New for the 2011 Season

[RLBagley]

With the Idaho Season now ending tomorrow, it might be a little early to be talking about (or even thinking of) gear for next season, but we're kind of compelled to be making little improvements all the time.

So here's a curious little detail many might not have thought even necessary (that is, until you think about it), a tiny change made to the new Tail Pieces for the coming season, seen in more detail under the scope.

You can see the pics here (http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=284006&id=95847325664).

RB

[FredFogg]

Shouldn't the last photo say "For 2011" instead of 2010?

[Tanner]

Continual improvement is a good thing! I like the thinking behind that prototype looking version that looks like it would put the transmitter up higher on the tail. (I think?)

Just a thought...how about a tail mount system that has a single slot for the transmitter clip integrated with two of your style of feather clamp, one for each deck feather. Like a one-piece improvement on the traditional leather and plectrum set-up. You'd have to make multiple sizes - but that's the kind of stuff you guys are good at. It may be simply my personal bias, but the idea of mounting a transmitter on a single deck feather is a "heck no!" for me. It sets up a scenario where the feather has to support not only pull from the transmitter, but also torque around it's axis. With two decks involved, there's no axial twist/torque and you double the anchoring power.

My 2 cents.

[RLBagley]

Shouldn't the last photo say "For 2011" instead of 2010?

Yes, it should . . . and now does.

(thanks)

[RLBagley]

Continual improvement is a good thing! I like the thinking behind that prototype looking version that looks like it would put the transmitter up higher on the tail. (I think?)

Just a thought...how about a tail mount system that has a single slot for the transmitter clip integrated with two of your style of feather clamp, one for each deck feather. Like a one-piece improvement on the traditional leather and plectrum set-up. You'd have to make multiple sizes - but that's the kind of stuff you guys are good at. It may be simply my personal bias, but the idea of mounting a transmitter on a single deck feather is a "heck no!" for me. It sets up a scenario where the feather has to support not only pull from the transmitter, but also torque around it's axis. With two decks involved, there's no axial twist/torque and you double the anchoring power.

My 2 cents.

Yes I believe you are right with the observation that it's much better to "spread the weight" over two feathers, rather than one, and there are many that successfully do this.

Our thinking has been to instead recommend a lighter transmitter (3 grams) nowadays as a tail mount, rather than putting 9-10 grams there on one follicle. And we've sort of resisted the idea of making something that would connect to the two decks together up high, and thus restrain them from being spread out as needed during flight.

So, our design push, in terms of mounting methods, has been to minimize what's on the tail, move the heavier transmitters up a few inches higher with the TrackPack, and free up the feet completely . . . where possible.

But, having admitted that, we've also learned that it's advisable to avoid debating three subjects with customers: politics, religion and mounting methods.

RB

[Tanner]

But, having admitted that, we've also learned that it's advisable to avoid debating three subjects with customers: politics, religion and mounting methods.

RB

I hear you - I've had serious arguments with friends about transmitter mounts and later realized how ridiculous that is! Thanks for the feedback.

[Saluqi]

I hear you - I've had serious arguments with friends about transmitter mounts and later realized how ridiculous that is! Thanks for the feedback.

You're still wrong Tanner!

[Tanner]

You're still wrong Tanner!

I said "with friends", so obviously I was referring to someone other than yourself.:D

[falcon56]

Continual improvement is a good thing! I like the thinking behind that prototype looking version that looks like it would put the transmitter up higher on the tail. (I think?)

Just a thought...how about a tail mount system that has a single slot for the transmitter clip integrated with two of your style of feather clamp, one for each deck feather. Like a one-piece improvement on the traditional leather and plectrum set-up. You'd have to make multiple sizes - but that's the kind of stuff you guys are good at. It may be simply my personal bias, but the idea of mounting a transmitter on a single deck feather is a "heck no!" for me. It sets up a scenario where the feather has to support not only pull from the transmitter, but also torque around it's axis. With two decks involved, there's no axial twist/torque and you double the anchoring power.

My 2 cents.

I have installed a mount on each deck feather when used on tiercel peregrines, opened up the the clip on the transmitter a bit and slipped the tranny into both clips. Alleviates the stress on a single deck, still allows full movement of the deck feathers when needed and makes it possible to use an RT+ on a tiercel. Never had any problems with this method. If mounted up high, there is enough of a natural gap between the two decks that the feathers lie naturally.

