danny_galaga

Update. I figured it couldn't hurt to move it. Only thing of course is because of the length, unless it's in the tailplane, something's gonna poke out. So 3D printer to the rescue 😀 There wasn't a lot of traffic this morning. I did a circuit without no one else on the radio. From that brief flight it seems that making the aerial vertical has made it sound (to me) more consistent. That is, whether I was on the ground, or downwind or turning to base it sounded much the same . It was getting a bit breezy for this low hours pilot so I took the opportunity to work on tidying it up. I was hopeful that someone might be in the radio down the other end and I wanted to test the difference from port and starboard 'broadside'. You'll notice because the aerial is close to starboard, it's closer to some tubes. My general understanding is the dipole radiation pattern is two torus. Basically two doughnuts with a very smaller hole. I have one tube virtually in the centre where the two 'doughnuts' are 'stacked', so I figure it won't have much effect. The top tube will have more of an effect. As you can imagine, the number of degrees of 'shadow' it would cause depends on its diameter and the distance from the aerial. This is pretty close. So I would say maybe 40mm of the aerial just there is 'shaded' by about 35°. It gets too complicated to imagine how much effect that is though, because the rest of the aerial around it must radiate some energy into that space. As well, I believe a metal object close and in the way will re-radiate some of the energy, thus 'filling in some of blanks' so to speak. The signal won't be as good in that general arc but more than zero. ANYWAY, with all that in mind, I taxied the plane to have the starboard side perpendicular to the runway so that if there was someone down the other end, my signal should be somewhat shielded by that tube. Someone was down the other end. They read me 4. I then turned around 180°. They read me 5. This all adds up. So, in the end it would seem it was worth fiddling with the aerial. On the ground, slightly weaker signal on the starboard side, but still readable. In the air, for most circumstances it should be fine above, below and behind. I feel for any installation the engine in front will cause some shadowing. And starboard, from a distance should be fine as the radiation 'normalises'. Close, the total of the signal will be stronger so I imagine still readable. Probably would be better to have it in the centre, but I would probably have to run a new cable to reach. This was much easier 😄

Much. But I did too in school. There's a great book that got me up to speed with logic in argument that I read years ago. It's called Straight and Crooked Thinking by RH Thouless. It was first published in the 1920s and I think has a fairly recent edition. Read that, and let's continue this thread about CHINESE AVIATION.

Yes, please do, because that's a load of bollocks...

Not sure what this has to do with Chinese aviation. But there is a simple truth about Ukraine, no matter what news source you look at- ruzzia invaded Ukraine. If they just go home, the war can stop. That's the truth.

Information is slim at the moment, but this sounds very interesting. Purported to be the worlds first VTOL jet powered drone, thus can be launched from most warships, making them sort of mini aircraft carriers https://www.eurasiantimes.com/china-unveils-revolutionary-jet-powered-vtol-drone-that-can-turn-any-ship-into-strike-platform-media/

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/boeing-talks-sell-up-500-jets-china-bloomberg-news-reports-2025-08-21/

From the editor of The Economist. Seems relevant: "The Economist was founded 182 years ago to further the cause of free trade. But even we acknowledge that some goods are special—and few more so than semiconductor chips. Entire industries depend on them. Weapons systems are built around them. And in the contest between America and China to dominate artificial intelligence they could be the difference between victory and defeat. Less understood is that chips also pose a fiendish test for proponents of industrial policy. Their manufacture is a marvel of specialisation, complexity and globalisation. Under those conditions, intervening in markets is prone to fail. What is America to do? Our cover leader this week begins with the parable of Intel. Despite lavish subsidies, America’s chipmaking champion is in grave trouble. An attempt to attract world-beating TSMC to spread from its base in Taiwan is faring better. However, although stronger chipmaking at home will make America more resilient, vital parts of the supply chain will continue to exist abroad. What’s more, TSMC’s factories in Taiwan will remain the single source of the best semiconductors for years to come. With something as important as chips, even the world’s biggest economy cannot afford to shut itself off from the world."

Obviously it varies between different setups, but for inspiration this is my list of hoses for my Bushcat 03-0010 as per moneybox 01-0007 02-0951 x 2 (datsun 120y) all of these were cut to suit

I know you to be smart, but when you and turboplanner say things like this you come off as kinda dumb. All people everywhere have the same potential. Yes, China has long been known to steal technology, but you seem to ignore the fact they are creating heaps of their own. You also seem to miss the point that people going to study in Ivy league universities are actually BRINGING ideas into the US. When you write a thesis, it's your original work, your original research. Lots of Australians go to the US to study as well. Is it China's fault if Australia doesn't capitalise fully on that? Your last statement describes the US for the last hundred years. Nothing lasts forever, it's clearly going to be China's turn next. For better or worse, but I don't watch Sky News, so my own feeling is it's not going to be all that bad. At least it's not ruzzia. I'm sure I've posted it before but I think I might have to start every post on this subject with this link: https://www.wipo.int/en/ipfactsandfigures/patents

So?

