Author Topic: PUK Antenna  (Read 4619 times)

brinzlee

PUK Antenna
« on: September 09, 2016, 01:52:54 pm »
Did anybody test any of these antennas for the Bridge....I heard somebody mention them a while back but then there was no follow up....
Looks like a nice solution if they work, maybe on some aircraft

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RF-Solutions-MINITURE-PUK-SMA-ANTENNA-433-868MHZ-/172252360493?hash=item281b0a6f2d:g:738AAOSw3YNXbT5b

Admin

Re: PUK Antenna
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2016, 02:24:44 pm »
Somebody mentioned this at the show, but I think the range was not great.
difficult to beat a 1/4 wave dipole I'm afraid

Paul_Sengupta

Re: PUK Antenna
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2016, 09:11:47 pm »
1/2 wave dipole.

Or 1/4 wave monopole on a ground plane...

exfirepro

Re: PUK Antenna
« Reply #3 on: September 10, 2016, 12:03:09 am »
Brinzlee,

I bought one some time back from RS Components, but haven't got round to trying it out on the plane yet.

I did contact the manufacturer, RF solutions, to ask for more information - especially as to whether it needs a ground plane, but they were somewhat less than forthcoming...

My Question: I bought one of these from RS Components to use with a low power (500mW) transceiver, however the data sheet doesn't make it clear whether or not it needs a metal ground plane. Can you please advise.

Their Reply: The antenna would benefit from a ground plane, although it is able to be used without one.

Thinking about it, I suspect the 'PUK' contains a dipole, with the ends folded round inside the housing (like an 'S'). This would explain why it works without a ground plane. If this is the case, however, it will already be 3db down on a vertical unless mounted 'on its side', in which case I would still expect it to be significantly less efficient than a straightforward vertical dipole for the same frequency. The only benefit I can see is that it is clearly designed for fitting externally and can be easily made fully weatherproof.

Regards

Peter

Vic

Re: PUK Antenna
« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2016, 08:16:51 am »

exfirepro

Re: PUK Antenna
« Reply #5 on: September 10, 2016, 09:39:02 am »
Hi again Vic/Brinsley,

Who knows Vic, there seem to be loads of these devices, but it's not clear what's inside them or what the advantages would be (other than small size). I have a suitable size hole in the underside of my pod (it's actually a drain hole but it never rains up here - honestly !!!) which I can fit the PUK to - at least until it rains!!!  I will try to test it next time I get down to the field - hopefully tomorrow or early next week, but I'm busy clearing my father-in-law's house which has to be vacated by a week on Friday, so am finding it difficult to get away (again....after escaping for a week to do the LAA Rally).

My gut feeling is that for a metal bodied aircraft, a vertical 1/4 wave on a good metal groundplane - either above or below the fuselage, or a half-wave dipole such as the standard P3i end-fed version or centre-fed low-profile version mounted inside a non- metallic fuselage or canopy are likely to be very hard to beat!

Regards

Peter
« Last Edit: September 10, 2016, 09:42:48 am by exfirepro »

Admin

Re: PUK Antenna
« Reply #6 on: September 10, 2016, 09:43:37 am »
If you have 2 Pilotaware units, pretty easy to test
Leave one on the ground as high and clear as possible
Simply go flying then check the logs from both units

My suspicions are that this antenna will not be very good, but interested to find out

brinzlee

Re: PUK Antenna
« Reply #7 on: September 10, 2016, 06:40:17 pm »
Thanks for all your comments....All duly noted !!