Show Posts

You can view here all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas to which you currently have access.


Messages - Andy Fell

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
31
These work well.
Buy the cable with wire ends.. the electronics is built into the USB connector end..

Comes out as RS232 compliant levels, which can be wired into your TT21.

http://uk.farnell.com/ftdi/usb-rs232-we-1800-bt-0-0/cable-usb-a-rs232-serial-convertor/dp/1686450

32
I'll give it a shot, if I ever get around to flying my plane!

33
General Discussion / Re: Transceiver Interference
« on: February 04, 2016, 07:27:02 pm »
Yes, it probably would.

34
General Discussion / Re: Transceiver Interference
« on: February 03, 2016, 07:56:31 pm »
there is more than just the local oscillator to consider... the DSP uses clocks running very fast, which can often come out of the antenna port at a range of frequencies (lots of them all at the same time!).  this is one of the issues with SDRs vs the traditional analogue technique.

It would be best to keep this as far away from your VHF as possible.

35
General Discussion / Re: Mode C/S
« on: December 23, 2015, 11:06:27 pm »
The counter argument is that you create too many false alerts, then people will no longer trust it.  At least with PAW and Mode S you know if you get an alert then it's accurate.

The Zaon devices lost credibility pretty fast, for alerting to traffic that wasn't there or vice versa.  So, people don't trust them.  It actually creates MORE pilot workload, because now you have to actually take time to verify the alert, thereby diverting attention from what the pilot should be doing.. BAD! and goes against the ethos of a device that doesn't impair pilot workload and cockpit efficiency.

Wouldn't want PAW to be tarred with the same brush, by giving bad alerts.... the majority of alerts would come from ModeC and would be very unreliable. The PAW system would then very quickly gain a bad reputation.

Needs to be carefully considered, in my opinion :-)


36
This whole thing is a farce. I wonder:

a) How many uncertified GPS + Mode S ES transponder combinations are out there which actually pass the requirements of the trial/LAA-mod and have successfully joined the trial/LAA mod, compared to combinations that do not.

b) How many a/c are flying around with combinations connected that do not pass the requirements because it 'appears to work'.

Perhaps the manufacturers will get their act together in the future, but it does feel like those of us that bought an early Mode S transponder because it had ES/ADS-B "capability" have been somewhat taken for a ride.

I have one of the early TT21's... Trig have told me I can have a SW upgrade for free (to allow SDA and SIL = 0 etc).  I just have to send it in.

At this stage anyway it doesn't make much difference probably, since ATC are not using the ADS-B data for anything in particular.

37
General Discussion / Re: Transceiver Interference
« on: December 20, 2015, 10:21:38 pm »
The RPis can emit quite a lot of EMC, so this doesn't surprise me.

Best approach would be to put it all in a grounded metal box and use ferrites on the power supply lines to the RPi, as suggested above.

38
General Discussion / Re: Mode C/S
« on: December 20, 2015, 10:11:38 pm »
Don't forget, it will not only be a function of the transponding aircraft's antenna performance, but also the performance of the PAW antenna.

There are so many variables.

39
General Discussion / Re: Antennas too large for the coaming
« on: September 28, 2015, 09:28:21 pm »
...on a permit aircraft the best would be to have a properly fitted antenna (similar to a transponder antenna installation with a decent sized ground plane).  This would yield the best performance for the pilotaware and give you more advanced warning of other traffic (and other traffic more advanced warning of your presence!).

on rental or spamcan CofA aircraft this is (probably) not desirable, so a portable solution is definitely called for.  Here's another example of the paperwork getting in the way of a decent safety upgrade :-)  (let's not get started, eh!)

Enjoy!
Andy

40
General Discussion / Re: Antennas too large for the coaming
« on: September 28, 2015, 08:42:54 pm »
I flew with a unit recently and placed it on the coaming next a F***M box. I have two antennas at the moment, one for the ADS-B and another for 868MHz. By comparison the unit and antennas were both large, cumbersome and awkward. There wasn't really enough space to have the 868MHz antenna vertical as it should be.

1) Do I need both antennas? The ADS-B dongle on the hardware manual doesn't have one attached, so I wondered if I could dispense with that one.

2) There was another thread about using a smaller stubby one. Does anyone have any experience/results from those and how much do they affect range/performance.

