Transponders

"Mil80C" wrote in message ...
A question to you fine soaring fraternity, what would your response be to
someone who suggested that it might be feasable to run a transponder in a
glider with a pedal generator?

That's a brilliant idea.

Here's an even better one: power the transponder with a little
hamster running in a wheel connected to a generator.

Why not equip the glider with a second hamster to power a boundary
layer suction device, or perhaps an external propeller?

Why not equip the glider with a second hamster to power a boundary
layer suction device, or perhaps an external propeller?

would it then be a glider?

I wonder how much drag a RAT would create.. power all the stuff on a Ram Air
Turbine generator...

LOL

BT

I know some pilots who would be good at it. Just connect it to their rudder
pedals!

"Mil80C" wrote in message
...
A question to you fine soaring fraternity, what would your response be to
someone who suggested that it might be feasable to run a transponder in a
glider with a pedal generator?

--
BEER! So much more than just a breakfast drink!

Hmmm...I wonder how big solar panels would need to be to generate
the needed power. The wings have a lot of area...

They make some very thin panels, but incorporating them into the
body might be quite tricky.

How about one on the dash, or right above the pilot's
bald spot? Could give some shade too!

On 04/01/21 07:45, in article
, "Mil80C"
wrote:

A question to you fine soaring fraternity, what would your response be to
someone who suggested that it might be feasable to run a transponder in a
glider with a pedal generator?

I'd say he's noticed my rudder coordination efforts.


-------
Jack
-------

I have two batteries and have flown for many hours
on transponder - no problem. The drain is higher if
you use mode C (height encoding) but still no problem.




At 05:42 22 January 2004, Ch wrote:
and how long does the battery last?
with the transponder on?

Australia decided, that planes without a permanent
source
of power on board, do not need transponders in mixed
airspace.

I would prefer, that IFR traffic out of airport airspace
should
fly higher than the convection height from sunrise
to sunset :-)
How's that??
Chris


'Ben Flewett' wrote in message
...
Are you on drugs? This is a bad idea for so, so many
reasons. Here are a few...

1. I don't want to pedal.
2. My feet are busy operating the rudder.
3. My cockpit is a constant state of crisis, which
allows no time for pedalling.
4. I sometimes fly in airspace for hours at a time.
I resent have to move the stick for hours at a time,
let alone having to pedal for hours at a time.
5. Weight.
6. Complexity.
7. I like a simple life.
8. I don't want a bearded sandal wearer installing
weird science contraptions in my glider.

Here's an idea. Why not use a battery?


At 15:00 21 January 2004, Vaughn Simon wrote:

'Mil80C' wrote in message
...
A question to you fine soaring fraternity, what would
your response be to
someone who suggested that it might be feasable to
run a transponder in a
glider with a pedal generator?

A raised eyebrow, a polite silence, a glance
at
my wris****ch, followed
by a graceful withdrawal.

Vaughn



--
BEER! So much more than just a breakfast drink!

Mil80c , another point you need to be
aware of;

Many gliders, e.g. mine (a Ka6E), have neither panel space for a
transponder nor capability of carrying any more weight for the extra
batteries - I am already on max AUW, on a CofA which has already been
extended as far as it can be - I am 208 pounds with a parachute, and
there are plenty of heavier pilots than that.

If a new generation of lightweight, low power transponders emerges (the
UK CAA has persuaded one manufacturer to build a prototype which tested
OK), and if ICAO accept 20 w output instead of 100+, and if the thing is
taken to commercial production, and if it can come with an option of a
small remote control panel I could strap to my knee, with the larger
piece and battery going into the stowage behind the pilot's seat, and if
I can lose enought weight to compensate for it, then it might be viable.

I'm not holding my breath while we wait for all that to happen.

Regards - Chris N.

Chris Nicholas wrote:

Mil80c , another point you need to be
aware of;

Many gliders, e.g. mine (a Ka6E), have neither panel space for a
transponder nor capability of carrying any more weight for the extra
batteries - I am already on max AUW, on a CofA which has already been
extended as far as it can be - I am 208 pounds with a parachute, and
there are plenty of heavier pilots than that.

If a new generation of lightweight, low power transponders emerges (the
UK CAA has persuaded one manufacturer to build a prototype which tested
OK), and if ICAO accept 20 w output instead of 100+, and if the thing is
taken to commercial production, and if it can come with an option of a
small remote control panel I could strap to my knee, with the larger
piece and battery going into the stowage behind the pilot's seat, and if
I can lose enought weight to compensate for it, then it might be viable.

I'm not holding my breath while we wait for all that to happen.

Regards - Chris N.

An experiment in the french Alps made with a group of tow planes
mimicking glider flight, i.e. circling together from time to time has
shown that transponders, except in mode S, may not be very useful in
gliders. As soon as 2 or more gliders are close together, e.g. circling
in the same thermal of working together the same ridge, they are hit
simultaneaously by the radar beam and generate simultaneaously their
responses, which results in both interfering and nothing useful
received at ATC. I had the chance of having one of the engineers
involved in the experiment as a passenger last September and he confirmed
this. In mode S, as each transponder is specifically adressable,
this mess will probably not occur, a new experiment using them is
planned.

Robert Ehrlich wrote:
An experiment in the french Alps made with a group of tow planes
mimicking glider flight, i.e. circling together from time to time has
shown that transponders, except in mode S, may not be very useful in
gliders. As soon as 2 or more gliders are close together, e.g. circling
in the same thermal of working together the same ridge, they are hit
simultaneaously by the radar beam and generate simultaneaously their
responses, which results in both interfering and nothing useful
received at ATC. I had the chance of having one of the engineers
involved in the experiment as a passenger last September and he confirmed
this. In mode S, as each transponder is specifically adressable,
this mess will probably not occur, a new experiment using them is
planned.

This study is sometimes cited as an excuse to put off installation of
transponders until inexpensive mode S transponders are available. My
take on it is that it addressed a fairly narrow concern, the possible
inability of ATC to properly discern a group of thermalling mode C
equipped gliders. It did not examine whether airborne collision
avoidance systems would continue to provide warnings when confronted by
such situations.

The times when I've been surprised by the close approach of larger
aircraft have been while cruising between thermals, when I'm generally
alone or at a fair distance from other gliders. While thermalling, I
have a view of pretty much the entire sky, and I have a much better
chance of seeing approaching traffic in plenty of time to avoid it.

Marc

Marc Ramsey wrote:
Robert Ehrlich wrote:

An experiment in the french Alps made with a group of tow planes
mimicking glider flight, i.e. circling together from time to time has
shown that transponders, except in mode S, may not be very useful in
gliders. As soon as 2 or more gliders are close together, e.g. circling
in the same thermal of working together the same ridge, they are hit
simultaneaously by the radar beam and generate simultaneaously their
responses, which results in both interfering and nothing useful
received at ATC. I had the chance of having one of the engineers
involved in the experiment as a passenger last September and he confirmed
this. In mode S, as each transponder is specifically adressable,
this mess will probably not occur, a new experiment using them is
planned.


This study is sometimes cited as an excuse to put off installation of
transponders until inexpensive mode S transponders are available. My
take on it is that it addressed a fairly narrow concern, the possible
inability of ATC to properly discern a group of thermalling mode C
equipped gliders. It did not examine whether airborne collision
avoidance systems would continue to provide warnings when confronted by
such situations.

Surely this situation occurs at Minden regularly. Does Reno ATC have
trouble "losing" gliders when they thermal together? Or are they still
aware that something is located there, even if Mode C info is lost? And
even if it is a problem, doesn't ATC still much prefer gliders to have a
transponder than not?

I'd expect at least ONE good signal to be received every 5-15 seconds,
as the gliders' positions change and one antenna is in a much better
position the other ones.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA