Locating Transponder Antenna on top of the fuselage instead of under it.

On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 5:22:04 PM UTC-8, wrote:
I put mine on a turtle deck on my ASW 27 and it works fine no issues with anyone seeing me or even worrying about it I really like the fact that it's there and was really easy to install compared to down by the gear

Long ago someone (I believe from Arizona) posted here about doing some research by talking to folks very familiar with FAA radar design about putting the transponder antenna on top of the fuselage. The conclusion was that if very near and above the radar site, the signal *might* be blocked. Other than that, it should be fine. Since we do a lot of turning, the antennal will be blocked for times anyway.

One reason for a transponder is to be seen by large aircraft TCAS, it's more likely they will be descending on a collision course, so having the antenna on top is a better idea....

5Z

The Jonker website says that they are putting both the transponder antenna and the Flarm antenna in the vertical tail. Any reports on how that is working out?

On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 12:26:19 PM UTC-8, wrote:
The Jonker website says that they are putting both the transponder antenna and the Flarm antenna in the vertical tail. Any reports on how that is working out?

See above, I mentioned how that is working out.

5Z wrote on 12/29/2019 10:11 AM:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 5:22:04 PM UTC-8, wrote:
I put mine on a turtle deck on my ASW 27 and it works fine no issues with anyone seeing me or even worrying about it I really like the fact that it's there and was really easy to install compared to down by the gear

Long ago someone (I believe from Arizona) posted here about doing some research by talking to folks very familiar with FAA radar design about putting the transponder antenna on top of the fuselage. The conclusion was that if very near and above the radar site, the signal *might* be blocked. Other than that, it should be fine. Since we do a lot of turning, the antennal will be blocked for times anyway.

One reason for a transponder is to be seen by large aircraft TCAS, it's more likely they will be descending on a collision course, so having the antenna on top is a better idea....

Near airports, airliners are descending and ascending; in between they are above
18K. In our area, the C-17s cruise high and low; the low ones (2000' agl) are
never a problem, but the other ones do cross our normal altitudes at least twice
each flight. I'm skeptical that they are mostly descending, but I think their TCAS
can easily detect us when they get within a few miles, regardless of the
top/bottom location.


--
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

On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 10:11:09 AM UTC-8, 5Z wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 5:22:04 PM UTC-8, wrote:
I put mine on a turtle deck on my ASW 27 and it works fine no issues with anyone seeing me or even worrying about it I really like the fact that it's there and was really easy to install compared to down by the gear

Long ago someone (I believe from Arizona) posted here about doing some research by talking to folks very familiar with FAA radar design about putting the transponder antenna on top of the fuselage. The conclusion was that if very near and above the radar site, the signal *might* be blocked. Other than that, it should be fine. Since we do a lot of turning, the antennal will be blocked for times anyway.

Unfortunately "it's more complex" applies to lots of stuff with aircraft surveillance.Â*And I would hope any research folks did thought about some of the things I'll describe here.

My concern with upper surface antennas is more blanketing from the wing, and that includes to distant SSR sites. The fuselage directly blocking the antenna like when near/overhead an SSR is not the main concern I have because already the SSR likely can't see you.Â*(OK sure if the long length of the fuselage points directly at the antenna you might have an issue).

If you are very near, i.e. ~overhead a radar site you may well be in the "cone of silence" of both the primary radar and SSR and likely not seen regardless of transponder antenna location or orientation. SSR and primary radar have a fairly wide cone of silence/shallow viewing angle above the horizon.. Think things like an SSR sees things only below ~30 degrees above the horizontal around the antenna.

Transponder antennas also have a cone of silence pointing out the end of their antenna. Hopefully a bit narrower than the SSR cone.

An antenna mounted on an upper fuselage area on a glider might be helped by diffraction around the glider fuselage, and that weak diffracted part of the signal may be OK when closer to a SSR (or ADS-B ground site) but still within that say 30 degree angle above the horizon. As the transponder antenna looks out more towards a distant SSR antenna the angle shallows and hopefully seeing a bit better signal due to decreased angle, but you can have significant range loss, especially say if relying on a distant (up to ~200NM!) en-route SSR to fill in details). But it's complex and would need modeling to see what happens.

Ah the irony is that very local overhead performance to an SSR antenna may depends on other (possibly quite distant) SSR sites.... SSR cones of silence get somewhat addressed by integrating together data from overlapping radar systems.Â*That is what the FAA Fusion system does, and it also folds in ADS-B data. (And ADS-B ground stations themselves have similar cone of silence issues, and a similar solution of adjacent ground towers partially covering each other).Â*

Any analysis you would want to look at upper and lower antenna performance to local SSR interrogators at around that 30 degree angle, and at more distant SSR sites that are filling in the data for the cone of silence at shallower angle. And my concerns again are more things like wings obscuring line of site, and wanting to make sure that any ground plane and antenna installation is as good as posible to maximize signal quality to/from more distant SSR sites regardless of wether the antenna is top or bottom mounted.

