FASST, HEAT, I give up, Suggestions?

[RCAddiction]

My only info was that even non-conductive materials will create a loss of signal to the RX. How much? It requires testing.

IMHO, it might actually be better to have the antenna tips guided inside of "something" rather than have it out in the breeze where it might get inadvertantly bent back, and then damaged and/or misoriented. The trick is knowing what that "something" should be. I really wish I had test results that would indicate a brand, type of straw, tubing, etc is the least "lossy" in terms of Q degradation for our application.

I am sure that the test engineers at Futaba could measure signal strength at their receiver, using a variety of antenna tube materials, and then recommend the best ones. Heck, they could even sell us the "right" tubing under the Futaba brand name.

[grayuk]

	Quote: Originally Posted by RCAddiction
	My only info was that even non-conductive materials will create a loss of signal to the RX. How much? It requires testing. IMHO, it might actually be better to have the antenna tips guided inside of "something" rather than have it out in the breeze where it might get inadvertantly bent back, and then damaged and/or misoriented. The trick is knowing what that "something" should be. I really wish I had test results that would indicate a brand, type of straw, tubing, etc is the least "lossy" in terms of Q degradation for our application. I am sure that the test engineers at Futaba could measure signal strength at their receiver, using a variety of antenna tube materials, and then recommend the best ones. Heck, they could even sell us the "right" tubing under the Futaba brand name.

Plastic, paper, wood, anything really that is non conductive and thin.
I have tried straws (paper and plastic) Retract tube air tube, plasicard tube even an old biro tube.
I have noticed no drop in range and performance.
Remember, the aerial already has plastic around it on the exposed section. Which is an insulator.
You then have the aerials inside a fuselage which can be wood, plastic or composite materials.
In all cases I have found no discernable drop in performance.
My range on all receivers from the 14 downwards is out of sight, and even when flying very low, far out and fast with a jet, I have never had one ‘bad moment’.
I have friends flying, 14 channel tx, I have the 12FG, there is a 12Z and a 10C, plus I don’t know how many 6 channel sets in my club.
We fly a mixture of jets, heli’s, sparkers and large models.
We have had NO incidents relating to RF or Heat throughout the year, which was never true on 35 meg.
As for aerial installations I agree about trying to get good setups but I have a friend who has one aerial strapped to the top of the UAT and the other laying down by the RX on top of the metal air can for retracts. (picture enclosed). I would never do that but he has flown hundreds of flights through the season, with not one issue!
So far I have found the FASST system bullet proof.

Thank you all for the positive coments on the instal pics.

[Dumorian]

From what I know about wireless internet, less is best. Clear line of sight is by far the best. 2.4 will broadcast through walls and such, but you'll have a degraded signal. We see a difference in signal quality between summer and winter. It will shoot through trees, if they aren't too thick, but it shoots through trees without leaves a lot better. Simply less is better. I try to think in these terms when doing a setup. That's why I chose to leave the tips extended beyond my tubes. They are internal so can't be affected by wind. They could bend in high G forces, but as stiff and light as they are, I doubt even as much as one degree. I am careful to not bump or bend them when working on the plane.

I also try to make sure something like an engine or battery pack can be 'seen around' by the system. Distance is your friend here because the 'shadow area' is smaller as distance increases. In other words, if the antenna was a few inches behind an engine, it might be blocked across a 90 degree orientation of the plane, move it back to a couple of feet and it changes to a few degrees. The shadowed area would appear sort of like a cone extending from a plane. If that cone is between your radio and the plane, signal is degraded... and worse by metal. Basically try really hard to give the best unobstructed 'view' from any plane orientation. But less allows for a stronger signal. Not that you would ever experience any difference, but it might be just that little bit more which keeps it linked.

