Will aluminum fuselage interfere with electronics
03-05-2014, 04:03 AM
#77
Thread Starter
Experiment 3: The enclosure is totally cut open. Ranch rest result has no noticable difference between experiment 2.
Last edited by Kentli22; 03-05-2014 at 04:30 AM.
03-05-2014, 04:39 AM
#78
Thread Starter
The above experiments are not absolutely conclusive because each experiment was done only once. Repeated experiments are needed to have a more conclusive result. The experiments didn't show if there is any interference among all other components such as CDI, tachometer, kill switch, servos and batteries, etc..
03-05-2014, 11:54 AM
#79
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Tan Valley,
AZ
Posts: 5,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I decided to do a little test. My Taranis came with an aluminum case. The Taranis system has telemetry and reports the signal strengt back to the transmitter. I put the receiver in the box and noted the received signal strength with the lid open It read 87. I close the lid. It read 79 a difference of 8. On a log scale that means the signal has been attenuated to about 1/5 of its normal strength but it still worked.
I removed the receiver and wrapped it in aluminum foil. The transmitter immediately begun to complain it was no longer receiving telemetry.
This shows the unsealed case reduces the signal 8 db. Completely sealed no signal is reported.
If you are comfortable flying your aircraft with the signal strength reduced to 1/5 all I can say its your airplane. But please dont fly it when their are others around that it could hit when it goes out of control.
I removed the receiver and wrapped it in aluminum foil. The transmitter immediately begun to complain it was no longer receiving telemetry.
This shows the unsealed case reduces the signal 8 db. Completely sealed no signal is reported.
If you are comfortable flying your aircraft with the signal strength reduced to 1/5 all I can say its your airplane. But please dont fly it when their are others around that it could hit when it goes out of control.
03-11-2014, 08:13 PM
#83
Carlos, nobody is arguing with your success. Obviously it works for you and I think we are starting to understand why. Still a question was asked if you did anything different then a typical install and I had suggested that you put some thought into the placement of your satellite receivers. I think your comments would have carried more vitality had you answered those questions rather then just stating " I've done it and it works ". IMO and I mean no offense that's like a parent telling their teenager ' because I said so ". As a parent of 4 teenagers I can assure you that doesn't work well at all. Supporting your statements with actual facts would have been better received. Now as for why I resist such construction is that it appears in this thread that some would believe that aluminum would have no affects at all. I can assure everyone that it does. I build literally a thousand + antennas for full scale aircraft per year. All of them have aluminum housings to shield the back end of the antenna. This keeps signal exiting only the front of the antenna as desired. We also have an antenna that uses aluminum to reflect signal so thinking that metal of any kind is not going to have an effect is wrong. I have access to some of the best antenna designers in the world. A couple of them agree that a signal will get into the structure via " Leaks " in the airframe. Basically means any opening in the structure no matter how small but it would be an unknown at exactly how much the range would be affected and it would be different for each aircraft. The both however agreed that it would have some effect, it's just impossible to know how much without getting the structure into a test chamber and running some patterns.
03-11-2014, 08:14 PM
#84
I decided to do a little test. My Taranis came with an aluminum case. The Taranis system has telemetry and reports the signal strengt back to the transmitter. I put the receiver in the box and noted the received signal strength with the lid open It read 87. I close the lid. It read 79 a difference of 8. On a log scale that means the signal has been attenuated to about 1/5 of its normal strength but it still worked.
I removed the receiver and wrapped it in aluminum foil. The transmitter immediately begun to complain it was no longer receiving telemetry.
This shows the unsealed case reduces the signal 8 db. Completely sealed no signal is reported.
If you are comfortable flying your aircraft with the signal strength reduced to 1/5 all I can say its your airplane. But please dont fly it when their are others around that it could hit when it goes out of control.
I removed the receiver and wrapped it in aluminum foil. The transmitter immediately begun to complain it was no longer receiving telemetry.
This shows the unsealed case reduces the signal 8 db. Completely sealed no signal is reported.