And I sure appreciate Dan posting a followup link to that picture of the antenna stuck out the side of a fuselage. I had never seen that before, much worse than I had imagined, and I sure did not want to seem to be recommending it.. blanketed directly above by the wing, blanketed to the side by the fuselage and side/below by the gear when extended, and ~90 degree crossed signal polarization when the glider is banking left.Â*

One reason for a transponder is to be seen by large aircraft TCAS, it's more likely they will be descending on a collision course, so having the antenna on top is a better idea....

5Z

Like Eric I don't understand why TCAS threats are assumed to come from above. I would suspect an equal distribution, and threats are going to be approaching near the same altitude with a relatively shallow climb or descent angle. In a bad case TCAS IIÂ* is going to command an RA which could put you relatively close laterally but above or below the threat aircraft... and I would assume those RA directions are equally distributed as well. And you've already executed the RA command before the angle above/below the threat gets very steep. I think there are studies/modeling of aircraft showing TCAS performance with single antennas if I can find them I'll point them out (but the system exists as it does with all light aircraft largely having single lower antennas).

With it being hard to guess/know how well things are really working one thing I have thought would be neat is a transponder antenna performance test tool similar to FLARM range tool or OGN/KTrax used ground and/or airborne 1090 MHz/ADS-B receivers. (Mark Hawkins are you looking for a project? :-))

Well, Here is a picture of Schlicher's recommended location for the Antenna-same as Schempp Hirth-Above landing gear doors.
Interesting.

https://www.alexander-schleicher.de/...reinbau-27.pdf
Dan

On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 10:43:44 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Well, Here is a picture of Schlicher's recommended location for the Antenna-same as Schempp Hirth-Above landing gear doors.
Interesting.

https://www.alexander-schleicher.de/...reinbau-27.pdf
Dan

Dang. Well I don't like that either :-)

My ASH-26E has a more central transponder antenna location behind the gear (and offset to avoid the fuselage join seam and a fuel pump on one side) as can an ASH25 and some others, so I guess I've mostly noticed those. And ASH-30/31 etc. owners all seem to be ordering the tail mounted antenna (which is what I'd do on a new glider).

Again, if I was looking at your glider, based on gut feel (and some background in microwave engineering), I personally would install the upper antenna, I wonder if SH came out with that to improve on the lower location, or to make the install easier or both....

And since you asked about different style 1/4 wave dipoles. The rods, blades etc. should all behave the same from a RF viewpoint. They are effectively the same internally. Rods/single attach point style antennas may be easier to attach/mount on curved surfaces, but have higher drag than a blade if that small drag worries you. I've also seen A&Ps recommend the rod style so that if you do manage to crunch it will bend and hopefully do less damage to the fuselage/finish.

In the absence of antenna diversity, I'm pretty sure all general
aviation factory built aircraft have the transponder antenna on the
bottom of the aircraft.Â* I would think the manufacturers must know
something.

On 12/30/2019 12:13 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 10:43:44 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Well, Here is a picture of Schlicher's recommended location for the Antenna-same as Schempp Hirth-Above landing gear doors.
Interesting.

https://www.alexander-schleicher.de/...reinbau-27.pdf
Dan
Dang. Well I don't like that either :-)

My ASH-26E has a more central transponder antenna location behind the gear (and offset to avoid the fuselage join seam and a fuel pump on one side) as can an ASH25 and some others, so I guess I've mostly noticed those. And ASH-30/31 etc. owners all seem to be ordering the tail mounted antenna (which is what I'd do on a new glider).

Again, if I was looking at your glider, based on gut feel (and some background in microwave engineering), I personally would install the upper antenna, I wonder if SH came out with that to improve on the lower location, or to make the install easier or both....

And since you asked about different style 1/4 wave dipoles. The rods, blades etc. should all behave the same from a RF viewpoint. They are effectively the same internally. Rods/single attach point style antennas may be easier to attach/mount on curved surfaces, but have higher drag than a blade if that small drag worries you. I've also seen A&Ps recommend the rod style so that if you do manage to crunch it will bend and hopefully do less damage to the fuselage/finish.





--
Dan, 5J

On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 6:44:50 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
In the absence of antenna diversity, I'm pretty sure all general
aviation factory built aircraft have the transponder antenna on the
bottom of the aircraft.Â* I would think the manufacturers must know
something.

When transponders first came out, the only receiver/interrogator was ground based. So anything certificated prior to TCAS, would definitely have the antenna on the bottom.
Then TCAS came along, and now ADS-B. These will interrogate/receive from any direction. So to be visible from any direction, one should probably have an antenna on top as well as bottom... And satellite based ADS-B likely demands it.
I'm sure Darryl has all the gory technical details :-) But my guess is that unless told otherwise, and considering cost of certification, etc., putting the antenna "where it's always been" is why it's on the bottom. :-)

5Z

O
And since you asked about different style 1/4 wave dipoles. The rods, blades etc. should all behave the same from a RF viewpoint. They are effectively the same internally. Rods/single attach point style antennas may be easier to attach/mount on curved surfaces, but have higher drag than a blade if that small drag worries you. I've also seen A&Ps recommend the rod style so that if you do manage to crunch it will bend and hopefully do less damage to the fuselage/finish.

Transponder rod antennas spec drag at .41 lbs at 250 MPH and blade antennas at .09 lbs at 250 MPH. That seems to be a big difference but anyone have a comment to what this measures in the gliding world?