[grayuk]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Dumorian
	From what I know about wireless internet, less is best. Clear line of sight is by far the best. 2.4 will broadcast through walls and such, but you'll have a degraded signal. We see a difference in signal quality between summer and winter. It will shoot through trees, if they aren't too thick, but it shoots through trees without leaves a lot better. Simply less is better. I try to think in these terms when doing a setup. That's why I chose to leave the tips extended beyond my tubes. They are internal so can't be affected by wind. They could bend in high G forces, but as stiff and light as they are, I doubt even as much as one degree. I am careful to not bump or bend them when working on the plane. I also try to make sure something like an engine or battery pack can be 'seen around' by the system. Distance is your friend here because the 'shadow area' is smaller as distance increases. In other words, if the antenna was a few inches behind an engine, it might be blocked across a 90 degree orientation of the plane, move it back to a couple of feet and it changes to a few degrees. The shadowed area would appear sort of like a cone extending from a plane. If that cone is between your radio and the plane, signal is degraded... and worse by metal. Basically try really hard to give the best unobstructed 'view' from any plane orientation. But less allows for a stronger signal. Not that you would ever experience any difference, but it might be just that little bit more which keeps it linked.

I hear what you are saying but I have never found the link that 'fragile'.
If I did, I would not use it.
I would also point out that ALL of my installations work with no issues at all and believe me, they have been well tested!

I fly all around the UK in the summer at shows, and military bases.
At the British Nationals there are 6 flight lines spread out over a massive field.
The RF environment is 'packed' with 2.4 operating on all lines simultaneously, also 35 meg, 27 meg and 40 meg.
On may occasions during the demo flights I am way out, where other 2.4 tx’s are closer to my model that I am, once again, no issues.
I feel that the link is more than adequate and a thin piece of plastic will make no difference worth noting. I would rather know that my aerial is where I put it.

[Pilotpete]

grayuk,
Two Nations separated by a common language
My second post was a response to my misreading of reyn3545's response to my first post.
Sometimes I'm about as clear as mud.
Anyway, we are in agreement on all points.
Pete

[Toumal]

	Quote: Originally Posted by RCAddiction
	My only info was that even non-conductive materials will create a loss of signal to the RX. How much? It requires testing.

Do a range check and you'll see that the effect is negligible. Regular fuel lines work great, even normal adhesive tape is good.The only important thing is that the antenna doesn't get bent at the end of the shielding.

But hey, I can sell you "Futaba" brand tubing, honestly! Just 29.99 per piece

[diamondave5]

i called futaba support when i got my recievers, they told me to not have that last inch or so in a tube, its better if its exposed, so thats what i did and it worked fine,... im more interested in hearing what the solution is to the heat thing, i read back here somewhere that its believed to be a certain chip, so whats next? design a new chip? have futaba put some kind of interenal cooler(fan) in it so it comes that way from the factory and we dont have to modify a new product ourselves? id like to get back into the 2.4 but i need some answers before i do, for now my 319 is working just fine, did all summer here in tucson, will this be resolved before spring and it starts all over?

[Mithrandir]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Dumorian
	I thought it was much simpler than that. Since antennas transmit best from the side, not the tip, with the antennas set 90 degrees to one another you never have less than a 45 degree view of at least one antenna to the radio during any orientation of the model.

Well.. A few years ago I had a wireless 2.4 Ghz video system with a dipole on the Rx.... when the Tx antenna and the Rx antenna were oriented the same way, I had 3 to 4 times the range as compared to the antennas oriented at 90 degrees...


Placing the antennas in a tube is essentially putting them in a RADOME.... all radome attenuate signal strength... thin non ferrous plastic is not likely to attenuate very much....
Besides... taping them down is kinda the same as the tape covers the active portion of the antenna....

I flew my GP 38% with a single 2.4 to the very edge of my visibility... I dunno... 2000 feet... and the signal was 100%

[reyn3545]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Mithrandir
	I flew my GP 38% with a single 2.4 to the very edge of my visibility... I dunno... 2000 feet... and the signal was 100%

How do you know the signal strength is still 100%?

[Mithrandir]

	Quote: Originally Posted by reyn3545
	How do you know the signal strength is still 100%?

It was 94.7%!!!


he he he he...

I don't know what the loss was... but it seemed to be small enuff to not matter...

[Four Stroker]

I use antenna tubes (std. heli stuff) and can not measure any difference in range. This is the kind of thing tkilwein should investigate for us. He actually tunes his antennas - presumably to the middle of the band.

[skubacb]

Deleted