Field : Cl 
Field : Cl 
Configuration : ClIII 
s=l.32 cm (ks=1.48) 
1=4.54 cm (kl=5.09) 
Configuration : CW 
s= 1.32 cm (ks=1.48) 
1=4.54 cm (kl=5.09) 
1EM: CHH (Phi =0°) 
1EM: CHI! (Ptii =90°) 
A CHH (Measured) Phi = 20° 
A CHH (Measured) Phi = 70° 
Incidence Angle (deg) 
1 EM: CW (Phi =0°) 
IEM: CW (Phi =90°) 
A CW (Measured) Fhi = 20° 
A CW (Measured) Phi = 70° 
Incidence Angie (deg) 
figure 6 
- On smooth surface with a clear row structure (high value for L): flax field (F) 
For this case in April, only the relative radar calibration within 0.5 dB in the antenna lobe has been done. 
Therefore, we consider the angular variation of the radar cross section measured. 
In X band, the measured backscattering coefficient 0 ° vary slowlier with incidence. In simulation, cross 
section coefficient variation with incidence angle is high both in C and X band. For a variation of 
incidence angle of AG=30°, we have A0°=15dB variation with simulation, but only Aa°=9dB with 
measurements. 
This discrepancy between simulation and experimental measurement become more marked in C band, 
especially in HH configurations. Radar response remains flat 
These remarks remains valid for pea fields (PI, P2) on which the row structure is not marked. These 
fields are also smooth. 
Field : F 
Configuration : XHH 
s=0.84 cm (ks=1.70) 
1=4.94 cm (kl=9.98) 
IEM: XHH (Phi =0°) 
IEM: XHH (Phi =90°) 
A XHH (Measured) Phi=0° 
A XHH (Measured) Phi=90° 
Incidence Angle (deg) 
Field s F 
Configuration : XW 
8=0.84 cm (ks=1.70) 
1=4.94 cm (kl=9.98) 
IEM: XW (Phi =0°) 
IEM: XW (Phi =90°) 
A XW (M measured) Phi=0° 
A XW (Mnensured) Rii=90° 
Incidence Angle (deg)