China may be about to debut world's first combat drone https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3322417/china-poised-lead-world-combat-ready-loyal-wingman-fh-97-stealth-drone#amp_tf=From %1%24s&aoh=17556965930736&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scmp.com%2Fnews%2Fchina%2Fmilitary%2Farticle%2F3322417%2Fchina-poised-lead-world-combat-ready-loyal-wingman-fh-97-stealth-drone

Pakistan used Chinese jets in the skirmish with India recently and reportedly downed some Raffaeles https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1w3dln352vo

"In most respects, it could have been designed and built in the 1950s. But a remarkable feature of the WZ-8, visible on the website of a company specialising in additive manufacturing, is that the entire center-section box, the structural heart of the aircraft, is 3D PRINTED in TITANIUM" https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/something-old-something-new-the-very-practical-rules-of-chinese-aircraft-development/

https://www.space.com/space-exploration/human-spaceflight/chinese-astronauts-beef-up-tiangong-space-stations-debris-shield-during-6-5-hour-spacewalk-video

https://www.twz.com/air/chinas-first-crewed-tiltrotor-aircraft-is-flying

I believe this is early footage of the J-36. A sixth generation fighter

Well, technically, democracy is about equal representation for all CITIZENS in forming a government. You are talking about a violation of corporate law.

I should add that the installation instructions specifically said that vertical is the ideal, but that it's not always possible so that you should aim for as close to vertical as possible or vertical and bent. It radiates in two toroidal (I think?) patterns so vertical allows for the best propagation. This is what made me think that poking through the top would be ideal. Clearly ~45° is not very vertical 😄. Funny I didn't realise before. I guess hope, and laziness springs eternal

No, its not running along the upright.

Yes, I've travelled through Cuba. Before the embargo they were the USA's fifth largest trading partner, and the USA was. Cuba's largest. Incidentally, since US relied on cheap Cuban sugar, they increased the use of inferior corn syrup. Now you know the origin of the - Mexican coca cola is better than American Coca cola complaint 😊 Anyway, I think they do the best they can considering how much the US deliberately nobbled their economy. It's not the fairest system when a doctor and a street sweeper earn the same monthly salary. Especially if the street sweeper bunks off work to sell 3 peso coins to tourists. Then the street sweeper is making WAY more than a doctor. On the plus side, within the limits of all this, people are free to do what they want (I even saw a group squaring up some dogs for a fight. Its not illegal. I didn't stay) and there's virtually no street crime, since there are cops everywhere. Oh, and rum was about the same price as Mexican coca cola 😊 I would still rather live here than Cuba or China, but as some of you understand, the world works in many ways.

So my radio isn't brilliant. And I'm not very methodical when it comes to trouble shooting. But what I have noticed is the signal seems a lot clearer when I'm turning to base. I didn't know what to make of that until I realised the signal doesn't seem as good on climb. It finally occurred to me what might be happening the other day so I took some measurements today. I have a dipole antenna. When I installed it I felt quite chuffed because it seemed kinda vertical and was a tidy install. As you know, dipole is simple but due to the length is a bit tricky to find somewhere near vertical, else you have to bend it. But how close to vertical is my installation really? I imagined it was something like 60-70°. But that was an optical illusion due to me being distracted by the door frame. See attached pic. In fact, when taxiing, it's about 45° 😲. So this is my rough estimate of angles: Taxi: 45° Straight and level: 50° Descending on final: 55° Climb: 40° ! The question I guess is this: I think I have more than one problem, but given the variation in quality of signal seems to be related to aircraft attitude, and looking at the general angle mine is at, will I at least reduce or eliminate one problem by making my antenna vertical? My solution would be to move the base of it (bottom right in that first pic) about 400-500mm back so it's not running against the aluminium upright and poke the aerial through the top of the fuselage. This crossed my mind when I was first installing it but I opted for the simplest solution knowing I could try something else later.

To drag back on topic. This is a ground test firing of their reusable rocket stage, similar to Space X and Honda

Cyanide and arsenic don't radiate gamma rays, which damage DNA.

Well, I was talking about their aviation supply chain, how they make their power is neither here nor there. But they have installed more solar than coal in recent years, and increased nuclear. Australia needs to think about what to do when no one wants coal for power anymore

Particularly one that ended in a fiery fireball 😲