[RLBagley]

I have installed a mount on each deck feather when used on tiercel peregrines, opened up the the clip on the transmitter a bit and slipped the tranny into both clips. Alleviates the stress on a single deck, still allows full movement of the deck feathers when needed and makes it possible to use an RT+ on a tiercel. Never had any problems with this method. If mounted up high, there is enough of a natural gap between the two decks that the feathers lie naturally.

Yes, this is great alternative to then be able to more safely use a larger (1/3N size) transmitter on the tail.

Thanks for pointing this out and doing so from firsthand experience.

We'll be sure to add this as a recommendation on the Mounting Methods Section of the Website (http://marshallradio.com/en/north-american-falconry-products/north-american-falconry-transmitters/item/510-mounting-methods), and give you credit for seeing it first (if that's OK?).

RB

[Tanner]

I agree, that's a solid suggestion Ray, thank you.

[falcon56]

I have no problem with that Bob, it seemed to be the most common sense solution to the issues of deck feathers falling out because of the weight of transmitters other than the micro sized models

[Tony James]

I have no problem with that Bob, it seemed to be the most common sense solution to the issues of deck feathers falling out because of the weight of transmitters other than the micro sized models

Hi Ray,

I pride myself on having a reasonable dose of common sense, but for all that I hadn't considered your method, which seems to me the most promising idea.
It differs from other methods of attaching a transmitter to both decks in that the advantages of a very non-intrusive mount is maintained, without 'fixing' both decks together. That freedom of movement would be an important consideration to me.
As you say, common sense really.
How sad when we discover we don't have all that we imagined we have!

Very best wishes,

Tony.

[falcon56]

Well, if there's ONE asset I may have, I like to think common sense raises it's head occasionally enough to erase all the other stupid things I do on a daily basis! My wife could probably regale folks with numerous tales, keep 'em in stitches for hours.

[RLBagley]

I have no problem with that Bob, it seemed to be the most common sense solution to the issues of deck feathers falling out because of the weight of transmitters other than the micro sized models

I'm about to mount up a bird today, using this "RG Method" but two Micro/Medium sized tail pieces to minimize any crowding as they'll be side by side on top. The hooks of an RT+ fit fine in the Micro sized top when using only one at a time.

But here's a small issue to consider that's unique to this change, and maybe you've already dealt with it: The tail springs are heat treated to a certain shape and to also give significant back pressure when squeezed together and inserted in to a single tail piece. This pressure then holds the transmitter firmly in place but the bird doesn't feel any of it since the pressure is all concentrated inside the fixed metal tail piece.

Now that each side of the spring is to be inserted into a separate tail piece, this pressure will need to be adjusted back and not be too forceful, since that would be a constant pressure pushing each deck outward and apart. This could be similar to when, as kids, we had our braces tightened, only in the opposite direction? It would seem to be an irritant somehow.

So, one needs to bend the tail springs closer together so they are not spread so far apart, to relieve most of this tension, but not all the way so that the hooks can simply fall out. There needs to be just enough outward pressure to keep the hooks pushed to the outside to stay in place.

Questions: Is this what you've also done? And, did the transmitter stay secure during the season of active hawking without the same outward pressure on the springs that one normally has inside a single tail piece? Did you notice the decks being out of position at all with the amount of pressure you used?

Thanks in advance.
RB

[falcon56]

The "RG mounting method", that's a hoot. The only thing I've ever had named after something I did was, uh....NOTHING. What an honor, now I'll have to go readjust all my hats to fit my big head! Cripes, there'll be no living with me now, and it was damn near impossible before! I'm going to blame it all on you, Bob

I bent the springs out from factory position a tad to make sure the transmitter wouldn't fall out and it NEVER did. Didn't get a full season in, but flew long enough to know I'll do it in the future. I've used it on a tiercel peales and a tiercel gyr/barbary. There was no trace of the decks lying anything but normal and the birds showed no signs of irritation at all. I'm a little leery of the transmitters falling out of tail mounts, as I've had issues with this problem in the past with single tail mounts, so whatever I did on this dual mount method worked.

[RLBagley]

The "RG mounting method", that's a hoot. The only thing I've ever had named after something I did was, uh....NOTHING. What an honor, now I'll have to go readjust all my hats to fit my big head! Cripes, there'll be no living with me now, and it was damn near impossible before! I'm going to blame it all on you, Bob

I bent the springs out from factory position a tad to make sure the transmitter wouldn't fall out and it NEVER did. Didn't get a full season in, but flew long enough to know I'll do it in the future. I've used it on a tiercel peales and a tiercel gyr/barbary. There was no trace of the decks lying anything but normal and the birds showed no signs of irritation at all. I'm a little leery of the transmitters falling out of tail mounts, as I've had issues with this problem in the past with single tail mounts, so whatever I did on this dual mount method worked.

