Matronics Email Lists Forum Index Matronics Email Lists
BBS Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
 
 Get Email Distribution Too!Get Email Distribution Too!    FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Antenna locations
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Kellym



Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:08 pm    Post subject: Antenna locations Reply with quote

Typical scenario is the first time a marker beacon goes into alarm and
needs maintenance or part replaced they simply notam it out of service
and start process to de-commission. The only nearby ILS for practice in
our area had a middle marker for the first 10-15 years it was in
service. Now, for the last 10 years or so it has been out of service,
with all the structures still there. Keeping a single frequency
transmitter with a single frequency tone generator running is not
exactly rocket science nor particularly expensive. I guess, because of
lack of the beacon, the Loc only approach requires a DME while neither
the ILS nor the VOR approach that have identical horizontal paths
require anything beyond a clock.

On 7/30/2018 2:49 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
Quote:


It must be region dependent. (ILS with MB). I just flew one at OSH a couple weeks ago and flew over it a couple days ago, and there is one 15 miles from my home airport as well. We aren’t decommissioning all
That fast around me.
Tim

> On Jul 30, 2018, at 2:55 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Kellym wrote:
>> Yes. I loved both outer and middle markers, ...
>>
>> But technology moves on and has us replacing
>> electronics every 10-15 years instead of every 30 years.
>> Nostalgia mode off.
>> Kelly
>>
>>
> I loved the MBs too, especially the MM, since it was a good reminder to not fixate just when the workload was highest. But try to find one these days. I currently have two instrument students who, so far, have never heard a MB. There aren’t any left around here.
> As to the 10 year life cycle: Ten years ago I was still contemplating avionics choices. My home field had an “ADF required” ILS. I seriously considered not buying a GPS (to save money) and instead buying a used ADF, which were dirt cheap and plentiful. But I found that used ADF antennas were hard to find - people were pulling their ADFs but leaving the antennas, I presume so they wouldn’t have to patch and paint the hole left behind. So I ended up with a 420W. Today, 10 years later, the LOM is gone; the ILS is now “DME required”. So now, if I had gone the ADF route 10 years ago, I’d be looking at a major panel upgrade. I think your ten year life cycle comment is correct.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481967#481967
>







- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:22 am    Post subject: Antenna locations Reply with quote

So I ask you all; why are you flying the ILS instead of the RNAV approach that I assume serves the same runways?  Possible reasons might be:
  1. ATIS identifies the ILS as the approach in use and you just decide it's easier to proceed with it
  2. There is a 10-20-40-80 foot difference in DA
  3. Habit
I ask this because I find the RNAV approaches easier to fly because they are easier to setup avionics wise, at least when flying a full approach at smaller airports.  And they are definitely easier to fly accurately because of the lack of RF anomalies, at least that's my sense of things.

Bill "sent from my imaginary IBM 370 mainframe in my imaginary basement" Watson

On 7/30/2018 7:06 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

Quote:
--> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> (kellym(at)aviating.com)

Typical scenario is the first time a marker beacon goes into alarm and needs maintenance or part replaced they simply notam it out of service and start process to de-commission.  The only nearby ILS for practice in our area had a middle marker for the first 10-15 years it was in service. Now, for the last 10 years or so it has been out of service, with all the structures still there. Keeping a single frequency transmitter with a single frequency tone generator running is not exactly rocket science nor particularly expensive. I guess, because of lack of the beacon, the Loc only approach requires a DME while neither the ILS nor the VOR approach that have identical horizontal paths require anything beyond a clock.

On 7/30/2018 2:49 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
Quote:
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> (Tim(at)MyRV10.com)

It must be region dependent. (ILS with MB).  I just flew one at OSH a couple weeks ago and flew over it a couple days ago, and there is one 15 miles from my home airport as well. We aren’t decommissioning all
That fast around me.
Tim

Quote:
On Jul 30, 2018, at 2:55 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu) wrote:

--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)


Kellym wrote:
Quote:
Yes. I loved both outer and middle markers, ...

