Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

ELT antenna type: whip or rod (AV200 or AV300)

Hello there,

I am about to upgrade my 121 ELT to a 406 one… as a complement to my PLB :-)
My question is about the antenna. Actually, I suspect the old one, which is a (cheap) whip type, to have generated vibrations/buzzing a few times when in thick IMC (as it is flexible, and the airframe may have acted as a soundboard, amplifying the phenomenon)

This time, I have the choice between:
Kannad AV200, whip type
Kannad AV300, rod type

Any advice about that choice ?

Thanks !

I think it depends on the speed you are flying at, my working fleet (C152 & PA28 ) are getting the Kannad Whip type, low speed and cost being the reasons.

I suspect the vibration from you current installation is due to icing as thin edges are the first to ice.

For my Robin it will be the whip because I can hide it inside.

This is a C182, so not far from….. But well under 250kts :-) which is the speed limit for the whip one.
The difference is 200€ and 200gr approx.

AV200 works fine on your Cessna. AV300 is just more expensive. On some aircraft, such as TB’s the AV200 breaks often when the ELT antenna is at the standard location. My guess would that being quite flexible in a crash the AV200 might survive hitting something, where the unflexible AV300 breaks.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

@Jesse
I really appreciate your input.
Have you ever heard of antenna buzzing / vibration when flying in clouds ?
Do you think, regarding that aspect, that the AV200 is better than the old ANT200 ? Would the AV300 be more immune ?
Your argument regarding crash resistance is of course an important one.

In a word, your choice seems clears: the AV200 is not only cheaper, it is also better for the job in my case ?

PS: the antenna offered is not a Kannad, but RA MILLER, they seem to be identical.

Last Edited by PetitCessnaVoyageur at 07 Sep 19:32

PetitCessnaVoyageur wrote:

the AV200 is not only cheaper, it is also better for the job in my case ?

Yes, although I dont’have data to prove that it is better in crashes. I haven’t had cracked antennes on any aircraft other then the Socata series. The AV200 seems better then the ANT200, as the AV200 has a more flexible body part then ANT200. On ANT200 I had more cracked antenna’s just above the fixed body part.

Another thing to have a carefull look for, is that the whole in the fuselage is large enough. I found on MANY installations, that the whole was slightly to small. The connector and threathed parts fits trough the hole, but not the shoulder, which keeps the (blue) O-ring seal in place. Then the antenna is stuck on the shoulder, instead of the O-Ring. A small 0,5 – 1 mm gap can be seen between the bottom of the antenna and skin (on the outside of the aircraft).

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

PetitCessnaVoyageur wrote:

Have you ever heard of antenna buzzing / vibration when flying in clouds ?

No never had any complaints about it. On air to air photo’s you can see the antenna bends quite a bit. These antenna’s are vibrating a lot on TB’s causing the breakage. I know @Peter has a Kannad 406 MHz with it seems an ANT200, he might be able to give an answer on this. Not sure if his ever has broken.

From one of the photos on his website, you can clearly see the antenna bending during flight. See bottom foto:

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

@Jesse,
So why would it be different on TB vs Cessna ? The location seems actually to be the same.

PetitCessnaVoyageur wrote:

So why would it be different on TB vs Cessna ?

Not sure, I have never had an issue with these antenna’s on aircraft other then TB. I would think Piper’s for example would be more in common, with low wings etc. They never break, on Cessna I have never seen them breaking either. I would guess there is more vibration on the TB’s, might be caused by propwash as well.

I feel confident to install these on a Cessna.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

The fact is, an AV200 will still be a huge improvement over the actual (disuse) one

23 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top