Posts: 4
Threads: 1
Joined: 2014-10-13
2014-10-13, 10:39
(This post was last modified: 2014-10-13, 10:54 by karlb123.)
Hello everyone, I found this brilliant project whilst surfing the net looking for a solution to a particular challenge and I wanted to post as it may be of some interest to members on here who love a technical problem!! I am very new to this but am studying the PDF data closely to catch up!!
This may sound crazy- but what would be the feasibility of taking a station on an around the world flight in a small light aircraft....
The internet link would be covered by a satellite internet connection.
The antenna could be mounted anywhere *inside* and within the aircraft.
So lets discuss, would my crazy idea work or would the speed of the aircraft (130-150 knots) and thus moving station need to be compensated for etc?
*EDIT* I've had a quick fish around the forum and gather noise interference from the aircraft's electronics could be an issue :-(
I look forward to a great technical discussion :-)
Posts: 200
Threads: 17
Joined: 2013-08-23
2014-10-13, 22:38
(This post was last modified: 2014-10-13, 22:40 by W3DRM.)
(2014-10-13, 10:39)karlb123 Wrote: Hello everyone, I found this brilliant project whilst surfing the net looking for a solution to a particular challenge and I wanted to post as it may be of some interest to members on here who love a technical problem!! I am very new to this but am studying the PDF data closely to catch up!!
This may sound crazy- but what would be the feasibility of taking a station on an around the world flight in a small light aircraft....
The internet link would be covered by a satellite internet connection.
The antenna could be mounted anywhere *inside* and within the aircraft.
So lets discuss, would my crazy idea work or would the speed of the aircraft (130-150 knots) and thus moving station need to be compensated for etc?
*EDIT* I've had a quick fish around the forum and gather noise interference from the aircraft's electronics could be an issue :-(
I look forward to a great technical discussion :-)
Now, thinking beyond your thought of a single aircraft, what if all commercial airliners around the world had a lightning detector on-board? That could prove to be a solution for filling-in the parts of the world that don't have stationary coverage but are in standard flight corridors. The real problem would be the cost of constant satellite comms that would be needed to upload the data being received. That would probably make it unfeasible from a cost perspective.
A moving detector on an aircraft wouldn't make any difference because what matters is the location of the aircraft being known at the moment the detector receives a signal (noise or actual strike). That wouldn't be an issue since we use GPS references for our data streams. I don't know whether there would be a problem with aircraft generated noise levels. It may not be a problem due to the VLF frequencies being used in this project.
Posts: 4
Threads: 1
Joined: 2014-10-13
Hi W3DRM! Indeed your thoughts are interesting but working as a continuing airworthiness engineer for a small bespoke airline, I can imagine the paper work, cost and sheer barriers against getting such systems on board....I think airliners will stick with weather radar systems etc!
Now if I could secure a satellite data plan with unlimited data (which I have on an epic net search) that would meet the data needs I am sure.
I am keen to take a station on an aviation project, me and a fellow pilot plan to carry out a round the world flight in 2015 raising awareness for a particular charity and disease. The flight will be over 2 parts of about 2.5-3 weeks duration routing from London England, to Australia via southern europe, safer parts of the middle east and UAE.
In addition to the mark I eyeball, we are looking at converting a piece of avionics (strike finder) into an experimental carry on device, plug and play system- rather than have to spend even more money on having to install, mod and re-certify the plane! We also plan to use satellite data to look at the strike data from this site but we thought it might also be fun and useful to setup a station on board!!
This combination will work well- strike finder carry on will provide data around the aircraft at a shorter range and data from blitzortung will provide an in sight to weather ahead-over the horizon so to speak.
Do you think having a station on board will help in improving the network for detection in the areas we are flying near?
Does anyone have thoughts on aircraft generated noise levels?
Posts: 1,805
Threads: 63
Joined: 2013-07-23
For a round the world flight, we'd first have to come up with a Blitzortung Buoy system. Remember you'd still need minimum of 3 other stations detecting flashes! However, I've been pondering "aircraft induced 'noise' " from what may be a slightly different angle than you may have in mind... ,
Posts: 4
Threads: 1
Joined: 2014-10-13
(2014-10-14, 11:57)Cutty Wrote: For a round the world flight, we'd first have to come up with a Blitzortung Buoy system. Remember you'd still need minimum of 3 other stations detecting flashes! However, I've been pondering "aircraft induced 'noise' " from what may be a slightly different angle than you may have in mind... ,
Hi Cutty,
Thanks for your reply. I hadn't forgotten about the minimum of 3 stations, I was just hoping having one of the stations on board would provide one of the 3-4 stations needed, I did read the frequencies given off by storms can travel hundreds of miles and as such would eventually reach other stations including the airborne one?
Can you elaborate on your other angle? :-)
And re the bouyblitzortung....I'll throw some out over the oceans if you have them ready ;-) haha
Posts: 1,805
Threads: 63
Joined: 2013-07-23
(2014-10-14, 13:58)karlb123 Wrote: (2014-10-14, 11:57)Cutty Wrote: For a round the world flight, we'd first have to come up with a Blitzortung Buoy system. Remember you'd still need minimum of 3 other stations detecting flashes! However, I've been pondering "aircraft induced 'noise' " from what may be a slightly different angle than you may have in mind... ,
Hi Cutty,
Can you elaborate on your other angle? :-) Nope... not right now 
Posts: 2,154
Threads: 75
Joined: 2012-06-26
There's no advantage of installing a TOA lightning location system on an aircraft but a lot of technical difficulties.
Posts: 4
Threads: 1
Joined: 2014-10-13
(2014-10-15, 13:04)Tobi Wrote: There's no advantage of installing a TOA lightning location system on an aircraft but a lot of technical difficulties.
Ok thanks for the feedback, I'll still look into getting a satelite data facility anyway so we can see the maps produced as they are of use :-)
Posts: 5
Threads: 1
Joined: 2014-07-24
Rather than have them on aircraft, why not build them into the GPS satellites. That would create a whole new set of headaches. Mind you accuaracy might be a problem with the nearest strikes being 12.5K miles away.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: 2014-09-12
2014-10-17, 19:43
(This post was last modified: 2014-10-17, 19:46 by NiteWolf1138.)
I think you'd run into accuracy issues real quick. If I remember right, for the same equipment a GPS receiver that's stationary can refine the coordinates to a smaller area than a receiver that's in motion. Of course there are ways to overcome this, but as far as I know that usually involves more $$$ or more time in post-processing.
Of course this is mostly conjecture since it's been ages since I've read up on GPS.
~NiteWolf1138
KF7WAI
@DN81
Posts: 139
Threads: 27
Joined: 2014-04-19
Lots of potential noise with an aircraft, but far less than an old Ford idling down the block aways.
I had problems with an ADF (close to the same frequency range) and it was easily solved once a bad bypass capacitor in the charging system was found.
Most aircraft frequencies are VHF and above. Little use for NDB navigation now.
I'm not sure where the concern for interference came from, seems less likely from the aircraft than from the environment that it is flying over.
|