But technology moves on and has us replacing
electronics every 10-15 years instead of every 30 years.
Nostalgia mode off.
Kelly




I loved the MBs too, especially the MM, since it was a good reminder to not fixate just when the workload was highest. But try to find one these days. I currently have two instrument students who, so far, have never heard a MB. There aren’t any left around here.
As to the 10 year life cycle: Ten years ago I was still contemplating avionics choices. My home field had an “ADF required” ILS. I seriously considered not buying a GPS (to save money) and instead buying a used ADF, which were dirt cheap and plentiful. But I found that used ADF antennas were hard to find - people were pulling their ADFs but leaving the antennas, I presume so they wouldn’t have to patch and paint the hole left behind. So I ended up with a 420W. Today, 10 years later, the LOM is gone; the ILS is now “DME required”. So now, if I had gone the ADF route 10 years ago, I’d be looking at a major panel upgrade. I think your ten year life cycle comment is correct.

--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB




Read this topic online here:

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481967#481967














































This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com [url=#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2] [/url]


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
Kellym



Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:27 am    Post subject: Antenna locations Reply with quote

Among other reasons, there isn't an LPV approach available to practice
within 30 mi of my home base. The RNAV/VNAV approach at same airport I
do ILS approaches has different holding pattern with conflicts, uses
extra 1000 ft at IAF, has 100 ft higher minimums. Only difference is
whether I have to watch for ILS switchover from GPS. I generally don't
care for the T layout of GPS approaches. ILS has independent monitoring
that sounds an alarm in monitoring facility if anything goes out of
tolerance. GPS relies on software monitoring in your box...less
transparent. GPS is reliant on WAAS corrections. ILS is more likely to
have recent flight check.
Either one is likely to get you to a position to land if the visibility
and ceiling are there. Sometimes 50 or 100 ft make that difference.
Most ILS have 200 and 1//2 or better minimums. Some Cat 1 are 200 and
1800 RVR. Most GPS are either 250 or 300 and 1, although some go lower.

On 7/31/2018 8:20 AM, Bill Watson wrote:
Quote:
So I ask you all; why are you flying the ILS instead of the RNAV
approach that I assume serves the same runways?  Possible reasons might be:

1. ATIS identifies the ILS as the approach in use and you just decide
it's easier to proceed with it
2. There is a 10-20-40-80 foot difference in DA
3. Habit

I ask this because I find the RNAV approaches easier to fly because they
are easier to setup avionics wise, at least when flying a full approach
at smaller airports.  And they are definitely easier to fly accurately
because of the lack of RF anomalies, at least that's my sense of things.

Bill "sent from my imaginary IBM 370 mainframe in my imaginary basement"
Watson

On 7/30/2018 7:06 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> Typical scenario is the first time a marker beacon goes into alarm and
> needs maintenance or part replaced they simply notam it out of service
> and start process to de-commission.  The only nearby ILS for practice
> in our area had a middle marker for the first 10-15 years it was in
> service. Now, for the last 10 years or so it has been out of service,
> with all the structures still there. Keeping a single frequency
> transmitter with a single frequency tone generator running is not
> exactly rocket science nor particularly expensive. I guess, because of
> lack of the beacon, the Loc only approach requires a DME while neither
> the ILS nor the VOR approach that have identical horizontal paths
> require anything beyond a clock.
>
> On 7/30/2018 2:49 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>>
>> It must be region dependent. (ILS with MB).  I just flew one at OSH a
>> couple weeks ago and flew over it a couple days ago, and there is one
>> 15 miles from my home airport as well. We aren’t decommissioning all
>> That fast around me.
>> Tim
>>
>>> On Jul 30, 2018, at 2:55 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kellym wrote:
>>>> Yes. I loved both outer and middle markers, ...
>>>>
>>>> But technology moves on and has us replacing
>>>> electronics every 10-15 years instead of every 30 years.
>>>> Nostalgia mode off.
>>>> Kelly
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I loved the MBs too, especially the MM, since it was a good reminder
>>> to not fixate just when the workload was highest. But try to find
>>> one these days. I currently have two instrument students who, so
>>> far, have never heard a MB. There aren’t any left around here.
>>> As to the 10 year life cycle: Ten years ago I was still
>>> contemplating avionics choices. My home field had an “ADF required”
>>> ILS. I seriously considered not buying a GPS (to save money) and
>>> instead buying a used ADF, which were dirt cheap and plentiful. But
>>> I found that used ADF antennas were hard to find - people were
>>> pulling their ADFs but leaving the antennas, I presume so they
>>> wouldn’t have to patch and paint the hole left behind. So I ended up
>>> with a 420W. Today, 10 years later, the LOM is gone; the ILS is now
>>> “DME required”. So now, if I had gone the ADF route 10 years ago,
>>> I’d be looking at a major panel upgrade. I think your ten year life
>>> cycle comment is correct.
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Bob Turner
>>> RV-10 QB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481967#481967
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>


<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bob Turner



Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 833
Location: Castro Valley, CA

PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:33 am    Post subject: Re: Antenna locations Reply with quote

Why ILS?
1. Keep in practice.
2. Sometimes the minimums are a bit lower and it matters. Some time ago I took a (instrument) student to Chico (KCIC), planning the RNAV(gps) there. But ceilings lowered to 200’. GPS minimums were 300’. ILS got us in.