If you are comfortable flying your aircraft with the signal strength reduced to 1/5 all I can say its your airplane. But please dont fly it when their are others around that it could hit when it goes out of control.
I'm sure that would be the result considering the antenna's were probably in direct contact with the aluminum foil. Do this exact same test in an aluminum foil enclosure without the antenna's touching the foil and I wouldn't be surprised if it came out differently.
03-11-2014, 08:17 PM
#85
Experiment 3: The enclosure is totally cut open. Ranch rest result has no noticable difference between experiment 2.
If you read the direction for the 11X Range test, they say to go " 30 paces (approx. 90 feet) away from the model" to perform the test. By going outside of this, you are just proving that the aluminum enclosure has little to no effect on the range check requirements of the radio.
I've seen RC jets with NO carbon fiber in them not able to get to 100+ feet of range check distance. I was the owner of one, but after every flight, the flight-log on board showed antenna counts of less than 20 and Zero holds and Fades.
03-12-2014, 04:47 AM
#86
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tampa,
FL
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
guys COME ON you dont need to experiments IT'S been done, IT'S being done, it's been like this way for years .. get real ....your self righteous speculation .. is rubbish
makes me agnry there are SOOO MANY experts on RCU and soo many conterdictions of eachother... this is just as bad as the dumb rudder turn thread or what oil to use thread ... just troll food and a bunch of has been
makes me agnry there are SOOO MANY experts on RCU and soo many conterdictions of eachother... this is just as bad as the dumb rudder turn thread or what oil to use thread ... just troll food and a bunch of has been
03-12-2014, 05:04 AM
#87
Zachary, what makes you qualified to say what effect the aluminum does or does not have? Just because someone had done it and got away does not mean there is not a reduction in signal strength. Antennas is what I do for a living, I have access to guys with masters degrees and PHD's in microwave theory. All of them agree that the aluminum will have some effect. There is no way to know how much effect unless signal pattern testing is done in a chamber.
03-12-2014, 05:57 AM
#88
Zachary, what makes you qualified to say what effect the aluminum does or does not have? Just because someone had done it and got away does not mean there is not a reduction in signal strength. Antennas is what I do for a living, I have access to guys with masters degrees and PHD's in microwave theory. All of them agree that the aluminum will have some effect. There is no way to know how much effect unless signal pattern testing is done in a chamber.
Flitemetal has a really good article about the testing they did with aircraft fully covered in flitemetal (its a Very thin ~.005" aluminum). Even those guys showed/explained how it made hardly any effect. Then throw the Flite Metal on a RC jet which has far more RF blocking material (stainless steel, carbin fiber, dozens of feet of servo and battery wiring, staticly charged fuels at times, kevlar, etc) and it quickly becomes apparent based on others experience, that it is successfully possible more so than others think.
03-12-2014, 11:37 AM
#91
Depends, it may work with no discernible difference in one environment but take it to another with a higher noise floor and it could be a whole different situation. Electronic components values also fade with time so an RX that is able to lock onto the TX encoding today may have issues in the future. We hear about radio failures all the time in conventional constructed airplanes so I would tend to think that the odds on failure in a metal airframe would be higher. Granted I also think 75% of reported radio failures are self inflicted. This also kind of reminds me of when Spektrum first came out and we were told that interference was a thing of the past. Didn't quite work out that way.
03-12-2014, 06:33 PM
#92
Depends, it may work with no discernible difference in one environment but take it to another with a higher noise floor and it could be a whole different situation. Electronic components values also fade with time so an RX that is able to lock onto the TX encoding today may have issues in the future. We hear about radio failures all the time in conventional constructed airplanes so I would tend to think that the odds on failure in a metal airframe would be higher. Granted I also think 75% of reported radio failures are self inflicted. This also kind of reminds me of when Spektrum first came out and we were told that interference was a thing of the past. Didn't quite work out that way.
but someone who values their investment would do a proper range check anytime they change flying locations. Shoot, its so simple now, i do one before the first flight of the day on all of my high value models.
