VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-29-2018, 09:23 PM
Mycool Mycool is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: West Hills, CA
Posts: 274
Default Bent whip antenna mounted on top

Hello,
was wondering if anyone had any input on bent whip antennas mounted on top of aircraft. Looking to weigh all the pro’s and con’s if any.
__________________
US ARMY VETERAN (75th & 1st 509th Airborne)
A&PP

RV Transitional trainer
RV9A - FLYING
RV3 “a” - Rebuilding
Wheeler Express - Sold
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-29-2018, 09:41 PM
Sam Buchanan's Avatar
Sam Buchanan Sam Buchanan is offline
been here awhile
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 3,821
Default

I've been flying a "slightly bent" whip on the rear turtle deck of my RV-6 since 1999 and it has worked very well. Not sure why one would want to use a real "bent" whip on top when the straighter version works so well. Seems to me it would put most of the element in the horizontal orientation which is not good for COM antennae.

The antenna on the left is the Delta Pop antenna I've used for the past several years:

__________________
Sam Buchanan
1999 RV-6
1918 Fokker D.VII replica
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-30-2018, 09:55 AM
MercFE MercFE is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Maple Valley, WA
Posts: 238
Default

The biggest "con" is that you can't list a "pro" for using the bent whip on the top... The bend is there to get ground clearance, and sacrifices a small amount of verticality in the antenna. No reason to bend an antenna on top of the plane.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-30-2018, 10:34 AM
rv7charlie rv7charlie is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pocahontas MS
Posts: 3,158
Default

No reason to use one, unless you have one on hand & don't want to spend the money on another.

It won't perform as well, but whether you can tell the difference if you're not on an antenna test range with multi-kilobuck test gear is a different question.

Charlie
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-31-2018, 12:43 PM
Mycool Mycool is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: West Hills, CA
Posts: 274
Default Attn

Ok, thank you for the input. “Attention” antenna it is. Thx for the link too.
__________________
US ARMY VETERAN (75th & 1st 509th Airborne)
A&PP

RV Transitional trainer
RV9A - FLYING
RV3 “a” - Rebuilding
Wheeler Express - Sold
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-31-2018, 08:08 PM
Charles in SC Charles in SC is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 598
Default

The bent one looks more streamlined so the plane looks faster sitting on the ground. Maybe a "pro".
__________________
Aircraft structure built.
Going at a snail's pace, life gets in the way.
Wiring done.
Engine hung.
Working on cowling.
RV 7
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-31-2018, 09:28 PM
Sam Buchanan's Avatar
Sam Buchanan Sam Buchanan is offline
been here awhile
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 3,821
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles in SC View Post
The bent one looks more streamlined so the plane looks faster sitting on the ground. Maybe a "pro".
It will just look like somebody put a belly antenna on the top of the poor airplane....
__________________
Sam Buchanan
1999 RV-6
1918 Fokker D.VII replica

Last edited by Sam Buchanan : 07-31-2018 at 09:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-31-2018, 11:21 PM
Mycool Mycool is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: West Hills, CA
Posts: 274
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles in SC View Post
The bent one looks more streamlined so the plane looks faster sitting on the ground. Maybe a "pro".
I agree, Was hoping I can use the bent Antenna and still have the same performance on the top.
__________________
US ARMY VETERAN (75th & 1st 509th Airborne)
A&PP

RV Transitional trainer
RV9A - FLYING
RV3 “a” - Rebuilding
Wheeler Express - Sold
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-01-2018, 12:15 AM
BobTurner BobTurner is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 5,355
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mycool View Post
I agree, Was hoping I can use the bent Antenna and still have the same performance on the top.
You actually lose less than you might expect. An ideal 1/4 wave whip, bent half way up, still radiates over 80% of the vertically polarized power as the unbent whip.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-01-2018, 04:59 AM
rbibb's Avatar
rbibb rbibb is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Freericksburg, VA
Posts: 606
Default

Pro - reduction of the drag coefficient by maybe .001 percent (a WAG not even a SWAG).

Con - less effective comm radiation pattern.

If you want to trade comm effectivity for less drag go with a wingrip enclosed antenna.

Or just concentrate on reducing cooling drag for more bang for the buck in terms of effort.

My totally, untried, and therefore, totally untested and not backed by any evidence, empirical or otherwise, opinion.

But then, offered with no expectation of renumeration in any form, or with any reason.
__________________
Richard Bibb
RV-4 N144KT
Fredericksburg, VA
KEZF
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:56 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.