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tim Olson



Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2767

PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:51 am    Post subject: Antenna locations Reply with quote

Agreed on the ease of RNAV. But, your #2 reason is my common
reason. If I know the MDA is higher for RNAV, and the ceiling
is low, I'll use the lowest approach I can get.

But, in general, I do try to fly RNAV almost all the time.

It'll be a sad day when the lions share of VORs are gone, and
ILS's are pulled out, because once our enemies jam our GPS's,
we're going to eventually have a very very bad day. It's
really only a matter of time in today's terrorist warfare.
GPS is great, but people love it so much they put all their
eggs into that basket.

Tim

On 07/31/2018 10:20 AM, Bill Watson wrote:
Quote:
So I ask you all; why are you flying the ILS instead of the RNAV
approach that I assume serves the same runways?  Possible reasons might be:

1. ATIS identifies the ILS as the approach in use and you just decide
it's easier to proceed with it
2. There is a 10-20-40-80 foot difference in DA
3. Habit

I ask this because I find the RNAV approaches easier to fly because they
are easier to setup avionics wise, at least when flying a full approach
at smaller airports.  And they are definitely easier to fly accurately
because of the lack of RF anomalies, at least that's my sense of things.

Bill "sent from my imaginary IBM 370 mainframe in my imaginary basement"
Watson



- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tsts4



Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 151

PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Antenna locations Reply with quote

Just add $.02 more, GPS is sometimes degraded and NOTAMed out of service. I like to have options when IFR, particularly if IMC, so part of that is practicing using those tools. Also I’ve been in high traffic areas where the ILS was in use and asking for something else would have taken more time as ATC would have vectored me all over the place to get the sequencing right. Personally I don’t find flying an ILS any more difficult than an LPV so I really don’t get the question.

- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

_________________
Todd Stovall
aka Auburntsts on EAA, AOPA, and VAF
RV-10 N728TT -- Flying
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
parish(at)parishmoffitt.c
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2018 10:39 am    Post subject: Antenna locations Reply with quote

Several years ago I had gone into Tallahassee in a CRJ200. The flight deck angle is quite low on that airplane. Delta went around twice in the MD80 and we got right in(barely and right at minimums). The difference in flight deck angle was the difference between landing and going around that day apparantly. An RNAV would never work in this case and even 20 feet can make a difference between landing and going someplace else.
I always say it is better to have it and not need it rather than to need it and not have it!


Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

-------- Original message --------
From: Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: 7/31/18 12:33 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Antenna locations

--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>

Why ILS?
1. Keep in practice.
2. Sometimes the minimums are a bit lower and it matters. Some time ago I took a (instrument) student to Chico (KCIC), planning the RNAV(gps) there. But ceilings lowered to 200’. GPS minimums were 300’. ILS got us in.

--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB


Read this topic online here:

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481984#481984
_-============================================================
_-= - The RV10-List Email Forum -
_-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
_-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
_-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
_-= Photoshare, and much much more:
_-=
_-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
_-=
_-============================================================
_-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
_-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
_-=
_-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
_-=
_-============================================================
_-= - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
_-= Add some info to the Matronics Email List Wiki!
_-= --> http://wiki.matronics.com
_-============================================================
_-= - List Contribution Web Site -
_-= Thank you for your generous support!
_-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
_-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
_-============================================================


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
dmaib(at)mac.com
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2018 4:58 pm    Post subject: Antenna locations Reply with quote

It’s certainly true that in some places the ILS minimums are a bit lower. However, LPV approaches regularly have minimums as low as ILS serving the same runway. Not true with RNAV or LNAV/VNAV minimums, but LPV is a different animal. Given the choice, if all things are equal, I’d rather do the LPV approach. I do, however, have dual ILS capability in my airplane, practice setting up and shooting ILS approaches, and would be uncomfortable without ILS capability in my airplane. I still consider it necessary for full IFR capability. As Stein says, “my $.02 worth.”