Deluxe.

So, last question then: any pics? Images from the field that might show this?

Good to hear.
RB

[RLBagley]

OK, the Mounting Methods Section has been updated.

Notice text change under "Disadvantages" point number one . . . .

Tail Mounting

Overview

The current springmount used was designed by by two innovative Californians, and the tail mount method employs a small tailpiece permanently affixed to one of the deck feathers (which is a mental leap some still cannot make). The tail mount version of the transmitter has a spring with small hooks as part of its design, which is inserted into the tailpiece. It can be taken on and off with each flight, or if the transmitter has a magnetic tap on/tap off switch, it can be left on the bird, and removed only when it’s necessary to change the batteries. Nearly all falconers in the Gulf countries use tail mounts. With the advent of shorter antennas, flat transmitters, and improved installation tools and pieces, the tail-mount is being used by an increasing number of falconers in American and Europe as well.

Advantages of the Tail Mount:

1. Keeps feet unencumbered. Proponents like how this frees up the feet and stays safely out of the way when contact is made with quarry. With the feet properly tucked up, the bird is less likely to be harassed by another raptor. Having a single light weight transmitter on the tail seems to have little effect on a hunting falcon’s flight or maneuverability.
2. Better broadcast position. The transmitter is higher up and will always give a better signal when the bird is on the ground, since the transmitter antenna will be in a 45 degree position so that the signal is broadcast outward in a 360 degree radius.
3. Can be very easy to get on and off (with some birds). Assuming it’s acclimated to being touched at the base of the tail (a process similar to hood training), the bird will hold still while the tail mount is quickly installed before use. With the advent of the Tap On/Tap Off mag switch, a transmitter can now be left on the bird an activated just prior to the flight with no fuss or battle at all.
4. Aesthetically pleasing. When using any one of the new flat transmitter designs with short antennas, the tail mount is visually out of the way and much less noticeable.


Disadvantages and Risks:

1. A deck feather can be pulled out. While most accidents with this method occurred years ago when all transmitters had long antennas, it is still a risk today. Some people using 151MHz tail-mounts had an 18-inch long wire dangling from underneath the feather so antenna wrap was inevitable. But even with today’s short antennas, birds can still have a deck accidentally pulled out in a struggle with quarry as the transmitter is inadvertently pushed or pulled. And if there’s sufficient trauma to the follicle, the feather may never grow back. Sometimes, inserting a plug (the top part of the feather) back into the follicle allows it to properly heal and a new feather grows in during the molt. Some proponents still say, “better to lose just a feather than have a broken leg or neck injury.” One innovative idea originated by Ray Gliberston (MT) is to install a tail piece on each deck feather side-by-side to better distribute the weight of a 8-9 gram 1/3N sized transmitter by inserting one hook into each tail piece.
2. Some birds won’t tolerate them. Some birds never get used to the weight of something on the tail feather and will continue to preen at it, sometimes actually destroying the feather.
3. Can be difficult to use. Some birds don’t like to be touched in that spot, and it can be nearly impossible to get a transmitter on or off without casting the bird first. Getting a tail-mount on a touchy bird just before a flight can be aggravating, with both you and the bird now angry as the hood comes off.

[schwartze]

Ray and Robert,

I once fiddled around with some tail-pieces and transmitter springs with Ray's exact idea in mind. I never did install the setup on a bird and put the method to the test, mostly because I thought that it was an invitation for more instances of clips popping out of the tail-piece (for some reason I have had more than my share of this, user-error...?). It is nice to hear that it has some real potential. I have experimented with using small electrical cable ties to render tail springs completely unable to accidentally pop out of the tail-piece. With the transmitter in the mount, the tie is slid down through the mount opening and between the springs of the clip, synched closed over the top of the tail-piece, and the excess snipped off. I suppose that if one is not adverse to leaving the transmitter on the bird when not being flown, or removing and replacing the ties and transmitter after and before each flight, this might be a fine, yet rudimentary way to curb the problems that Robert proposed.

I've also had thoughts of a more complex tail-piece that affixes to both decks, but incorporates a central "floating" section where the transmitter is clipped in. This would require some very fine tolerances, but with how little the decks really do spread just below the follicle, it might actually be possible. I have sketched it out but it's probably a little out there for most...

Regards,

Steve

[RLBagley]

Ray and Robert,

I've also had thoughts of a more complex tail-piece that affixes to both decks, but incorporates a central "floating" section where the transmitter is clipped in. This would require some very fine tolerances, but with how little the decks really do spread just below the follicle, it might actually be possible. I have sketched it out but it's probably a little out there for most...

