I believe is the acceptable norm these days.

Those carbon guys will jump in with their findings.  Earl

John Hafen <j.hafen@comcast.net> wrote:
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
 
 
 
 

--0-1590633346-1153360026=:37154--