Radar Location

[Photolomy]

Are there any issues with putting a dome radar on the overhang in front of the flybridge? Basically where the search light is, but in the center. It would be on a 9" or so pedestal. It's that or add an arch and put it up high. I realize higher is better, but lower is cheaper.

 

[racclarkson@gmail.com]

Are there any issues with putting a dome radar on the overhang in front of the flybridge? Basically where the search light is, but in the center. It would be on a 9" or so pedestal. It's that or add an arch and put it up high. I realize higher is better, but lower is cheaper.

Were you planning on any more kids?

 

[Boatsb]

It's possible to mount it there and safely cut the transmission aft but you have poor performance aft as its blanked for the area.

 

[Dazed338]

Were you planning on any more kids?

Is that like Wienie roast anyone.

 

[bigbill]

that is where mine is mounted, works great except straight behind the boat, flybridge blocks it's view

 

[SEVEN]

Horrible place to set one up. The radiation goes through you every sweep. It’s a good spot if you drive from the main salon but not from the fly bridge. Get it on an arch.

 

[jim rosenthal]

You can also get a post instead of an arch, but they don't look nearly as good. Regardless, it needs to be up where it's going to be able to do all of it's job. After all, you would like to know what's coming up behind you in the fog as well as what you are approaching.

 

[JoshuaHall]

Unless you're installing high powered ship RADAR, (10kw, 10' wide scanner, high powered), I wouldn't be overly concerned about "radiation." You get more dosage from cell phones and microwaves. 3kw sets and below are plenty safe, as close as 2 meters. To quote a recent article I read, you are in more danger of being struck by the scanner itself, (open array).I totally agree with Jim, in that the bigger concern is functionality. Consider any "blind spots" in the scanner sweep.On my commercial tug, there are two units, and they have reciprocal shadows where the scanner sweeps the mast. That shadow increases with distance, like a pie slice. If an 8" diameter pipe can impede a picture in this way, imagine the effect of an entire flybridge.

 

[oscarvan]

Agreed. Cutting out half the picture defeats the purpose of having one. The health hazards are overstated.

https://www.powerandmotoryacht.com/electronics/can-your-radar-really-hurt-you

 

[Photolomy]

Thanks everyone. Arch it is. I wasn't concerned about radiation, not from the domed units, and I would have programmed in the blocked (aft) area, but it would be better to have 360 degrees. And the arch will give me mounting points for other gizmos.

 

[dar636]

Mine is installed on the overhang - it came to me that way, and I don't have an arch. I've no plan to get one either. Just know the limitations.

 

[rsmith]

Who needs a vasectomy when you got this?

 

[Glory]

Unless you're installing high powered ship RADAR, (10kw, 10' wide scanner, high powered), I wouldn't be overly concerned about "radiation." You get more dosage from cell phones and microwaves. 3kw sets and below are plenty safe, as close as 2 meters. To quote a recent article I read, you are in more danger of being struck by the scanner itself, (open array).I totally agree with Jim, in that the bigger concern is functionality. Consider any "blind spots" in the scanner sweep.On my commercial tug, there are two units, and they have reciprocal shadows where the scanner sweeps the mast. That shadow increases with distance, like a pie slice. If an 8" diameter pipe can impede a picture in this way, imagine the effect of an entire flybridge.

I never heard of a 2000 wat cell phone.

If considering radar I would suggest nothing less than 4 kw.

 

[dar636]

Mine is installed on the overhang - it came to me that way, and I don't have an arch. I've no plan to get one either. Just know the limitations.

PS: I thought the performance in this location is fine by the way. From observation I don't think anything can sneak up from behind us unnoticed that isn't smaller in size. Our size and larger certainly register as returns.

 

[jim rosenthal]

Size is one of them. Elevation is the other. Power might be a third, unless you equate size to power, which I suppose you could reasonably do.

 

[Photolomy]

My personal choices are between Garmin 18xHD and Garmin Fantom 18 (I have Garmin Chart Plotter).

Regarding radar versus cell phone, I think they are taking into account that you hold a cell phone right to the side of your head.

Installing on the overhang is attractive, but I could see wanting to see stuff behind you. When I am running down the ICW, I wouldn't mind seeing traffic gaining on me. I am on the fly bridge most of the time, but sometimes I am focused too much looking forward.

 

[Captain Ralph]

Some of the new high tech radars put out just a few watts.
Great for channel work. These new solid-state or broadband radar would work great down low.
Low may be better so piles and traps are not missed. On an arch, some could be missed.

When you need precision and range It does take height, power and array length.
I have a 10KW-6ft array up high. from the Dry Tortugas I can see Key West, Cuba and the weather coming in from there. But I can not see the area markers in close range. Soon I will be adding a small radome low and forward (some where??) to help more on the St-Johns river for pots and day markers..

My wife and I have learned to always eyeball scan 360s often, day & night. Even with radar, we catch things astern by eye before we look at the radar.

So, Hi - low mount, what do you want to see?