Regards,

Steve

Let's see those sketches (as well as your proposal for Royalty payments).

Great ideas that come in from observant, thinking falconers can sometimes turn in to something great for us all.

RB

[schwartze]

Let's see those sketches (as well as your proposal for Royalty payments).

Great ideas that come in from observant, thinking falconers can sometimes turn in to something great for us all.

RB

Hi Robert,

I sent you an e-mail with a sketch, photo, and explanation.

Regards,

Steve

[falcon56]

Deluxe.

So, last question then: any pics? Images from the field that might show this?

Good to hear.
RB

Sorry, no pics, didn't think it was worth documenting via photos. Figured I couldn't have been the only one to try this.

[falcon56]

Ray and Robert,

I once fiddled around with some tail-pieces and transmitter springs with Ray's exact idea in mind. I never did install the setup on a bird and put the method to the test, mostly because I thought that it was an invitation for more instances of clips popping out of the tail-piece (for some reason I have had more than my share of this, user-error...?). It is nice to hear that it has some real potential. I have experimented with using small electrical cable ties to render tail springs completely unable to accidentally pop out of the tail-piece. With the transmitter in the mount, the tie is slid down through the mount opening and between the springs of the clip, synched closed over the top of the tail-piece, and the excess snipped off. I suppose that if one is not adverse to leaving the transmitter on the bird when not being flown, or removing and replacing the ties and transmitter after and before each flight, this might be a fine, yet rudimentary way to curb the problems that Robert proposed.

I've also had thoughts of a more complex tail-piece that affixes to both decks, but incorporates a central "floating" section where the transmitter is clipped in. This would require some very fine tolerances, but with how little the decks really do spread just below the follicle, it might actually be possible. I have sketched it out but it's probably a little out there for most...

Regards,

Steve
Steve,
Along this line, Richard Garcia gave me a little hint to keep the tail mounted transmitters from falling out-he fits a small wooden shim into the tail clip to act as a plug. Of course it has to be custom fit, but, as long as one doesn't lose it, it could be used over and over. Will try it this coming fall.

[falcon56]

OK, the Mounting Methods Section has been updated.

Notice text change under "Disadvantages" point number one . . . .

Tail Mounting

Overview

The current springmount used was designed by by two innovative Californians, and the tail mount method employs a small tailpiece permanently affixed to one of the deck feathers (which is a mental leap some still cannot make). The tail mount version of the transmitter has a spring with small hooks as part of its design, which is inserted into the tailpiece. It can be taken on and off with each flight, or if the transmitter has a magnetic tap on/tap off switch, it can be left on the bird, and removed only when it’s necessary to change the batteries. Nearly all falconers in the Gulf countries use tail mounts. With the advent of shorter antennas, flat transmitters, and improved installation tools and pieces, the tail-mount is being used by an increasing number of falconers in American and Europe as well.

Advantages of the Tail Mount:

1. Keeps feet unencumbered. Proponents like how this frees up the feet and stays safely out of the way when contact is made with quarry. With the feet properly tucked up, the bird is less likely to be harassed by another raptor. Having a single light weight transmitter on the tail seems to have little effect on a hunting falcon’s flight or maneuverability.
2. Better broadcast position. The transmitter is higher up and will always give a better signal when the bird is on the ground, since the transmitter antenna will be in a 45 degree position so that the signal is broadcast outward in a 360 degree radius.
3. Can be very easy to get on and off (with some birds). Assuming it’s acclimated to being touched at the base of the tail (a process similar to hood training), the bird will hold still while the tail mount is quickly installed before use. With the advent of the Tap On/Tap Off mag switch, a transmitter can now be left on the bird an activated just prior to the flight with no fuss or battle at all.
4. Aesthetically pleasing. When using any one of the new flat transmitter designs with short antennas, the tail mount is visually out of the way and much less noticeable.