Interference isnt a thing of the past with 2.4, its just allowed people to get lazy with their installs. I have seen on two occassions an airplane suffer from intense Interference when a well known engine manufacturers 85cc gas engine was started. The plane was fine before it started, and fine after it shut down, but in between the airplane was waving. This guys installs are really neat and clean as well, with the ignition module and battery over 60" away from the receiver and 12" away from any servos and servo leads.
03-13-2014, 04:55 AM
#93
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tampa,
FL
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
speed racer and dirtybird this is my issue
you two joker's are coming on here and speculating .speed racer you ask me what makes me a expert ? i never claimed to be one but what upsets me .. is like i said my local club member my friend DID IT.. he made a metal BT.13 flew it at top gun . i was there i seen it .. i seen the RX the tx it was a futaba 7 channal nothing fancy .. i helped him ... .
it makes me super angry that you jokers can just come on the internet negatively comment on something . just going by the seat of your pants and speculation . then instead of being a man and realizing you're flat out wrong .. you keep the thread going .. with " what if " and " my expert openion " and my experimentation " you two jokers are trying to re event the wheel so that the wheel's logic matches your ego and your mind set .. and your ignoring the truth the black and white the VIDEO the pepole that have done it for year's ...
look man like i said i was there in person i touched the plane i seen it ..... and also ACER has posted video's ... of other airplanes the sonex the beaver .... i was a florida jets guess what they had ... at ALL METAL F-86 .. bad ass giant as hell guess what .. IT'S FLYING ..
again i don't have opening's i am going by physically what i freaking see ... and you guys with your opening's won't let it go you keep on keeping on refusing to be wrong .. when clearly you guys are the one who should get people asking you what makes you the expert .. and it pisses me off that this isn't the first thread you'll spoil this is just as bad as dirtybrids clame that lipo battery sare the MOST unreliable come on man .. really ..
the part of your post that said " just becouse someone got away with it " speaks loads for your arrogant personalities come on man got way with it ?
dude that F 86 was years ago still flying .. that BT-13 flew got sold .. if anything those planes stand the great's threat is dumb thumb's NOT your speculation of negative affects of metal bodys ... like you clame ..
come on man whats next the world is flat ?
you two joker's are coming on here and speculating .speed racer you ask me what makes me a expert ? i never claimed to be one but what upsets me .. is like i said my local club member my friend DID IT.. he made a metal BT.13 flew it at top gun . i was there i seen it .. i seen the RX the tx it was a futaba 7 channal nothing fancy .. i helped him ... .
it makes me super angry that you jokers can just come on the internet negatively comment on something . just going by the seat of your pants and speculation . then instead of being a man and realizing you're flat out wrong .. you keep the thread going .. with " what if " and " my expert openion " and my experimentation " you two jokers are trying to re event the wheel so that the wheel's logic matches your ego and your mind set .. and your ignoring the truth the black and white the VIDEO the pepole that have done it for year's ...
look man like i said i was there in person i touched the plane i seen it ..... and also ACER has posted video's ... of other airplanes the sonex the beaver .... i was a florida jets guess what they had ... at ALL METAL F-86 .. bad ass giant as hell guess what .. IT'S FLYING ..
again i don't have opening's i am going by physically what i freaking see ... and you guys with your opening's won't let it go you keep on keeping on refusing to be wrong .. when clearly you guys are the one who should get people asking you what makes you the expert .. and it pisses me off that this isn't the first thread you'll spoil this is just as bad as dirtybrids clame that lipo battery sare the MOST unreliable come on man .. really ..
the part of your post that said " just becouse someone got away with it " speaks loads for your arrogant personalities come on man got way with it ?
dude that F 86 was years ago still flying .. that BT-13 flew got sold .. if anything those planes stand the great's threat is dumb thumb's NOT your speculation of negative affects of metal bodys ... like you clame ..
come on man whats next the world is flat ?
Last edited by zacharyR; 03-13-2014 at 05:16 AM.
