Cell phone data coverage airborne alternative to Starlink

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

With Starlink price hike for anything over 100MPH, and me being cheap, wondering if anyone experimenting with extending their cell data with something like a car booster and maybe external cell antenna. For most of my flying in my c172 heavy, I can most often get a decent cell signal near populated areas with just my phone hotspot to my iPad EFIS and foreflight….

the plane has a experimental EFIS box with but in GPS WAAS and ADSB-in receiver that pitot static connects to….I split the iPad screen so half is EFIS and other is foreflight moving map. The adsb gives me some wx and traffic and cell data hotspot from phone gives me the rest info needed for an easy flight. Maybe not as fast as starlink, but plenty good at 115kts, if I have cell data signal.

I see cars with external cell extender antennas, often those black bulbus looking things on a short mass, but also simple whip type with a slight coil. My rv has the bulbus type and it does make a difference in remote areas but there needs to be some weak signal to amplify and it’s not typically a huge improvement. Essentially, at least for my particular unit, it takes a weak signal and improves it maybe 20%-30%. But antenna is only about 10 ft AGL and cell band is about 1500 MHz that doesn’t much bounce off topography.

Anyone hear of installing a smaller extender and external antenna on the plane and trying it out…..hoping someone else Guinea pigged the idea already.

 

[rwellner98]

I haven't tried an extender, but I spent many hours over desolate areas last fall flying from Wisconsin to Nevada and back for HSF. I noticed that the ability to do messages on a consistent basis below 5k has vastly improved over the years. Not enough to use for anything beyond messaging though. That said, all the extenders that seem to actually do their job require aiming, which would be a non-starter for a plane. As you point out, the non-directional ones seem to offer little to no improvement.

 

[GoFly]

I think the issue is that cell towers broadcast horizontally and not too much vertically.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I think the issue is that cell towers broadcast horizontally and not too much vertically.

You are correct. If the sources I've looked at say slightly downward too.

But there is a difference between data, phone calls, and SMS for altitude to be relevant. I've heard my mobile phone ring at 7,000 AGL. (haven't answered). I have definitely been able to send and receive texts at that altitude.

 

[Dana]

At the altitudes I typically fly (1000-2000 AGL) cell service has been quite reliable (text and weather data in Avare).

Many portable hotspots have external antennas.

 

[Jim_R]

I see cars with external cell extender antennas, often those black bulbus looking things on a short mass, but also simple whip type with a slight coil.

Are you sure those are cell extenders? I think a lot of those--especially the "bulbous" ones that have been around since the 90s--are for satellite (Sirius/XM) radio.

 

[flyingron]

You are correct. If the sources I've looked at are right, slightly downward too.

But there is a difference between data, phone calls, and SMS for altitude to be relevant. I've heard my mobile phone ring at 7,000 AGL. (haven't answered). I have definitely been able to send and receive texts at that altitude.

At lower altitudes it works. I can usually tell I'm on approach because all of a sudden my backed up texts and emails start pinging in my phone.