Author Topic: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers  (Read 77084 times)

Richard

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #150 on: December 15, 2016, 08:00:25 pm »
 On my quest to improve FLARM reception I came across an antenna suplyed by navboys called P01. See attachment. Has anyone any Expereance with this antenna? and is it as good as they say, as longer it is mounted in a good location.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2016, 08:19:10 pm by Richard »
Richard.
Europa XS

Admin

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #151 on: December 15, 2016, 08:18:59 pm »
OMG £46, isnt this similar but not as good as
http://pilotawarehardware.com/product/dipolecouplet-antenna/

Richard

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #152 on: December 15, 2016, 08:24:12 pm »
Hi Lee,
    Yes it is..... and a better price too.
        I was just wanting to know if anyone had experience with it and would like to comment. It looks like a simple made dipole with heat shrink on each side of a plastic "T" probably cost more to post it than to make it.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2016, 08:37:45 pm by Richard »
Richard.
Europa XS

exfirepro

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #153 on: December 15, 2016, 11:20:35 pm »
Hi Richard,

I had a 'look' at this one (on paper) a while back. It looks like it should work fine, but is pretty dear for what it is, though probably par for the course for anything with 'Flarm' associations. NavBoys certainly seem a good outfit to deal with in my experience, so I certainly don't think they are trying to rip anyone off.

As I have said before, I started out with the standard short antenna that came with the FlarmMouse - which is extremely position critical, so changed it for a PAW end-fed dipole as supplied with the Classic Kit and got my best range (7Km) in testing with this setup. I also tried a PAW 'centre fed' dipole, located inside the left knee hole of my pod. Whilst the signal was sound to my port side, reception to starboard was significantly attenuated by my legs, the aircraft battery, assorted wiring, metalwork, etc. I think the PAW dipole would however work fine if it can be mounted up high - for example on the right hand side of the aircraft front screen or front edge of one of the side windows (which I don't of course have). If a choice has to be made, it is of course best to keep any antennas facing towards the front of the aircraft to ensure the best reception is directed towards 'head-on' contacts.

I am hoping to reshuffle my tablet and other equipment this weekend to re-site the FlarmMouse to the extreme right side of my coaming, so I can position the Flarm (P3i) end fed dipole out to the extreme right of the screen well clear of obstructions. I will advise on any improvement.

Regards

Peter

Richard

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #154 on: December 16, 2016, 08:19:21 am »
Peter,
    Thank you for the help. I will try the end fed dipole To see if I can improve reception. I can mount it in various locations. Keep us informed on your findings too. 
Richard.
Europa XS

exfirepro

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #155 on: December 18, 2016, 08:31:10 pm »
Hi All,

Finally managed to fit a PAW to our CFI's Flexwing on Friday to test integration of the output from his PowerFLARM Core - which comprises Mode C/S, ADSB and FLARM data, with the PAWs own Mode C/S, ADSB and P3i data. Just back home from a second day of testing and its all looking good. PAW successfully integrates the data from the PFC which shows up on the PAW Traffic Screen as for example in the case of CAT ADSB - 'Mode CSA-F' to indicate that the data is derived from a FLARM source but is otherwise treated as any other data. PAW integrates both data streams and displays a single aircraft for each contact on the Nav system as normal. The pure FLARM signal in the screenshot is my spare FlarmMouse, running as a test source as there were no other FLARM equipped aircraft nearby.

Well Chuffed

Regards

Peter

Stu B

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #156 on: December 30, 2016, 06:40:13 pm »
Sorry if this is a daft idea, but ...
Given that good location is important for the PAW antenna, and, it seems, excellent location is essential for the FL*RM antenna, but that practical constraints may severely limit installation options, and given that the standard PAW end-fed dipole is said to be a good antenna for the FL*RM Mouse, might it be possible for PAW and FL*RM to share a common (PAW end-fed dipole) antenna? The two systems are obviously using different frequencies so should not interfere? Or would filters be needed? Apart from allowing both systems to exploit whatever is the best possible location that the aircraft configuration permits, sharing also simplifies the installation?

Ian Melville

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #157 on: December 30, 2016, 07:29:47 pm »
It cannot be done without a clever box of electronics in the middle switching from one TX to the other. Even then, they will get little chance to listen for incoming packets. If you don't have the magic box, the transmission from one, even at low power will trash the sensitive receiver of the other.

Much easier to set up two antenna about a wavelength apart.