David Maib

On Aug 5, 2018, at 2:35 PM, parish <parish(at)parishmoffitt.com (parish(at)parishmoffitt.com)> wrote:
Quote:
Several years ago I had gone into Tallahassee in a CRJ200. The flight deck angle is quite low on that airplane. Delta went around twice in the MD80 and we got right in(barely and right at minimums). The difference in flight deck angle was the difference between landing and going around that day apparantly. An RNAV would never work in this case and even 20 feet can make a difference between landing and going someplace else.
I always say it is better to have it and not need it rather than to need it and not have it!


Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

-------- Original message --------
From: Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)>
Date: 7/31/18 12:33 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: Antenna locations

--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)>

Why ILS?
1. Keep in practice.
2. Sometimes the minimums are a bit lower and it matters. Some time ago I took a (instrument) student to Chico (KCIC), planning the RNAV(gps) there. But ceilings lowered to 200’. GPS minimums were 300’. ILS got us in.

--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB


Read this topic online here:

http://forums.matronics====================================================a href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics========================== &nbs========================================================================================================p; -Matt Dralle, List Admi====================================================




- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:01 pm    Post subject: Antenna locations Reply with quote

Another point is that few small airports have an ILS on both ends of a runway, but if they have an ILS, they often have LPV’s at both ends. With winds not favoring the ILS runway, LPV minimums are hugely lower than ILS circling minimums.

Jesse SaintSaint Aviation, Inc.
jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 5, 2018, at 8:55 PM, David Maib <dmaib(at)mac.com (dmaib(at)mac.com)> wrote:
Quote:
It’s certainly true that in some places the ILS minimums are a bit lower. However, LPV approaches regularly have minimums as low as ILS serving the same runway. Not true with RNAV or LNAV/VNAV minimums, but LPV is a different animal. Given the choice, if all things are equal, I’d rather do the LPV approach. I do, however, have dual ILS capability in my airplane, practice setting up and shooting ILS approaches, and would be uncomfortable without ILS capability in my airplane. I still consider it necessary for full IFR capability. As Stein says, “my $.02 worth.”

David Maib

On Aug 5, 2018, at 2:35 PM, parish <parish(at)parishmoffitt.com (parish(at)parishmoffitt.com)> wrote:
Quote:
Several years ago I had gone into Tallahassee in a CRJ200. The flight deck angle is quite low on that airplane. Delta went around twice in the MD80 and we got right in(barely and right at minimums). The difference in flight deck angle was the difference between landing and going around that day apparantly. An RNAV would never work in this case and even 20 feet can make a difference between landing and going someplace else.
I always say it is better to have it and not need it rather than to need it and not have it!


Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

-------- Original message --------
From: Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)>
Date: 7/31/18 12:33 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: Antenna locations

--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)>

Why ILS?
1. Keep in practice.
2. Sometimes the minimums are a bit lower and it matters. Some time ago I took a (instrument) student to Chico (KCIC), planning the RNAV(gps) there. But ceilings lowered to 200’. GPS minimums were 300’. ILS got us in.

--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB


Read this topic online here:

http://forums.matronics====================================================a href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics========================== &nbs========================================================================================================p; -Matt Dralle, List Admi====================================================






- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:14 am    Post subject: Antenna locations Reply with quote

Well, I just had a chance to once and for all make the case to myself that I need to install a good primary Nav antenna.  Flying the ILS 28 into KAGC, my nemesis approach, I had the perfect opportunity to test my ILS situation.  

I could clearly see that my wingtip Nav antenna on this particular approach does not accurately pickup the LOC signal.  Instead I missed the inbound turn again but this time I could see that the needle was just waving around at that point.  Then I got the needles centered and flew them.  I could see that I was headed well to the left of the runway all the way down to DA.  On the other hand I could intercept the GS and then fly the Flight Path Marker (FPM) right down to DA and even the touchdown point with the LOC needle  indicating right 2-3 dots all the way down.

My wingtip antenna works at most airports where I've flown an ILS but at KAGC, it puts me in the weeds.  I'm about to remove my fin and retrofit a Nav antenna at the top.  Case closed, work to begin.

