![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Has anyone had experience with installing a transponder antenna on the top
of their glider? With as little level flight that we do and with most threats that have TCAS coming from above it would seem logical that having it on top would not be a detriment to the functionality of the instrument. We have a carbon fiber fuselage (Nimbus 3D) which would prevent penetration to any receivers directly below the aircraft. Casey Lenox KC Phoenix |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Kilo Charlie wrote:
Has anyone had experience with installing a transponder antenna on the top of their glider? Several people - Tom Knauff did it that way on his Duo Discus - I can't remember the others. Also, a few have installed them on top of the instrument panel, not quite the same thing, but similar. With as little level flight that we do and with most threats that have TCAS coming from above it would seem logical that having it on top would not be a detriment to the functionality of the instrument. I've wondered about this, and decided just as many must come from the bottom. They have to take off from somewhere and climb up to be above you! I suppose if you only fly where airliners are descending, putting it on top might possibly be an advantage. I doubt that it's really helpful, since the big majority of transponder antennas on GA aircraft are mounted on the bottom of the airplane. The main (only?) reason given for the bottom mount is a better signal to ATC, which uses ground based radars. I'm guessing, but maybe your antenna location isn't important to a TCAS equipped airplane, since it has to be close (within a few miles of you) before it needs to receive your signal, and this close distance could easily make up for a poor location. We have a carbon fiber fuselage (Nimbus 3D) which would prevent penetration to any receivers directly below the aircraft. THat may be acceptable, since those aircraft aren't the ones that will hit you: it's ones at angles from slightly above (and descending) or below (and ascending) you that could potentially hit you, and those shallow angles ought to put your antenna in sight. I've not seen any studies about this, just the usual recommendation to put the antenna on the bottom. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks for the response Eric and to those that have written my privately.
It is good info. One pilot at Warner Springs has his antenna on the top and has said that ATC and the airlines have painted him without problems. It has been my experience that by flying outside the Mode C veil that we generally are encountering departing aircraft below them since by 30 miles out they have climbed to a fairly high altitude. Certainly not always true but usually the case. The other part of my logic is this and may be more specific to our local environment.....As we leave the area we are circling to gain altitude to get over the mountains to the north so with eyes outside and circling often see the departing flights from Sky Harbor and radio the other folks about them. The main worry for me are those long flat final glides from north to south starting at 17,999 feet and 100 miles out....I can't even see the guys that I know are half a mile in front of me so there is no way some 37 crew on approach is going to see me on a final glide. I don't wish to end up with a 37 enema. But on a more serious note if it did happen you can bet that it would change the face of glider flying overnight esp if it took down bunch of passengers along with it. This is why I have been less interested in requiring the ELT systems and more interested in figuring out a way to equip all of us with transponders at cheaper than now available prices. Both would be a good thing but the latter has the potential to impact far more folks.....excuse the pun. Thanks again! Casey |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Since the aircraft that hits you must be close, the placement of the antenna
for TCAS may not make a lot of difference. Signal level decreases with the square of the distance, so even attenuated by "poor" antenna placement, it will provide a sufficient signal for a close range aircraft. I have not played with carbon fiber as a reflecting plane, but since the fuselage is round, I doubt whether the signal level on the opposite side of the fuselage (the front to back ratio) would be more than 15-20 db. This means that the signal level would be quite adequate no matter where the attacking aircraft is located. Assuming the antenna was placed on the bottom of the carbon fiber and the blind spot was on the top, it would be a very narrow "cone" directly above the aircraft - if carbon fiber is totally rf opaque. That is not likely because the round fuselage is not a flat plane. But, even if there is a null cone, it would not matter, because it would only be 15 - 20 db and the attacking aircraft would have to be attacking at a high rate (going straight down) to be a problem. Since high speed aircraft must necessarily arrive from a point somewhere other than directly overhead, any shielding would be irrelevant. Sorry for the long explanation, I was just thinking out loud. My conclusion is that for the purpose intended, it does not matter where you place it. I have a mode C transponder and a "traffic watch" receiver. Colin N12HS --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 10/25/04 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Kilo Charlie wrote:
The main worry for me are those long flat final glides from north to south starting at 17,999 feet and 100 miles out....I can't even see the guys that I know are half a mile in front of me so there is no way some 37 crew on approach is going to see me on a final glide. I don't wish to end up with a 37 enema. But on a more serious note if it did happen you can bet that it would change the face of glider flying overnight esp if it took down bunch of passengers along with it. This is why I have been less interested in requiring the ELT systems and more interested in figuring out a way to equip all of us with transponders at cheaper than now available prices. I don't see any hope for cheaper transponders until the dollar gets a lot stronger against the Euro (Becker, Filser) or the Australian dollar (Microair), or China decides airplane owners have more bucks than Wal-Mart or even Harbor Freight. Another approach to the problem are the "TPAS" units that detect transponders, such as sold by Proxalert, Monroy, and Surecheck. It's a different solution, cheaper, but relies on the glider pilot to make the evasive maneuvers. Four of us are presenting these options and others at the SSA convention, and we plan to make the presentations available on the web somewhere, for those that don't get to the convention. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
If you want a reliable system there is a new system on the market by
the inventor's of TPAS called a TS Micro. http://www.surecheckaviation.com/avionics/micro.html it is under $300 and does the trick in my opinion. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Operation without a transponder | flyer | Piloting | 11 | September 14th 04 08:48 AM |
Transponder test after static system opened? | Jack I | Owning | 6 | March 14th 04 03:09 PM |
Fixing the Transponder with Duct Tape and Aluminum Foil | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 45 | March 14th 04 12:18 AM |
Transponder petition | Ian Cant | Soaring | 11 | February 28th 04 06:38 AM |
More on transponder petition | Ian Cant | Soaring | 1 | February 27th 04 06:37 PM |