Stu B

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #158 on: December 30, 2016, 09:17:38 pm »
Thanks for the quick reply Ian. If I want to put ~35 cm between the two antennae I face a choice of having one in an excellent location and the other in a poor location - or having both mounted in poor locations as both will have to be on the cockpit. (Not sure whether the standard PAW dipole is even suitable for external mounting?) So that's a great pity. What frequency does FL*RM use BTW?

Richard

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #159 on: December 30, 2016, 09:53:25 pm »
(Not sure whether the standard PAW dipole is even suitable for external mounting)

Stu B
    I'm currently experimenting with mounting the standard supplied dipole mounted externally. If you put the antenna in its vertical position and use hot glue pushed into the joint, then get some glued lined (waterproof) heat shrink over the mount too, it is nearly impossible for it to bend. Now mounted to the suitable extention.... it works a treat .... not sure how long it will last with 135knot airspeed over time.
Richard.
Europa XS

Stu B

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #160 on: December 30, 2016, 10:09:34 pm »
Thanks Richard. Power to your elbow! That would only leave the issue of getting it cleared to be fitted through a hole drilled in my bubble canopy 😉

Richard

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #161 on: December 30, 2016, 10:36:43 pm »
Stu,
    Just a suggestion but could you mount on the underside of your aircraft? (Upside down) works just as well.
Richard.
Europa XS

Paul_Sengupta

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #162 on: January 08, 2017, 09:37:27 pm »
What frequency does FL*RM use BTW?

Approximately the same as the PAW. Off to top of my head something like 868.2 and 868.4MHz...something like that.

Stu B

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #163 on: January 08, 2017, 10:19:14 pm »
Thanks, both, for your replies. That is a pretty close frequency, presumably both systems need to use the same limited "public use" part of the spectrum but I presume that greatly increases the likelihood of interaction if the antennae are too close. I had tried some experiments with the PAW and ADSB antennae and from that concluded that there was no significant effect on ADSB reception provided PAW was about 3 inches away from it - but of course ADSB is listening for powerful signals and the two systems are over 10% apart in frequency. Due to absence of PAW targets I could not test if the ADSB antenna was having any effect on PAW reception.
As regards mounting an antenna on the underside of the aircraft, that probably is worth considering, I probably slipped into assuming an "on top of canopy" installation as a natural evolution from my present set up where they hang below the top of the canopy arch. However, I think there is one important consideration that very much favours a "top-side" installation rather than a belly-mount. Even inside the canopy, the antenna is very high above the top of the engine so it should have a view ahead down to perhaps 15 or more degrees below the horizontal, and of course unlimited view above the horizontal. A belly mount would have unrestricted view in the downward arc but would only be only a few inches below the engine 6 feet ahead of it so would barely be able to see above the horizontal at all. I think that is too high a price to pay. The other option I may be forced to consider is a fin-tip installation. That would give good separation though the cable runs would; be lengthy.

BTW - is there any received wisdom re the pros and cons of the red-box FL@RM unit vs the FL@RM Mouse? I have read a thread here somewhere taht said the GPS antenna in teh mouse is small and is a bit of a poor perfomer - not good if teh mouse becomes your primary GPS source for all the conspicuity and nav app systems, so the red box plus a GPS dongle sounds to me a better idea (but of course more wiring!)

Richard

Re: FL*RM Integration - Beta Testers
« Reply #164 on: January 09, 2017, 08:47:30 am »

BTW - is there any received wisdom re the pros and cons of the red-box FL@RM unit vs the FL@RM Mouse? I have read a thread here somewhere taht said the GPS antenna in teh mouse is small and is a bit of a poor perfomer - not good if teh mouse becomes your primary GPS source for all the conspicuity and nav app systems, so the red box plus a GPS dongle sounds to me a better idea (but of course more wiring!)

Hi stu,
     Your observersions of the antennas is good thinking. For the FLARM redbox, it just needs to be mounted at a position you can conect the RS232 cable to PAW and to get the antenna lead to a position you have described. For the small GPS antenna, mounted in clear vue of the sky. For the question of reliability, after about 20 hours of flight I have never had a dropout or never noticed an inaccurate reading at all, it all works perfectly passing GPS info to my PAW. The GPS antenna is small enough to hide it away. I think the problem was with the FLARM mouse in built antenna., someone  may give you the info on that.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 08:49:57 am by Richard »
Richard.
Europa XS