On 7/31/2018 11:20 AM, Bill Watson wrote:

Quote:
So I ask you all; why are you flying the ILS instead of the RNAV approach that I assume serves the same runways?  Possible reasons might be:
  1. ATIS identifies the ILS as the approach in use and you just decide it's easier to proceed with it
  2. There is a 10-20-40-80 foot difference in DA
  3. Habit
I ask this because I find the RNAV approaches easier to fly because they are easier to setup avionics wise, at least when flying a full approach at smaller airports.  And they are definitely easier to fly accurately because of the lack of RF anomalies, at least that's my sense of things.

Bill "sent from my imaginary IBM 370 mainframe in my imaginary basement" Watson

On 7/30/2018 7:06 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

Quote:
--> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> (kellym(at)aviating.com)

Typical scenario is the first time a marker beacon goes into alarm and needs maintenance or part replaced they simply notam it out of service and start process to de-commission.  The only nearby ILS for practice in our area had a middle marker for the first 10-15 years it was in service. Now, for the last 10 years or so it has been out of service, with all the structures still there. Keeping a single frequency transmitter with a single frequency tone generator running is not exactly rocket science nor particularly expensive. I guess, because of lack of the beacon, the Loc only approach requires a DME while neither the ILS nor the VOR approach that have identical horizontal paths require anything beyond a clock.

On 7/30/2018 2:49 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
Quote:
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> (Tim(at)MyRV10.com)

It must be region dependent. (ILS with MB).  I just flew one at OSH a couple weeks ago and flew over it a couple days ago, and there is one 15 miles from my home airport as well. We aren’t decommissioning all
That fast around me.
Tim

Quote:
On Jul 30, 2018, at 2:55 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu) wrote:

--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)


Kellym wrote:
Quote:
Yes. I loved both outer and middle markers, ...

But technology moves on and has us replacing
electronics every 10-15 years instead of every 30 years.
Nostalgia mode off.
Kelly




I loved the MBs too, especially the MM, since it was a good reminder to not fixate just when the workload was highest. But try to find one these days. I currently have two instrument students who, so far, have never heard a MB. There aren’t any left around here.
As to the 10 year life cycle: Ten years ago I was still contemplating avionics choices. My home field had an “ADF required” ILS. I seriously considered not buying a GPS (to save money) and instead buying a used ADF, which were dirt cheap and plentiful. But I found that used ADF antennas were hard to find - people were pulling their ADFs but leaving the antennas, I presume so they wouldn’t have to patch and paint the hole left behind. So I ended up with a 420W. Today, 10 years later, the LOM is gone; the ILS is now “DME required”. So now, if I had gone the ADF route 10 years ago, I’d be looking at a major panel upgrade. I think your ten year life cycle comment is correct.

--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB




Read this topic online here:

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481967#481967
















































This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
[url=#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2] [/url]


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
carl.froehlich(at)verizon
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:52 am    Post subject: Antenna locations Reply with quote

Wingtip NAV antennas are only as good as the install. I make my own to optimize the available space in the wingtip, and tune the antenna using an antenna analyzer (a must have shared tool for any EAA chapter). I recommend the same for all RVs.
Performance exceeds all demands; VOR/LOC/ILS. Following this approach, I do not believe an RV would ever need an external NAV antenna.
Photo is an antenna in the tuning process I made for an RV-14A. Notice how far it extends into the wingtip. The antenna stays mounted to the rib and the wingtip slides over it.
Carl
[img]cid:2B297A0C-9E06-42F0-8571-1CF980CEFF66[/img]
On Aug 6, 2018, at 11:11 AM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com (Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com)> wrote:
Quote:
Well, I just had a chance to once and for all make the case to myself that I need to install a good primary Nav antenna. Flying the ILS 28 into KAGC, my nemesis approach, I had the perfect opportunity to test my ILS situation.

I could clearly see that my wingtip Nav antenna on this particular approach does not accurately pickup the LOC signal. Instead I missed the inbound turn again but this time I could see that the needle was just waving around at that point. Then I got the needles centered and flew them. I could see that I was headed well to the left of the runway all the way down to DA. On the other hand I could intercept the GS and then fly the Flight Path Marker (FPM) right down to DA and even the touchdown point with the LOC needle indicating right 2-3 dots all the way down.

My wingtip antenna works at most airports where I've flown an ILS but at KAGC, it puts me in the weeds. I'm about to remove my fin and retrofit a Nav antenna at the top. Case closed, work to begin.