Disadvantages and Risks:

1. A deck feather can be pulled out. While most accidents with this method occurred years ago when all transmitters had long antennas, it is still a risk today. Some people using 151MHz tail-mounts had an 18-inch long wire dangling from underneath the feather so antenna wrap was inevitable. But even with today’s short antennas, birds can still have a deck accidentally pulled out in a struggle with quarry as the transmitter is inadvertently pushed or pulled. And if there’s sufficient trauma to the follicle, the feather may never grow back. Sometimes, inserting a plug (the top part of the feather) back into the follicle allows it to properly heal and a new feather grows in during the molt. Some proponents still say, “better to lose just a feather than have a broken leg or neck injury.” One innovative idea originated by Ray Gliberston (MT) is to install a tail piece on each deck feather side-by-side to better distribute the weight of a 8-9 gram 1/3N sized transmitter by inserting one hook into each tail piece.
2. Some birds won’t tolerate them. Some birds never get used to the weight of something on the tail feather and will continue to preen at it, sometimes actually destroying the feather.
3. Can be difficult to use. Some birds don’t like to be touched in that spot, and it can be nearly impossible to get a transmitter on or off without casting the bird first. Getting a tail-mount on a touchy bird just before a flight can be aggravating, with both you and the bird now angry as the hood comes off.

That would be GILBERTSON.

[joturley]

I have routinely been using Marshall tail mounts, one on each deck, to hold the transmitter and the bell (RT & HH & Gos); this season, early on with minimal hunting, the RT broke a deck exactly below the mount; recently, with a very hard season in heavy cover, the gos did the same. Is this coincidence? poor mounting method? wrong size mount? The proper pliers were used. Until the feather stub molts, I won't know if a fractured shaft is involved because of a too-small mount - but I used either a medium or large . The transmitter was small and light - that was on the deck the gos broke; the bell was medium size that was on the deck the RT broke. Any thoughts, suggestions? /jo

[RLBagley]

That would be GILBERTSON.

OK, now fixed on line.

(Typing too fast with tiny font, apparently)

[RLBagley]

I have routinely been using Marshall tail mounts, one on each deck, to hold the transmitter and the bell (RT & HH & Gos); this season, early on with minimal hunting, the RT broke a deck exactly below the mount; recently, with a very hard season in heavy cover, the gos did the same. Is this coincidence? poor mounting method? wrong size mount? The proper pliers were used. Until the feather stub molts, I won't know if a fractured shaft is involved because of a too-small mount - but I used either a medium or large . The transmitter was small and light - that was on the deck the gos broke; the bell was medium size that was on the deck the RT broke. Any thoughts, suggestions? /jo

Sorry to hear this. Yes it'd be important to see the feather and be sure the right size tail piece was used and thus be sure the shaft was not somehow crushed.

Also, there's an immense amount of size change that occurs from the top of the feather down to where the webbing starts, and I always start lower where the aluminum piece can pop on most easily, then move it up carefully where it thickens to find the best spot for the crimp. But never too high.

The last goshawks I flew were as a teenager, before telemetry and bells were on the legs, so it'd be much better to hear from other shortwingers here on this Forum who have mounted up their birds with transmitter and bell in this way. We haven't had broken feathers in this way reported as a common thing however.

RB

Here's two pics sent in by Daryl Peterson of Malad Idaho last week, of a simple setup he's using on a recently trapped female gos, showing bell above and pointing up, transmitter behind and flat:

http://i883.photobucket.com/albums/ac34/RLBagley/Product%20Pics/IMG00115-20110225-1118.jpg


http://i883.photobucket.com/albums/ac34/RLBagley/Product%20Pics/IMG00116-20110225-1119.jpg

[joturley]

Thanks for the reply; re the photos of Daryl's gos & equip; my bell also serves as a tail saver anchor on the gos - and the deck seems to handle the weight no problem;
I place the mounts slightly staggered. Currently the broken deck stub still has the mount well secured with tranny attached. There's the risk it falls off and I lose it, so I think I should switch the equip, as a bell loss is no big deal - but, if I do that, will the stub w/bell be strong enough to anchor the tail guard? /jo

[jfseaman]

Thanks for the reply; re the photos of Daryl's gos & equip; my bell also serves as a tail saver anchor on the gos - and the deck seems to handle the weight no problem;
I place the mounts slightly staggered. Currently the broken deck stub still has the mount well secured with tranny attached. There's the risk it falls off and I lose it, so I think I should switch the equip, as a bell loss is no big deal - but, if I do that, will the stub w/bell be strong enough to anchor the tail guard? /jo
Hi Jo,

I've never had it happen and I had a RT that was very hard on his tail. In his second season he was half harris hawk. No problems with peregrines, hybrids, HH or the euro gos I do every year for my business partner.

I think if the mount has still not fallen off you didn't crush the shaft. Perhaps just bad luck this year.

That said, I do like the rounded edges (tumbled?) of the new manufacturing batch. I'll use up what I have when the birds molt and get a bunch more. crazyy

Bob,

Of the 12 or so I bought last year, I have 4 left so I'll probably order another 12 in July or August.:eek: