[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Ewart Accident

Alan Shaw wrote:

> We've always had our differences but I've always liked you Dave.

Thank you. I've always liked you, too. You are a fine person and have given me much

> > > > It's interesting to note several references to "No Radio."
> Once I had 1/3 of a spinner hanging on and it was hard to talk on the radio at 1500
> rpm.  Marks cabin must have been a total blurr with one whole prop blade missing...
> then add the pandimonium of his precious family?

Mark's radio problems and "No Radio" clearances occurred in Savannah, well before he
lost his prop. It caught my attention because I've seen so many bad antennas. I'm not
blaming you for anything. Nor do I connect the antenna in any way with the accident.
Mark took off with a bad prop and a bad radio. If anything, it may reveal Mark's frame
of mind that day. Was this a case of "get there at all costs?" Couldn't we all learn
from that?

> Does that mean I'm not the only one who has not installed network broadcast quality
> antennas in aircraft?

Not at all. And I'm certain your antennas are fine now. What my experiences showed was
that many people are flying glass airplanes with poor antennas. This problem is in no
way limited to Velocities. I've also learned that it's possible for an RST-style
antenna to perform well. In the beginning I didn't believe it was possible, but I've
seen it myself. It's all in the installation -- and the testing. My mission is to
remind builders to test their antennas and not take anything for granted, that's all.

> Built according to the Dan Maher and RST plans with the exception of the carbon
> behind them in the rudder.  This carbon configuration I had previously flown all over
> the LA basin with out communication problems.

That's precisely why I get on this soap-box from time to time. Two antennas, both of
which are apparently built by the plans may perform quite differently. I don't pretend
to know what causes one to work properly and another not. But I do know how to tell
which is which.

> So do the simpler RST's with 1/2" added to each di-pole.

Fine. And test them before glassing.

> How much good is it to test a nav antenna for the amount of refected
> signal returned from signals being transmitted out?

Do you know of a better test?

Dave Black