COM antenna question
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
From: glendale
Ideally it would have two antennas.
Amazingly enough, the reason is that at times (more in the past), you could fly over the top of an ATC antenna and be using your TOP SIDE antenna and the wings/fuselage could block the signal to the ground.
So, you switched to the OTHER radio which had the antenna on the bottom and would have a good signal to the ground.
I can't tell you for your plane, but count the number of com antennas!
Amazingly enough, the reason is that at times (more in the past), you could fly over the top of an ATC antenna and be using your TOP SIDE antenna and the wings/fuselage could block the signal to the ground.
So, you switched to the OTHER radio which had the antenna on the bottom and would have a good signal to the ground.
I can't tell you for your plane, but count the number of com antennas!
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,394
Likes: 856
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Individual radios with independent antennae. Otherwise there would be a risk of single point failure if either an antenna coupler or sole antenna should fail.....
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,214
Likes: 0
From: S Warwickshire
Diplexers are more common on the Nav side.
They do attenuate the signal slightly, but that's often an acceptable trade-off with less external hardware. They also don't have to deal with transmitter power as they are only using the aerial to receive.
They do attenuate the signal slightly, but that's often an acceptable trade-off with less external hardware. They also don't have to deal with transmitter power as they are only using the aerial to receive.
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
From: The World
Two COM, two aerials [british] = antennas [aviation] = antennae [US]. For redundancy this is the golden rule, while for NAV it is quite common to use one antenna setup and Multiplexer (don't forget Glideslope GS, my day2day plane has one antenna and a Triplexer).
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
From: Perth, WA
Sap, that's never been the case. Since the earliest days of the technology the term "aerial" was used for both transmitting and receiving installations. Check out some of the very early Marconi literature. And, actually, it was Marconi who later brought the term "antenna" into common use.
One of the fundamental tenets of antenna engineering is reciprocity: an antenna can be used interchangeably between transmitting and receiving. In practice, passive or active means are sometimes used to restrict operation to one or other application. But the antenna itself is completely reciprocal.
The US IEEE style of "antenna" and "antennas" is universal in professional international use and, indeed, the British IET journal (which is also widely read internationally) is called "IET Microwaves, Antennas and Propagation".
Popular usage does vary a bit, with older folks in the UK, Australia and a few other places still using "aerial" - most often for the wire style of HF antenna in my observation.
On the substantive question by the OP: go for 2 antennas!
One of the fundamental tenets of antenna engineering is reciprocity: an antenna can be used interchangeably between transmitting and receiving. In practice, passive or active means are sometimes used to restrict operation to one or other application. But the antenna itself is completely reciprocal.
The US IEEE style of "antenna" and "antennas" is universal in professional international use and, indeed, the British IET journal (which is also widely read internationally) is called "IET Microwaves, Antennas and Propagation".
Popular usage does vary a bit, with older folks in the UK, Australia and a few other places still using "aerial" - most often for the wire style of HF antenna in my observation.
On the substantive question by the OP: go for 2 antennas!
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 289
From: Poplar Grove, IL, USA
piperboy84,
I have seen first hand a com installation that used two Garmin radios, one antenna, and a diplexer. The goal was low drag. It worked poorly. We ditched the diplexer and went with a second antenna. That was much better.
Bryan
ps sorry for veering back onto topic, won't happen again.
I have seen first hand a com installation that used two Garmin radios, one antenna, and a diplexer. The goal was low drag. It worked poorly. We ditched the diplexer and went with a second antenna. That was much better.
Bryan
ps sorry for veering back onto topic, won't happen again.