03-13-2014, 05:56 AM
#94
Zach, none of this is speculation or guessing. I have been working in the RF industry for 15 years. Dirtybird is an EE. I currently work for a company that manufactures aircraft antennas. I have seen first hand in a test chamber the effects of metal around all sorts of different antennas at different frequencies and power levels. I KNOW any sort of metal will have an effect. Will it be enough to make an airplane flyable? Obviously not but it IS something that needs to be considered when planning an airplane of metal construction. You my young friend should get off RCU long enough to look up the word respect.
03-13-2014, 06:22 AM
#95
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tampa,
FL
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zach, none of this is speculation or guessing. I have been working in the RF industry for 15 years. Dirtybird is an EE. I currently work for a company that manufactures aircraft antennas. I have seen first hand in a test chamber the effects of metal around all sorts of different antennas at different frequencies and power levels. I KNOW any sort of metal will have an effect. Will it be enough to make an airplane flyable? Obviously not but it IS something that needs to be considered when planning an airplane of metal construction. You my young friend should get off RCU long enough to look up the word respect.
i think you're wrong . bottom line you two " experts " are not experts .. what kind of EE. would say Lipos are the most unrelaible battery ? thats like a cheif saying french food is the most bland tasting food..
03-13-2014, 06:23 AM
#96
Zach, none of this is speculation or guessing. I have been working in the RF industry for 15 years. Dirtybird is an EE. I currently work for a company that manufactures aircraft antennas. I have seen first hand in a test chamber the effects of metal around all sorts of different antennas at different frequencies and power levels. I KNOW any sort of metal will have an effect. Will it be enough to make an airplane flyable? Obviously not but it IS something that needs to be considered when planning an airplane of metal construction. You my young friend should get off RCU long enough to look up the word respect.
really man? That last sentence just made you look as disrespectful as you perceived zachacry to be. The only thing i can thing your basing his age on is his post count and For all I know, he could be older than you.
He does make a point and its the same one i have been trying to make. There are the resident "experts of everything" on RCU (which is one of the reasons i post very rarely outside of the Rcjets and warbirds sections) that can never be proven wrong. This thread has somewhat become one of those, which is why i reask my question.
Is it really a problem if you can not perceive any noticeable difference? IMO no. And to say "it may not be in one spot, but could be in another" is i agree true, it also brings up the complacency that i see in the modeling community in large. The vast majority of the people have either gotten lazy with how they do things or just dont know any better because they are new to the hobby.
The least we have to worry about is a rare all metal RC airplane having a "possibly" compromised RF link in this hobby.
03-13-2014, 07:01 AM
#97
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tampa,
FL
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
okay so i just don't understand why you're right and I'm wrong .. but yet I seen it done more then once more then one airplane
if I'm wrong then i should not be seeing so many planes flying with just normal 2.4ghz systems .. i shouldn't see . and the planes shouldn't be around for years and years flying succesful.. techinaly if you and dirtybird are right my friends plane would of crashed long ago .. only crashing that plane did was to pilot error man ... and again my point is metal planes work .. it's really bull**** you're even aloud to keep posting on here that pepole on RCU don't flame you for complete nonsense ..
at the end of the day they are going to keep flying / and your going to keep being a internet expert....there's nothing i can do about that man .. and it drives me nuts
you should be banned for misinfomation in my opinion there has to be a checks and balances .. you shouldn't be aloud to come on here and tell me the color blue is not blue it's realy the color yellow.... man that's just not the reality of the matter
and thats what im talking im not talking openons and scientific hypothesis .. I'm talking the reality is your expert opneion is going aginst reailty i just don't see anything backing up what you clame
if I'm wrong then i should not be seeing so many planes flying with just normal 2.4ghz systems .. i shouldn't see . and the planes shouldn't be around for years and years flying succesful.. techinaly if you and dirtybird are right my friends plane would of crashed long ago .. only crashing that plane did was to pilot error man ... and again my point is metal planes work .. it's really bull**** you're even aloud to keep posting on here that pepole on RCU don't flame you for complete nonsense ..
at the end of the day they are going to keep flying / and your going to keep being a internet expert....there's nothing i can do about that man .. and it drives me nuts
you should be banned for misinfomation in my opinion there has to be a checks and balances .. you shouldn't be aloud to come on here and tell me the color blue is not blue it's realy the color yellow.... man that's just not the reality of the matter
and thats what im talking im not talking openons and scientific hypothesis .. I'm talking the reality is your expert opneion is going aginst reailty i just don't see anything backing up what you clame
Last edited by zacharyR; 03-13-2014 at 07:05 AM.
