On Sat, 23 May 2009 16:40:22 -0700 (PDT), mr1956
wrote:

Maximum
velocity was about Mach 3 which is why a conventional antenna cannot
be used as it will be melted by friction.

Would seem to be at odds with:

This new antenna will be mounted
totally on the exterior of the airframe and angled back only about 10
degrees to give a better radiation pattern.

At Mach 3, I seriously doubt you could hold it as erect (80 degrees to
the fuselage) as you might try with smaller wire (in fact, I would say
it would be plastered down).

If your telemetry is directly below its ascendance, you might try a
full-wave or longer antenna trailing below (if it can withstand the
propulsion heat). If that is not possible, look into an inverted F:
http://www.qsl.net/kb7qhc/antenna/In...%20F/index.htm
(it doesn't have to be a thick antenna).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On May 23, 11:08*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2009 16:40:22 -0700 (PDT), mr1956
wrote:

Maximum
velocity was about Mach 3 which is why a conventional antenna cannot
be used as it will be melted by friction.

Would seem to be at odds with:

This new antenna will be mounted
totally on the exterior of the airframe and angled back only about 10
degrees to give a better radiation pattern.

At Mach 3, I seriously doubt you could hold it as erect (80 degrees to
the fuselage) as you might try with smaller wire (in fact, I would say
it would be plastered down).

If your telemetry is directly below its ascendance, you might try a
full-wave or longer antenna trailing below (if it can withstand the
propulsion heat). *If that is not possible, look into an inverted F:http://www.qsl.net/kb7qhc/antenna/In...%20F/index.htm
(it doesn't have to be a thick antenna).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Yes the antenna will be pressed back against the airframe during
flight but should be erect at apogee and during descent. The previous
one survived just fine.

C. Newport