3) How important is it to have the antenna vertically oriented?

Thanks in advance

hi,

1) Yes you need to be able to receive with both systems.  If you don't have an antenna for ADS-B, then you won't be able to pick up these transmissions.

2) The stubby antennas have slightly reduced performance over the longer ones (on paper!).  In practise however, you may find that a stubby works fine, especially as the ADS-B antenna.. ModeS transponders have a much higher transmit power output that the 868MHz ARF module, so you can pick ADS-B up from literally 10's or 100's of miles away - which is a bit unnecessary for what we are trying to do here.

unfortunately, since a lot of these come from the Far East where the testing is a bit shoddy; one stubby antenna is not as good as another stubby antenna, so it can be a bit hit and miss.  Frankly, some of them are not even tuned to the right band.  I've had some claiming to be 868MHz antennas, only to measure them on a network anaylser and find actually they'd work better for WiFi at 2.45GHz!

What you could try is a stubby antenna for both.  I had an idea of making up a wire dipole with suction pads that suck onto the windscreen and plug into the pilotaware (for the 868MHz).  It would be a half wave dipole (a little bit like the FM antennas you can get with some HiFi units that people 'blu tack' to the wall - but use suction cups instead), it's flexible so you could form it to the shape of your screen.  There's no reason why this shouldn't work.

3)  Re vertical polarisation:  Antennas emit most efficiently perpendicular to the antenna element.  So you can imagine that with a vertical antenna you will be most efficient around you in the horizontal sense (i.e. you'll be looking out to the horizon).  Think of it as a 'doughnut shape' around the antenna (although this is rather theoretical).

For a diagram, see http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/aironet-antennas-accessories/prod_white_paper0900aecd806a1a3e.doc/_jcr_content/renditions/0900aecd806a1a3e_null_null_null_08_07_07-04.jpg

Imagine, then, mounting your antenna horizontally.  Your maximum efficiency will be pointing down to the ground or straight up into the air, so you will not be looking out to the horizon, which is what you really need to be doing.  in fact, you will have what is refereed to as a 'null' in the horizontal direction  (i.e. out to the horizon) pointing exactly out of the 'end' of the antenna - this is where the antenna really does not work well (think of it like a bar magnet and how the fields flow from N to S pole)

Of course, there are practical constraints and compromises as you've noted..in addition to this there is the screening effect of any metal near the antenna, especially a metal fuselage if you have one. The idea really is to mount as vertically as possible.

41
General Discussion / Re: Android
« on: September 22, 2015, 01:38:19 am »
I thought I had a 50,000ft filter, but I was missing a zero  ;D

42
General Discussion / Re: Slice of Pi - a simpler construction method
« on: September 22, 2015, 12:27:54 am »
Trapdoor, Looks very neat! 

Would be interested to see what performance is obtained using that stubby antenna for 868MHz.  In my experience they're a bit poor, but we do have a little margin.

Wouldn't surprise me if that is -10dBi or so.  It's not at all critical on the ADS-B RX of course (transponders have plenty of power), but for 868MHz we need to be careful not to compromise our detection range.

43
General Discussion / Re: Android
« on: September 21, 2015, 11:04:14 pm »
Dumb question, you have enabled the filters upto 40000ft ?

Ahem, errr.. whoops :-)

Working now.

44
General Discussion / Re: Android
« on: September 21, 2015, 09:16:44 pm »
Is there a chance you throw away any bad ADSB sentences (i.e. failed CRC?) but these are still reported?

45
General Discussion / Re: Android
« on: September 21, 2015, 09:08:20 pm »
Hi,

I finally had time to try it :-)

Well, it connected once, although the GPS data was a little flaky (but I excused it on the basis I an indoors so the tablet doesn't get strong GPS signals).. then I updated skydemon as I noticed I was on an old version.. now I can't get Skydemon to connect to the pilotaware anymore (the app is running in the background correctly reporting GPS data). 

any ideas?

Andy

Whats the error message from SkyDemon ?
is it 'Failed to establish a connection ...' ?

If you have an HDMI monitor attached, do you see any messages ?

Much rebooting sorted it.. I modified my reply, see above :-) Can see my position, no traffic shown (but receiving ADSB sentences - reported by the WebUI)

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5