[Milsurplus] "Under a Jarvis Moon"

[Hue Miller]

Well, as Mike Hanz astutely pointed out a year or so back, where the antenna is horizontal against the airframe, the antenna currents actually
cancel, so there is minimal radiation from this part. In effect, it’s a capacitively loaded antenna, like a capacity ‘hat’, and the very short, and 
thus very inefficient vertical part of the antenna does most of the actual radiating. Remember those articles about ham radio mobile antennas
on 160 and 80 meters that discuss efficiencies of low single digits? Some of the military aircraft transmitter manuals also give the actual 
output power on the lower frequencies, and it’s shocking how low it is.
-Hue 

From: COURYHOUSE at aol.com 
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 12:17 PM
To: kargo_cult at msn.com ; tetrode at googlegroups.com ; armyradios at yahoogroups.com ; milsurplus at mailman.qth.net 
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] "Under a Jarvis Moon"

can not  believe this is a real power level Hue...  had to be more?

Ed#

In a message dated 10/17/2015 12:15:33 P.M. US Mountain Standard Tim, kargo_cult at msn.com writes:
  BTW, CQ Amateur Radio magazines for Apr 1998 article “Amelia Earhart and the Radio Amateurs” states that the actual radiated power of her plane’s
  transmitter was 1/2 watt on 3105 and 3 watts on 6210. Seems to me this would be a devilishly difficult analyses to do, as the V antenna did not 
  simply cancel the horizontal field RF currents at all points, but for a computer, I suppose, all calculations are possible, if the input is good. Those power
  levels, if correct, kind of call into question some of the post-loss reception reports from the USA.