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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios
On Apr 28, 7:44*pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
snip The issue in equipping gliders with transponders, the way I see it, is the high power consumption required by transponders. *Here's a typical glider transponder:http://www.airplanegear.com/becker.htm It seems to draw 175W to 250W. *That's not insignificant, and way more than the comm radio consumes. *Then there's the weight and antenna that reduce performance, not to mention the cost of the equipment, installation, and maintenance. You need to find the overall consumption, not what is used when it is squawking. As to weight - since we frequently put water in gliders to improve performance, I can't see a problem there, and the antenna will be inside the glider so won't increase drag. But you are right that buying and installing a transponder isn't a cheap thing. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios
"Cats" wrote in message
... On Apr 28, 7:44 pm, Larry Dighera wrote: snip The issue in equipping gliders with transponders, the way I see it, is the high power consumption required by transponders. Here's a typical glider transponder:http://www.airplanegear.com/becker.htm It seems to draw 175W to 250W. That's not insignificant, and way more than the comm radio consumes. Then there's the weight and antenna that reduce performance, not to mention the cost of the equipment, installation, and maintenance. You need to find the overall consumption, not what is used when it is squawking. As to weight - since we frequently put water in gliders to improve performance, I can't see a problem there, and the antenna will be inside the glider so won't increase drag. But you are right that buying and installing a transponder isn't a cheap thing. -------------new message begins------------- I 'm confident that the installation is the biggest part of it--especially when you include enough solar panels to power it all reliably. Peter |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 01:44:00 GMT, Eric Greenwell
wrote in A3vRj.3311$WS1.1091@trndny04: The biggest difference seems to be making that radio call to ATC. I presume the radio call to ATC is a position report, so that the controller knows where to look for your primary target. That seems like a natural programming application for computer detection of glider targets, which may do away with the necessity of a radio call to ATC (especially in the event of NORDO aircraft). If such a glider primary-target detection algorithm could be made to work reliably, it wouldn't cost too much to implement it, way less than the cost of equipping gliders with transponders, IMO. Someone posted a report of a study on radar reflection with and without a corner reflector that indicated there was little difference. That doesn't seem intuitive, but I suppose it depends on the distances involved and the metallic content. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios
On Apr 30, 4:29*am, Larry Dighera wrote:
Someone posted a report of a study on radar reflection with and without a corner reflector that indicated there was little difference. That doesn't seem intuitive, but I suppose it depends on the distances involved and the metallic content. * A good 1' boating radar reflector has a radar cross section of about 7m^2. If you compare this to the _visual_ cross section of a glider then in some directions it is larger and in others smaller. But this simple comparison ignores the transparency of fiber glass. I imagine that a major reflector in the glider is the pilot (say 1m^2) and electronics and about half a bucket of some bolts and hinges? I'd estimate that this all would add up to no more 3m^2 of cross section so adding just 1 radar reflector could triple the cross section -but I'd like to see so real measurements. Cheers |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios
On Apr 29, 2:53*pm, WingFlaps wrote:
On Apr 30, 4:29*am, Larry Dighera wrote: Someone posted a report of a study on radar reflection with and without a corner reflector that indicated there was little difference. That doesn't seem intuitive, but I suppose it depends on the distances involved and the metallic content. * A good 1' boating radar reflector has a radar cross section of about 7m^2. If you compare this to the _visual_ cross section of a glider then in some directions it is larger and in others smaller. But this simple comparison ignores the transparency of fiber glass. I imagine that a major reflector in the glider is the pilot (say 1m^2) and electronics and about half a bucket of some bolts and hinges? I'd estimate that this all would add up to no more 3m^2 of cross section so adding just 1 radar reflector could triple the cross section -but I'd like to see so real measurements. Cheers Once again - This has already been tested. ATC radars do not have any trouble detecting gliders of any kind as primary targets IF THEY ARE NOT FILTERED OUT. When reflectors were added, no difference was noticed by ATC. And from personal experience in G-102s, LS-4s, and LS-6s, I have never had any problem being picked up by a terminal radar when I told them where I was. Transponders are great, and if you can afford one and fly where it is useful, get one. Larry Dighera obviously hasn't been around a modern glass glider recently or he would understand that most have electrical systems and many have transponders. Many are now getting MRX TPAS to detect transponders - actually a better solution in most of the places gliders fly (particularly back East). The NTSB recommendation is just that - a recommendation. Sheesh, do some research! Kirk LS6b 66 TPAS, GPS, radio, moving map, ELT equipped; powered by 2 independent battery systems. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios
On Apr 29, 12:53 pm, WingFlaps wrote:
