Posts: 98 Threads: 7 Likes Received: 50 in 31 posts Likes Given: 224 Joined: Jan 2016 Reputation: 3 Hello Guys. I'm rebuilding my 250 quad, putting FPV into it. And so I'm finding a place for a receiver. The best place which I found now is on the bottom plate at the back. However, this will cause antennas to be inside the frame. This is receiver that I'm using - it have short antennas. So overally it will be placed like this: I know that carbon frame will interfere with the radio signal, but how seriously? The spec on the receiver and transmitter says that there 2km range, so I'm assuming that even with this antennas placement I'll get at least 300 m of good signal (which is ok for my flying)? What do you think? Will I get about 300m? Should I find other place for receiver? The problem I see is that independenly on where I place receiver, there will be angles on which antennas will be at least partly blocked by frame plates. • Posts: 918 Threads: 83 Likes Received: 533 in 271 posts Likes Given: 498 Joined: Jan 2016 Reputation: 30 05-Apr-2016, 11:14 AM (This post was last modified: 05-Apr-2016, 11:23 AM by BigglesFPV.) The RX weblink says "Expected Range: 400m (tested with JR DSX9)". If anything I would be trying to point the antenna down not up, as inside the frame you will have a lot of carbon all around them. By pointing them down you have a much better chance of having them in LOS to the TX, as for the most part the bottom of the quad is pointing down, that of course is not going to be so helpful if you are like me and like flying very low a lot of the time. I guess you can always try different spots on and in the quad to see what works best for you. I would make sure you have failsafe enabled to drop the quad on signal loss, as I believe you have a very good chance of a failsafe occurring, or , of course nothing bad will happen at all. • Posts: 98 Threads: 7 Likes Received: 50 in 31 posts Likes Given: 224 Joined: Jan 2016 Reputation: 3 (05-Apr-2016, 11:14 AM)BigglesFPV Wrote: The RX weblink says "Expected Range: 400m (tested with JR DSX9)". You are right. It seems I confused it with other spec. (05-Apr-2016, 11:14 AM)BigglesFPV Wrote: If anything I would be trying to point the antenna down not up, as inside the frame you will have a lot of carbon all around them. I'm not using the feet of the frame, so is is ground actually what is under the frame. I can swap video transmitter which is on bottom of top plate with the receiver. In this case I'll be able to partly move antennas up thru the holes in frame. But in this case will it be ok that antennas are partly covered? What will be your recommendation? Should I try to run it with antennas in the frame and fix in case if there is problem? Or chance of problem is too high? Thanks for helping! • Posts: 918 Threads: 83 Likes Received: 533 in 271 posts Likes Given: 498 Joined: Jan 2016 Reputation: 30 05-Apr-2016, 11:55 AM (This post was last modified: 05-Apr-2016, 11:56 AM by BigglesFPV.) My advice would be to bite the bullet and just try out different locations on the quad, always trying to keep the antenna off the frame, The area you have marked on your latest pic could be a winner, but will hinder HD cam placement. Honestly, best way to know what works is just to try. But like I said, make sure you have failsafe working to Drop the quad on signal loss. Other alternative of course if to get a different RX with longer antenna leads that will allow you more flexibility in antenna placement. • Posts: 98 Threads: 7 Likes Received: 50 in 31 posts Likes Given: 224 Joined: Jan 2016 Reputation: 3 05-Apr-2016, 12:17 PM (This post was last modified: 05-Apr-2016, 12:19 PM by E.L.K..) (05-Apr-2016, 11:55 AM)BigglesFPV Wrote: My advice would be to bite the bullet and just try out different locations on the quad, always trying to keep the antenna off the frame, The area you have marked on your latest pic could be a winner, but will hinder HD cam placement. Hd cam will be placed on other side of frame, so antennas will hinder battery placement, not camera. I hope I'll fit it all. Need to check. (05-Apr-2016, 11:55 AM)BigglesFPV Wrote: Honestly, best way to know what works is just to try. That's pretty true, but it always worth to try go get other's wisdom ((: (05-Apr-2016, 11:55 AM)BigglesFPV Wrote: But like I said, make sure you have failsafe working to Drop the quad on signal loss. Yes, I set it up of course as fast as got receiver with failsafe support. Before that I flew only in closed spaces. (: (05-Apr-2016, 11:55 AM)BigglesFPV Wrote: Other alternative of course if to get a different RX with longer antenna leads that will allow you more flexibility in antenna placement. Yes, that something I should do at first place. But wanted to get cheaper option - budget. So now working with what is on my hands. ((: Anyway, thanks for your input, it's very valuable. • Posts: 5,323 Threads: 674 Likes Received: 3,159 in 1,747 posts Likes Given: 2,032 Joined: Jan 2016 Reputation: 139 Mount the RX on the top plate of space is an issue, secure with zip tie ... As for antenna google the RX antenna zip tie hack • Posts: 98 Threads: 7 Likes Received: 50 in 31 posts Likes Given: 224 Joined: Jan 2016 Reputation: 3 (05-Apr-2016, 12:23 PM)Oscar Wrote: Mount the RX on the top plate of space is an issue, secure with zip tie ... As for antenna google the RX antenna zip tie hack Yeah, I saw this in your blog (: I'll try. Thanks. • Posts: 98 Threads: 7 Likes Received: 50 in 31 posts Likes Given: 224 Joined: Jan 2016 Reputation: 3 So, I ended up with such config: The receiver itself is under the plate, with antennas put thru the top plate to the top. In this configuration I'm getting something like 70-100 meters radius. I'm planning to try to move receiver to the top of the top plate to make antennas completely be on the one side of plate to see if it will somewhy significantly influence radius. Will report back later about it. • Posts: 119 Threads: 9 Likes Received: 9 in 4 posts Likes Given: 0 Joined: Mar 2016 Reputation: 2 Only issue you might have there is in a crash you lipo could damage or even sheer off the antennas. And you want your antennas at 90° to give better signal I think. • Posts: 2,286 Threads: 38 Likes Received: 1,527 in 995 posts Likes Given: 1,881 Joined: Apr 2016 Reputation: 72 The antennas on this type of receiver should be in a straight line as one is the antenna and the other is the ground plane. If you can work out a way of mounting it so that you can do that, you should get much better range. • Posts: 98 Threads: 7 Likes Received: 50 in 31 posts Likes Given: 224 Joined: Jan 2016 Reputation: 3 (07-May-2016, 09:35 PM)unseen Wrote: The antennas on this type of receiver should be in a straight line as one is the antenna and the other is the ground plane. If you can work out a way of mounting it so that you can do that, you should get much better range. Just to be sure, do you mean to arrange antennas in this way: ? • Posts: 146 Threads: 10 Likes Received: 37 in 24 posts Likes Given: 15 Joined: Apr 2016 Reputation: 4 (11-May-2016, 07:17 AM)E.L.K. Wrote: Just to be sure, do you mean to arrange antennas in this way: ? 90 from each other like a V. But what I've been finding after flying unaware of a broken antenna it probably doesn't make much difference. But if your trying to maximize then make sure their 90 deg. • |