2.4 Gig Antenna???

[Cobra1]

I know there is probably a reason but why do the 2.4 gig antennas have to be so short? Are they 1/4 wave? If so, could they be made to a full wave length and work appropriately? It just seems to me that when landing - the motor, ignition module, throttle servo, etc could be it he line of site from the xmitter to the receiver antennas. If they could be made longer then this situation could be mitigated. We all are used to dealing with a 36" 72 mhz antenna so I for one would have no problem with a longer 2.4 gig antenna. Comments, thoughts??

[Spaz]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Cobra1
	I know there is probably a reason but why do the 2.4 gig antennas have to be so short? Are they 1/4 wave? If so, could they be made to a full wave length and work appropriately? It just seems to me that when landing - the motor, ignition module, throttle servo, etc could be it he line of site from the xmitter to the receiver antennas. If they could be made longer then this situation could be mitigated. We all are used to dealing with a 36" 72 mhz antenna so I for one would have no problem with a longer 2.4 gig antenna. Comments, thoughts??

they are 1/4 wave just like your ol 72Mhz.. range with 1/4wave turns out to be ~5 miles line of site ("they" say), a 1/2 wave ant might be better in good enviroments but it would also take in more noise..

[gareth.ky]

They are 1/4 wave Di-Pole radiators. Meaning that the antenna is composed of two opposed elements, each 1/4 wave in length, for a total of 1/2 the wave length. The advantage of this configuration is that it comes closest to a perfectly spherical radiation pattern as is feasible according to the currently understood laws of physics.

There are other antenna designs but they are all more directional that the dipole. Thus they are all less suitable for RC applications where the receiver can be anywhere.

Lots of effort went into optimizing this antenna configuration for WiFi applications. The R/C transmitter antennas (at least Futaba & Spektrum) are the same as the WiFi router antennas. Its well proven tech.

Just make sure the antenna is pointing straight up when you fly. The weakness of the dipole (and of 72Mhz) antennas is the tip of the antenna. The cone of silence. With the antenna straight up this shouldn't be a problem. It should even be safer than 72Mhz antenna that stick straight out of the radio towards the flying airplane.

[Cobra1]

Thanks for the responses. I knew someone out there could explain a little more about antennas than I know, which is practically nothing....

[porcupineace]

	Quote: Originally Posted by gareth.ky
	They are 1/4 wave Di-Pole radiators. Meaning that the antenna is composed of two opposed elements, each 1/4 wave in length, for a total of 1/2 the wave length. The advantage of this configuration is that it comes closest to a perfectly spherical radiation pattern as is feasible according to the currently understood laws of physics. There are other antenna designs but they are all more directional that the dipole. Thus they are all less suitable for RC applications where the receiver can be anywhere. Lots of effort went into optimizing this antenna configuration for WiFi applications. The R/C transmitter antennas (at least Futaba & Spektrum) are the same as the WiFi router antennas. Its well proven tech. Just make sure the antenna is pointing straight up when you fly. The weakness of the dipole (and of 72Mhz) antennas is the tip of the antenna. The cone of silence. With the antenna straight up this shouldn't be a problem. It should even be safer than 72Mhz antenna that stick straight out of the radio towards the flying airplane.

so in your opinion, which is more reliable, the spectrum, or the futaba?

[rpmrpm]

Is this antenna with-in 1in of carbon wing tube a potential issue? PS sorry I do not know how to thumbnail the pic.