On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:08:06 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:18:16 +0000, Larry wrote:

Marc Heusser alid
wrote in :

I tried to find any specification throgh the local dealer, and he did
not even get an answer at Sea Ray in the States (neither yes nor no,
essentially along the lines of we do not supply it so we do not know):

I would like to have a 4'/22kg Radar antenna on a Sea Ray 315 Sundancer
Sport Spoiler, Molded Fiberglass (Seamless) w/Overhead Lighting.

Is this workable, as I do not seem to get an answer from SeaRay?
Or is there a lower weight limit so I would have to forego the
advantages of a big enough antenna?

TIA

Marc

Marc, let's take a look at reality on radar......

Radar cannot see further than the horizon.

Not true.

The horizon depends on how far UP the antenna is mounted.

Also not true.

Indeed. Also, the line of sight limitations for VHF radios are not hard
and fast. I've been out on the bay with my handheld VHF with its puck
antenna and successfully sent and received some days 2X line of sight
and maybe 3X. Other days, reception sucks. Even with a 25W "installed"
VHF with a top quality 8' antenna.

Cell coverage, at least on the parts of the Bay I frequent, is more
reliable.

Radar seeing beyond the horizon depends on a number of factors
including the height of the antenna - Larry is right in that aspect.

However, seeing over the horizon depends on what is beyond the
horizon. You might not be able to "see" a sail boat reflector over
the horizon, but the radar will. From what I remember from my old
radar days, it's about 15/20% further than the horizon. That could be
wrong, but I know radar can see further than the horizon.

Secondly, it depends on the definition of "horizon". If it's pea soup
fog and you can't see further than 15 feet from the bow - that is your
effective "horizon" and radar can certainly see further than 15 feet.

Larry's point about the large array on a smallish boat close to the
water is a good one - I was just pointing out that he was being a
little too literal in his interpretation. Nothing Larry said is
technically "incorrect".

It's all in the application of terminology. :)