03-13-2014, 07:38 AM
#98
Gentlemen....
while I completely AGREE that:
building and flying an all metal RC airplane is perfectly do-able without any more precautions than any other RC Airplane
(you should perform all the normal precautions, range check, etc.... but you DO NEED to do them)
the name calling, trolling and personal attacks must stop now.
"we return you now to our regularly scheduled CIVIL discussion"
while I completely AGREE that:
building and flying an all metal RC airplane is perfectly do-able without any more precautions than any other RC Airplane
(you should perform all the normal precautions, range check, etc.... but you DO NEED to do them)
the name calling, trolling and personal attacks must stop now.
"we return you now to our regularly scheduled CIVIL discussion"
03-13-2014, 07:53 AM
#99
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tampa,
FL
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so i came to you and started lining to you telling you something you seen done with your own two eyes . saying it can't be done or that it's being done by pure luck ... you'd be civil to me .. you would' have any negative opinion of me ... and then i started telling a whole commnuity that i'm a expert and i know this can't be done .. that wouldn't bug you ? becouae I'm discrediting you ... and i'm discredting reaility .. that doesn't bug you ? you don't see any reason to modrate that ?
you just want to morderate me man right ... well what's going to happen is more of these " experts " that bs there way in this hobby to match there own ideas and egos .. are just going to mulitplie and input more b.s into your forum .. and thats fine you can do that.. but to me it's a fair fight .. the end of it all the .. speedracer and dirtybird don't have any proof they are right.. but videos other pepole have alreayd posted condertiting proof that they are wrong.. man and you just have the mind set to let that slide ... that really bugs me. makes me super angry you can set here and tell me something i seen happen .. didnt happen or only happend out of luck... man ... that's some b.s
you just want to morderate me man right ... well what's going to happen is more of these " experts " that bs there way in this hobby to match there own ideas and egos .. are just going to mulitplie and input more b.s into your forum .. and thats fine you can do that.. but to me it's a fair fight .. the end of it all the .. speedracer and dirtybird don't have any proof they are right.. but videos other pepole have alreayd posted condertiting proof that they are wrong.. man and you just have the mind set to let that slide ... that really bugs me. makes me super angry you can set here and tell me something i seen happen .. didnt happen or only happend out of luck... man ... that's some b.s
Last edited by zacharyR; 03-13-2014 at 08:07 AM.
03-13-2014, 08:13 AM
#100
yes, of course I would be civil to you.
you're a human being (as is every other member here) and we ALL deserve to be treated as such.
one thing I can say for SURE, I would NOT call you a derogatory name, use language I wouldn't use with my Mother or otherwise behave in an uncivilized or disrespectful manner.
if you'll take a moment you'll notice I made the statement that I completely AGREE with you that what is being proposed will work, the only thing I'm trying to protect is RCU, and not any single person or group of people.
(OK, maybe RC'ers in general, and we're all in that group
)
you'll also notice that I have tried politely and respectfully to make my point that this is a discussion and will be conducted in a civil manner without resorting to trolling, name calling etc.
provided the discussion remains civil, I'm outta here.
you're a human being (as is every other member here) and we ALL deserve to be treated as such.
one thing I can say for SURE, I would NOT call you a derogatory name, use language I wouldn't use with my Mother or otherwise behave in an uncivilized or disrespectful manner.
if you'll take a moment you'll notice I made the statement that I completely AGREE with you that what is being proposed will work, the only thing I'm trying to protect is RCU, and not any single person or group of people.
(OK, maybe RC'ers in general, and we're all in that group
)you'll also notice that I have tried politely and respectfully to make my point that this is a discussion and will be conducted in a civil manner without resorting to trolling, name calling etc.
provided the discussion remains civil, I'm outta here.