A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Drag of Transponder Antennae compared



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 10th 21, 11:47 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bob Hills
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Drag of Transponder Antennae compared

Thinking totally outside the box here and open to ridicule :).....

Blade antennas are similar in shape and size to a winglet. Why not incorporate the antenna in that? I know it would mean an electrical connection from tip to fuselage but that is not insurmountable.

Just a thought for someone to expound upon.

Bob 7U
  #12  
Old February 11th 21, 04:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Drag of Transponder Antennae compared

On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 5:47:39 PM UTC-5, Bob Hills wrote:
Thinking totally outside the box here and open to ridicule :).....

Blade antennas are similar in shape and size to a winglet. Why not incorporate the antenna in that? I know it would mean an electrical connection from tip to fuselage but that is not insurmountable.

Just a thought for someone to expound upon.

Bob 7U

I still say on many performance threads on RAS...the nut behind the stick is worth more than the money spent on the ship....unless normally at the top of the sheet....
  #13  
Old February 11th 21, 06:10 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Kenn Sebesta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Drag of Transponder Antennae compared

On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 5:47:39 PM UTC-5, Bob Hills wrote:
Thinking totally outside the box here and open to ridicule :).....

Blade antennas are similar in shape and size to a winglet. Why not incorporate the antenna in that? I know it would mean an electrical connection from tip to fuselage but that is not insurmountable.

Just a thought for someone to expound upon.

Bob 7U


I think you could do that, but there are a couple challenges

1. RF cable is heavy and significantly affects the signal. On sailboats, it's suspected that a stern-rail mounted VHF radio antenna actually performs better than a masthead mounted antenna. So sending it 5-10m to the wingtip instead of keeping it close to the TX unit could noticeably decrease range.
2. Even when in perfect shape, RF connectors are a big source of energy loss, which further reduces range.
3. The connector would have to be properly connected/disconnected every time the plane is pulled out of its trailer. A powerful RF transmitter which is disconnected from an antenna can actually destroy itself, so the consequences of a forgotten connection are not necessarily limited to only being invisible that day.
  #14  
Old February 11th 21, 02:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
andy l
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 64
Default Drag of Transponder Antennae compared

On Thursday, 11 February 2021 at 05:10:10 UTC, Kenn Sebesta wrote:
On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 5:47:39 PM UTC-5, Bob Hills wrote:
Thinking totally outside the box here and open to ridicule :).....

Blade antennas are similar in shape and size to a winglet. Why not incorporate the antenna in that? I know it would mean an electrical connection from tip to fuselage but that is not insurmountable.

Just a thought for someone to expound upon.

Bob 7U

I think you could do that, but there are a couple challenges

1. RF cable is heavy and significantly affects the signal. On sailboats, it's suspected that a stern-rail mounted VHF radio antenna actually performs better than a masthead mounted antenna. So sending it 5-10m to the wingtip instead of keeping it close to the TX unit could noticeably decrease range.
2. Even when in perfect shape, RF connectors are a big source of energy loss, which further reduces range.
3. The connector would have to be properly connected/disconnected every time the plane is pulled out of its trailer. A powerful RF transmitter which is disconnected from an antenna can actually destroy itself, so the consequences of a forgotten connection are not necessarily limited to only being invisible that day.


Cable losses per metre are greater with higher frequency. This is why systems such as satellite TV and even some terrestrial TV installations convert to a lower frequency before the downlead.

Transponders are working at UHF, and hence a short antenna cable distance is desirable, and the unit may be remote mounted in the centre section rather than in or behind the instrument panel.

Winglets are probably made of carbon fibre, so the antenna would be screened and not work inside.

I'll consider putting the transponder antenna inside a glass fuselage, and wonder how far from spaceframe and control rods/cables is desirable or feasible. Might need some contortionism to fit it. Might end up outside anyway.

  #15  
Old February 11th 21, 02:19 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default Drag of Transponder Antennae compared

Kenn Sebesta wrote on 2/10/2021 9:10 PM:
On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 5:47:39 PM UTC-5, Bob Hills wrote:
Thinking totally outside the box here and open to ridicule :).....

Blade antennas are similar in shape and size to a winglet. Why not incorporate the antenna in that? I know it would mean an electrical connection from tip to fuselage but that is not insurmountable.

Just a thought for someone to expound upon.

Bob 7U


I think you could do that, but there are a couple challenges

1. RF cable is heavy and significantly affects the signal. On sailboats, it's suspected that a stern-rail mounted VHF radio antenna actually performs better than a masthead mounted antenna. So sending it 5-10m to the wingtip instead of keeping it close to the TX unit could noticeably decrease range.
2. Even when in perfect shape, RF connectors are a big source of energy loss, which further reduces range.
3. The connector would have to be properly connected/disconnected every time the plane is pulled out of its trailer. A powerful RF transmitter which is disconnected from an antenna can actually destroy itself, so the consequences of a forgotten connection are not necessarily limited to only being invisible that day.

A better location would be in the fin, and I think some manufacturers offer that location. The
cable would shorter than going to a winglet (about 22' vs 30'); it could be even shorter (15')
if the transponder box (eg, a Trig unit) was mounted behind the gear instead in the instrument
panel. The fin could not be made of carbon, of course.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
  #16  
Old February 11th 21, 03:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default Drag of Transponder Antennae compared

Eric Greenwell wrote on 2/11/2021 5:19 AM:
Kenn Sebesta wrote on 2/10/2021 9:10 PM:
On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 5:47:39 PM UTC-5, Bob Hills wrote:
Thinking totally outside the box here and open to ridicule :).....

Blade antennas are similar in shape and size to a winglet. Why not incorporate the antenna
in that? I know it would mean an electrical connection from tip to fuselage but that is not
insurmountable.

Just a thought for someone to expound upon.

Bob 7U


I think you could do that, but there are a couple challenges

1. RF cable is heavy and significantly affects the signal. On sailboats, it's suspected that
a stern-rail mounted VHF radio antenna actually performs better than a masthead mounted
antenna. So sending it 5-10m to the wingtip instead of keeping it close to the TX unit could
noticeably decrease range.
2. Even when in perfect shape, RF connectors are a big source of energy loss, which further
reduces range.
3. The connector would have to be properly connected/disconnected every time the plane is
pulled out of its trailer. A powerful RF transmitter which is disconnected from an antenna
can actually destroy itself, so the consequences of a forgotten connection are not
necessarily limited to only being invisible that day.

A better location would be in the fin, and I think some manufacturers offer that location. The
cable would shorter than going to a winglet (about 22' vs 30'); it could be even shorter (15')
if the transponder box (eg, a Trig unit) was mounted behind the gear instead in the instrument
panel. The fin could not be made of carbon, of course.

Note: my length values are for a 15M glider. The winglet location would be even worse for 18M
and larger gliders.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
  #17  
Old February 11th 21, 03:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default Drag of Transponder Antennae compared

Still thinking inside the box. There is no reason why the TX unit needs to be in the cockpit. It could easily be mounted in the fin with a remote head in the cockpit.
  #18  
Old February 11th 21, 05:43 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default Drag of Transponder Antennae compared

wrote on 2/11/2021 6:49 AM:
Still thinking inside the box. There is no reason why the TX unit needs to be in the cockpit. It could easily be mounted in the fin with a remote head in the cockpit.

You'd avoid a long RF cable, but would have run 12VDC power and the communication cable to it,
plus provide the access to remove it for repairs. I think mounting the box behind the gear
well, and running 15' of coax to it is easier and work just as well. 15' is not far with good
quality coax.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
  #19  
Old February 11th 21, 07:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Hank Nixon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Drag of Transponder Antennae compared

On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 11:43:16 AM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
wrote on 2/11/2021 6:49 AM:
Still thinking inside the box. There is no reason why the TX unit needs to be in the cockpit. It could easily be mounted in the fin with a remote head in the cockpit.

You'd avoid a long RF cable, but would have run 12VDC power and the communication cable to it,
plus provide the access to remove it for repairs. I think mounting the box behind the gear
well, and running 15' of coax to it is easier and work just as well. 15' is not far with good
quality coax.
--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1


These comments appear to be by people that have never had to work in the the rear of a fuselage or in the fin.
Mounting a thin antenna, without the little ball as far back as can be reached from the front area is a practical trade off. Slightly behind the gear and up the side a bit helps access and lets the gear doors protect the antenna. A simple wrapped fairing would be a clever small improvement. This far back the boundary layer is pretty thick so drag is likely minimal.
As far as drag reduction, sealing the canopy well would yield a far greater return on time invested.
BTDT
UH
  #20  
Old February 11th 21, 08:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default Drag of Transponder Antennae compared

Hank Nixon wrote on 2/11/2021 10:52 AM:
These comments appear to be by people that have never had to work in the the rear of a fuselage or in the fin.


My original comment was I would not personally mount the antenna in the fin, but I would select
that as an option when buying a new glider :^)

It was hard enough getting the coax from the panel to just behind the gear...

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Antennae John McCullagh[_2_] Soaring 34 July 23rd 19 08:50 PM
VOR Antennae Installation guynoir Home Built 1 November 8th 06 04:37 AM
Which antennae please? Robert Loer Home Built 1 October 27th 04 11:55 PM
Drag - Anti/Drag Wires log Home Built 3 August 28th 03 07:06 AM
Drag of LS3 compared LS3a. Peter Warburton Soaring 0 August 18th 03 06:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.