On 7/31/2018 11:20 AM, Bill Watson wrote:

Quote:
So I ask you all; why are you flying the ILS instead of the RNAV approach that I assume serves the same runways? Possible reasons might be:
  1. ATIS identifies the ILS as the approach in use and you just decide it's easier to proceed with it
  2. There is a 10-20-40-80 foot difference in DA
  3. Habit
I ask this because I find the RNAV approaches easier to fly because they are easier to setup avionics wise, at least when flying a full approach at smaller airports. And they are definitely easier to fly accurately because of the lack of RF anomalies, at least that's my sense of things.

Bill "sent from my imaginary IBM 370 mainframe in my imaginary basement" Watson

On 7/30/2018 7:06 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

Quote:
--> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> (kellym(at)aviating.com)

Typical scenario is the first time a marker beacon goes into alarm and needs maintenance or part replaced they simply notam it out of service and start process to de-commission. The only nearby ILS for practice in our area had a middle marker for the first 10-15 years it was in service. Now, for the last 10 years or so it has been out of service, with all the structures still there. Keeping a single frequency transmitter with a single frequency tone generator running is not exactly rocket science nor particularly expensive. I guess, because of lack of the beacon, the Loc only approach requires a DME while neither the ILS nor the VOR approach that have identical horizontal paths require anything beyond a clock.

On 7/30/2018 2:49 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
Quote:
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> (Tim(at)MyRV10.com)

It must be region dependent. (ILS with MB). I just flew one at OSH a couple weeks ago and flew over it a couple days ago, and there is one 15 miles from my home airport as well. We aren’t decommissioning all
That fast around me.
Tim

Quote:
On Jul 30, 2018, at 2:55 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu) wrote:

--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)


Kellym wrote:
Quote:
Yes. I loved both outer and middle markers, ...

But technology moves on and has us replacing
electronics every 10-15 years instead of every 30 years.
Nostalgia mode off.
Kelly




I loved the MBs too, especially the MM, since it was a good reminder to not fixate just when the workload was highest. But try to find one these days. I currently have two instrument students who, so far, have never heard a MB. There aren’t any left around here.
As to the 10 year life cycle: Ten years ago I was still contemplating avionics choices. My home field had an “ADF required” ILS. I seriously considered not buying a GPS (to save money) and instead buying a used ADF, which were dirt cheap and plentiful. But I found that used ADF antennas were hard to find - people were pulling their ADFs but leaving the antennas, I presume so they wouldn’t have to patch and paint the hole left behind. So I ended up with a 420W. Today, 10 years later, the LOM is gone; the ILS is now “DME required”. So now, if I had gone the ADF route 10 years ago, I’d be looking at a major panel upgrade. I think your ten year life cycle comment is correct.

--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB




Read this topic online here:

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481967#481967
















































This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
[url=#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2] [/url]





- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List



image1.jpeg
 Description:
 Filesize:  550.55 KB
 Viewed:  1061 Time(s)

image1.jpeg


Back to top
AirMike



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 512
Location: Nevada

PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:50 am    Post subject: Antenna locations Reply with quote

Yes I had a similar problem (ILS/LOC) with my “experimental”copper tape NAV antenna installed in the front of my cabin just above the top of my windshield in my RV10 (hidden under the upholstery).I finally put a regular rami antenna under the tailbone of the airplane and it worked flawlessly.
Quote:
On Aug 6, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net (carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net)> wrote:

Wingtip NAV antennas are only as good as the install. I make my own to optimize the available space in the wingtip, and tune the antenna using an antenna analyzer (a must have shared tool for any EAA chapter). I recommend the same for all RVs.

Performance exceeds all demands; VOR/LOC/ILS. Following this approach, I do not believe an RV would ever need an external NAV antenna.

Photo is an antenna in the tuning process I made for an RV-14A. Notice how far it extends into the wingtip. The antenna stays mounted to the rib and the wingtip slides over it.

Carl
<image1.jpeg>
On Aug 6, 2018, at 11:11 AM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com (Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com)> wrote:
Quote:
Well, I just had a chance to once and for all make the case to myself that I need to install a good primary Nav antenna. Flying the ILS 28 into KAGC, my nemesis approach, I had the perfect opportunity to test my ILS situation. I could clearly see that my wingtip Nav antenna on this particular approach does not accurately pickup the LOC signal. Instead I missed the inbound turn again but this time I could see that the needle was just waving around at that point. Then I got the needles centered and flew them. I could see that I was headed well to the left of the runway all the way down to DA. On the other hand I could intercept the GS and then fly the Flight Path Marker (FPM) right down to DA and even the touchdown point with the LOC needle indicating right 2-3 dots all the way down. My wingtip antenna works at most airports where I've flown an ILS but at KAGC, it puts me in the weeds. I'm about to remove my fin and retrofit a Nav antenna at the top. Case closed, work to begin. On 7/31/2018 11:20 AM, Bill Watson wrote:
Quote:
So I ask you all; why are you flying the ILS instead of the RNAV approach that I assume serves the same runways? Possible reasons might be:
  1. ATIS identifies the ILS as the approach in use and you just decide it's easier to proceed with it
  2. There is a 10-20-40-80 foot difference in DA
  3. Habit
I ask this because I find the RNAV approaches easier to fly because they are easier to setup avionics wise, at least when flying a full approach at smaller airports. And they are definitely easier to fly accurately because of the lack of RF anomalies, at least that's my sense of things. Bill "sent from my imaginary IBM 370 mainframe in my imaginary basement" Watson On 7/30/2018 7:06 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
Quote:
--> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> (kellym(at)aviating.com) Typical scenario is the first time a marker beacon goes into alarm and needs maintenance or part replaced they simply notam it out of service and start process to de-commission. The only nearby ILS for practice in our area had a middle marker for the first 10-15 years it was in service. Now, for the last 10 years or so it has been out of service, with all the structures still there. Keeping a single frequency transmitter with a single frequency tone generator running is not exactly rocket science nor particularly expensive. I guess, because of lack of the beacon, the Loc only approach requires a DME while neither the ILS nor the VOR approach that have identical horizontal paths require anything beyond a clock. On 7/30/2018 2:49 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
Quote:
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> (Tim(at)MyRV10.com) It must be region dependent. (ILS with MB). I just flew one at OSH a couple weeks ago and flew over it a couple days ago, and there is one 15 miles from my home airport as well. We aren’t decommissioning all That fast around me. Tim
Quote:
On Jul 30, 2018, at 2:55 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu) wrote: --> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu) Kellym wrote:
Quote:
Yes. I loved both outer and middle markers, ... But technology moves on and has us replacing electronics every 10-15 years instead of every 30 years. Nostalgia mode off. Kelly
I loved the MBs too, especially the MM, since it was a good reminder to not fixate just when the workload was highest. But try to find one these days. I currently have two instrument students who, so far, have never heard a MB. There aren’t any left around here. As to the 10 year life cycle: Ten years ago I was still contemplating avionics choices. My home field had an “ADF required” ILS. I seriously considered not buying a GPS (to save money) and instead buying a used ADF, which were dirt cheap and plentiful. But I found that used ADF antennas were hard to find - people were pulling their ADFs but leaving the antennas, I presume so they wouldn’t have to patch and paint the hole left behind. So I ended up with a 420W. Today, 10 years later, the LOM is gone; the ILS is now “DME required”. So now, if I had gone the ADF route 10 years ago, I’d be looking at a major panel upgrade. I think your ten year life cycle comment is correct. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481967#481967


This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com [url=x-msg://2/#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2] [/url]






- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

_________________
See you OSH '18
Q/B - sold.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kellym



Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:12 am    Post subject: Antenna locations Reply with quote

I can see where you could get a glide slope antenna above the
windshield. I seriously doubt you could get enough length for a VOR/LOC
antenna there. I have not experienced any problems so far with any ILS
with my Bob Archer nav antennas. One in each wingtip so that my dual ILS
units do not have to share via a splitter(which reduces signal strength
by 50%)

On 8/6/2018 9:40 AM, Michael Abel wrote:
Quote:
Yes I had a similar problem (ILS/LOC) with my “experimental”copper tape
NAV antenna installed in the front of my cabin just above the top of my
windshield in my RV10 (hidden under the upholstery).
I finally put a regular rami antenna under the tailbone of the airplane
and it worked flawlessly.




- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bob Turner



Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 833
Location: Castro Valley, CA

PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 12:25 pm    Post subject: Re: Antenna locations Reply with quote

Before giving up, see if some local ham radio operator will have a look. Some things that seem okay for normal wiring definitely are not okay at these frequencies. For example:
I have seen Archer antennas installed with the ‘ground leg’ 8” away from the end rib, and connected to the rib with a single 8” long wire; I have seen one installed inverted (e.g., the radiating element attached to the rib, the ground leg free in the wingtip). Even these installations worked to some degree, with the pilots blaming poor performance on the antenna.
Look at Carl’s photo. Notice how the leading edge of the antenna is back, away from the landing light and its heat shielding foil.
Can you post a photo similar?
Another possibility is that the localizer at KAGC is at 109.1 MHz- close to the low frequency end of the nav frequencies. If your antenna is tuned to the higher end, it won’t perform as well at 109. See Carl’s post about an analyzer.
That said, I am totally perplexed as to how an antenna issue can give you a ‘fly left’ indication (ignoring the fact that the antenna is 15’ off the aircraft centerline). The receiver just looks at the relative strength of two different modulation frequencies. There is nothing in any antenna that should cause one signal to be different from the other. And if the reception is just poor, the receiver should flag. One thing you could try: my old C182 POH mentioned that sometimes, if the prop rpm was very close to the modulation frequency, it could cause some strange effects. I don’t see how a wingtip antenna could be affected, but you could try this approach again, at a 100 rpm different prop setting.


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 12:31 pm    Post subject: Antenna locations Reply with quote

Okay guys, you've re-opened the case for me.

Given how much I'd like to avoid the fin project and how much I'd like stay with an Archer style antenna, I'm going to do a couple of things:
  1. I'm going to remove my splitter and see how it works as a dedicated antenna
  2. I'll try to take pics of my Archer installation and share them  here and see what you think.
  3. I'll try to find an antenna analyzer, which I assume is different than the standing wave thing one uses on transmitters.
  4. Since I've bought 2 Archers already I won't feel guilty building a copy, particularly RV10 optimized copies, for both wing tips.  Hints and tips here are more than welcome.

Bill "hoping he'll have a Comant Nav antenna for sell" Watson

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com [url=#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2] [/url]


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
Bob Turner



Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 833
Location: Castro Valley, CA

PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:07 pm    Post subject: Re: Antenna locations Reply with quote

3. The "analyzer" is a standing wave thingy (Standing wave reflectometer) except that it also includes a low power, tunable transmitter.
4. To successfully clone the Archer you must copy as exactly as you can the coupling capacitor (the length, width, thickness, and material of the little parallel plate capacitor and the dielectric material).


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
carl.froehlich(at)verizon
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:49 pm    Post subject: Antenna locations Reply with quote

This is an antenna analyzer that will do everything you need - and is the first thing I grab when someone says they have a comm or nav problem: https://www.dxengineering.com/search/product-line/mfj-259c-530-khz-230-mhz-antenna-swr-analyzers?autoview=SKU&keyword=Mfj%20antenna%20analyzer&sortby=BestKeywordMatch&sortorder=Ascending
This is something that should be in all EAA chapter shared tool box.
I do not recommend a simple copy of the Archer antenna. You want to have the arm extending into the wingtip as long as possible. This means the arm parallel to the wing rib will be shortened the same amount. If you make the antenna overall an inch or so longer you can now trim the end length to the middle of the VOR band. You also adjust the gama-match to match the 50 ohm coax. Gama-match adjustment is done by increasing/decreasing the capacitor element and/or the capacitor insulator thickness. These two adjustments are an interactive process, so trim a little at a time.
Figure 13-12 of the Aero Electric Connection book provides a good starting point. If you keep the matching triangle the same dimensions it will be easier.
This sounds hard but with the antenna analyzer takes just 10-15 minutes.
If you follow this process for a wingtip comm antenna and keep the arm extending into the wingtip as vertical as possible, it will not be quite as good as a belly antenna but more than adequate for a COMM #2 antenna.
Carl

On Aug 8, 2018, at 10:07 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)> wrote:
Quote:
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)>

3. The "analyzer" is a standing wave thingy (Standing wave reflectometer) except that it also includes a low power, tunable transmitter.
4. To successfully clone the Archer you must copy as exactly as you can the coupling capacitor (the length, width, thickness, and material of the little parallel plate capacitor and the dielectric material).

--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB


Read this topic online here:

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482196#482196
_-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
http://wiki.matronics.com[/url]<==========================; - List Contribunbsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.</===========================================================




- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group