On Apr 30, 4:29 am, Larry Dighera wrote: Someone posted a report of a study on radar reflection with and without a corner reflector that indicated there was little difference. That doesn't seem intuitive, but I suppose it depends on the distances involved and the metallic content. A good 1' boating radar reflector has a radar cross section of about 7m^2. If you compare this to the _visual_ cross section of a glider then in some directions it is larger and in others smaller. But this simple comparison ignores the transparency of fiber glass. I imagine that a major reflector in the glider is the pilot (say 1m^2) and electronics and about half a bucket of some bolts and hinges? I'd estimate that this all would add up to no more 3m^2 of cross section so adding just 1 radar reflector could triple the cross section -but I'd like to see so real measurements. Cheers Although the actual x-section of the given reflecting materials may only add up to that amount as a static total, how it is arranged makes a huge difference just the as much as how although a composite glider is only a couple of bolts of glass cloth/and or some carbon/kevlar and a couple of buckets of resin and some hardware...but depending on how it's arranged makes the difference of whether it's an ASG-29 or if its an PW-2 Gappa (OK, not specifically, but I think the point is made...). Likewise, how these reflective materials are individually shaped as well as how they are arranged makes all the difference as to what the radar sees. Some would vary greatly from type to type, as some have vastly different materials/structures. Your cockpit rails and other angular objects in the cockpit (as well as the humy too I suppose) form lots of the signature, but having nuts/bolts/pushrods extending out 20'-50' off either side matters too. The F-117 illustrates this point nicely. BTW, even "stealth" aircraft are still technically visible to radar, it is just that their signature is usually reduced to the size of a pigeon or less making them much easier to mask. It is my understanding though, (as already mentioned) it is NOT out lack of a readable signature as a primary target (I'm not saying we have huge signatures, just that they are already readable for the most part, some better than others...), but our slow/erratic flying gets us weeded out of the picture the same way it filters out buildings and mountains. Again, this is from MY recollection from the Reno ATC rep while addressing this very subject last winter. Any PASCO folks that also attended care to elaborate?, did you film it Kemp? Whether ATC can theoretically come up with a better target tracking/filtration system should really be the question, but I think we ALL know that would be an answer we should not hold our breath for! Paul |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:15:46 -0700 (PDT), "kirk.stant"
wrote in : Larry Dighera obviously hasn't been around a modern glass glider recently or he would understand that most have electrical systems and many have transponders. As a percentage of the entire sailplane fleet, how many would you estimate are "modern glass gliders?" |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios
You can't put the antenna on the inside of a carbon fiber fuselage, well,
you could, but it would not work. Not all gliders have excess usable weight available to carry water. BT _____________ You need to find the overall consumption, not what is used when it is squawking. As to weight - since we frequently put water in gliders to improve performance, I can't see a problem there, and the antenna will be inside the glider so won't increase drag. But you are right that buying and installing a transponder isn't a cheap thing. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios
On Apr 30, 8:40*am, sisu1a wrote:
It is my understanding though, (as already mentioned) it is NOT out lack of a readable signature as a primary target (I'm not saying we have huge signatures, just that they are already readable for the most part, some better than others...), but our slow/erratic flying gets us weeded out of the picture the same way it filters out buildings and mountains. Again, this is from MY recollection from the Reno ATC rep while addressing this very subject last winter. As far as I know, fixed returns from stationary targets are removed by simple sweep differencing and thresholding. It may be that target doppler shift is used to selectr/reject moving targets so the issue would then be the threshold for that rejection. I read that an interceptor radar had a threshold of about 20 knots for this purpose but I can't find any statement (via google) as to what threshold ATC usually uses. Measurement of small doppler shift is aided by a strong signal, so weak slow targets would be doubly rejected so to speak. I doubt they see flocks of birds, but then they mostly fly at less than 30 knots I think (even the african swallow :-) so the could be set to 30knots without degrading system performance (maybe?). I suspect that if the "powers that be" want to see gliders for traffic avoidance and gliders don't want transponders it would be in their best interest to make sure they can be easily seen by passive means. Beaurocrats like being given options that are win win for both pasties If offering to mount a really cheap reflector inside the fuse could assure detectability, it could be a way to go forward (assuming gliders want $ savings from avoiding the purchase and regular testing of transponders)... Just trying to help, I'm not a regular glider pilot. Cheers |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios
"Peter Dohm" wrote I 'm confident that the installation is the biggest part of it--especially when you include enough solar panels to power it all reliably. Why solar cells? A 7 amp hour lead acid gel cell can be had for about 20 bucks, and would run a solid state transponder for a whole flight. -- Jim in NC |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 155 | May 10th 08 02:45 PM |
Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios | Larry Dighera | Soaring | 12 | May 1st 08 03:42 PM |
Gliders, transponders, and MOAs | Greg Arnold | Soaring | 2 | May 26th 06 05:13 PM |
Transponders and Radios - USA | Ray Lovinggood | Soaring | 1 | February 27th 04 06:10 PM |
Transponders, Radios and other avionics procurement questions | Corky Scott | Home Built | 5 | July 2nd 03 11:27 PM |