allmetal plane

My Feedback: (1)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtlbYwMD9qI

As fas as I am concerned, I never had problems with metal despite all the talk going on here, Again, and I am sorry, I don't have time to explain the hows. It's not my cup of tea... I just did lots of homework and a lot of experimenting

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Ok to make things perfectly clear here. Aircraft antennas is what I do for a living, it's how I support my wife and 4 teenagers. I not only work on the production floor but I work closely with Engineers helping them develop new antennas and enhanced versions of what we currently produce. I really wish I could get into details but that magical word " classified " comes into play. IMO the question is not will aluminum affect a signal it is more of how much. Obviously there are examples that prove that in most cases it does not have enough of an affect to make the model unreliable. This has softened my stance somewhat. I do still believe that each airplane that has a significant amount of metal needs to have an additional layer of range checks. Anyone in the RF industry will tell you that microwave tech can be a funny thing at times. Example. How many of us have had a cell phone call suddenly drop? I think everyone would say yes to that one. How many of us would notice that we have had more dropped calls while driving? Personally I know that If I'm on the phone when I drive by the airport it's going to drop the call. Why? It's because with all the RF traffic around the airport the noise floor gets high enough to impede my cell signal. RF is not 100% predicable because of the multitude of variables. With that in mind anyone who is operating a model with significant amount of metal should be doing regular range checks at the home field and an additional layer of range checks when flying in a different location or after replacing any electronic component on the aircraft. The company spends thousands of dollars testing antennas on rigs that resemble the shape of of the aircraft where the antenna will be mounted. The emission patterns between an antenna that is tested stand alone vs one that is mounted on a mock up is vastly different. IMO the only way to know for sure if a particular airplane is safe to operate is to do a thorough range check in the environment where it will be operated. This holds true with any R/C aircraft.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Allmetal, I have to tell you that I just can't agree with this. I respect your decision to not want to join the argument so to speak but to make a post telling us that you did some useful investigations that led to your success but " don't have the time " to share the details only gives me the impression that you really would have been better off not posting anything at all.

mattnew

My Feedback: (2)

@zacharyR:

I actually started reading this thread thinking "no, there is no problem with it..." but then the more I thought about it a problem crept in... it should be a problem... the fix for the noisy/buzzy Taranis speaker is to shield it with aluminum... my EM classes from college.. again... Aluminum shields RF.. so why isn't it a problem with all of these aluminum planes ?... I'm someone that needs to understand the why, and not just see for myself that others have done it.. especially when the plane I have over a grand into is about to take off and I'm trusting something like this not to fail me.

So ... more data, now that I'm sucked into this and don't want to be... and 1 more experiment. ( I realize this is in my house, and walls can play havoc on readings, for this I tried my best to stay in line of sight, if people are actually learning anything from this thread then i can repeat outdoors where some signals will likely improve a little... )
I have a lab-rat radio that can read RSSI. I started by just placing it line of sight from me and measuring the RSSI values at ~50 feet... you can't read it but the radio RSSI is measuring between 90 and 100dB. For those that don't know, a 6dB drop in RSSI is approximately double the distance away. So if I read 90dB at 50 feet, I'd expect 84dB at 100feet etc... Typically the warnings are set to warn you of impending signal loss when the values get around 45db, and at 38dB connection is lost.....

following that I sealed it in a box using aluminum ducting tape: no holes for servos, just going by the RSSI readings...


I then walked approximately 15 feet away, still line of sight... signal lost at under 15 feet away. you can see on the screen, the bottom 2 numbers are the 2 antenna values, 36db and 37dB



ok so that isn't practical, airplanes aren't sealed ... lets cut open holes in both ends and re-measure at the same location....

not bad, significantly improved actually, but still not stellar for how close I am, ~25-30dB drop still being seen

and at the spot I initially started ( ~50 feet away from receiver, line of sight )


so if I do the math, at 50 feet I'm at 54 dB. I lose signal at 38db which is 16dB lower, recall that for every 6db we double the distance, so 16 = 2.66( round up to 3 to make the math easy if you like... ) 50 -> 100 -> 200 feet is where we lose our signal... still not great... but better..


As I continue to cut holes it gets better and better until I return to the ~90-100dB that I originally had at ~50 feet... but the box is pretty shredded by then.....


so....




......
yes you can make a setup work that involves an aluminum plane... which is good because I'm doing just that.

I don't think you can simply wave your hand though and say aluminum is a complete non-issue.. I have a setup with large 2" by 2" holes on each end of a small box that only gives me a range of 200'.. so obviously there has to be some care taken here since that is within a normal flight envelope....

mattnew

My Feedback: (2)

so you weren't just going by the fact that people wear aluminum hats to keep the gov't from reading their minds? :-)

I only had to take 1 EM class in college, which was 1 more than I ever wanted to take. I also tried my hardest to forget as much of it as possible.... *shudders*

mattnew

My Feedback: (2)

I wish you could pass along some of the knowledge you've gained here. The videos are great and show that you can make it work well, but don't help me in terms of my own implementation....

allmetal plane

My Feedback: (1)

Sr Speedracen.., whatever you say....You are entitled to say it and I respect that.

I am not here to stir trouble, the beauty of the USA is that it is a free country with hobby/choices, if i choose to post videos related to the subject at hand, I do it abiding by this forum rules, and I do it without judging you or anybody else here. Whether I choose or not to share details, it is solely my privilege.

IN ORDER TO AVOID PROBLEMS, I AM NOT ADVOCATING NOR DISCOURAGING anyone to build aluminum airplanes, if anyone wishes to do such planes, please feel free to do so, BUT also do need to do your own research on the matter.

zacharyR

My Feedback: (5)

I just don't understand how the WRONG on this thread has so much weight and justice .. how are we overlooking the fact it works and its been done its being done ? even people that have the planes come on here and tell you " experts your wrong " but still .. still can't man up..

come on fellow modelers .. Really ? this is straight B.S the experts .. they ant experts

i would not want them working as experts for my company

why just why are we over looking the videos of stuff working ? explain that please

and don't agrue that you said it would work reason whatever i am right becouse of some bull**** smantic

the agrument from you experts was always dimensioning returns ... just can't see video of that..

some of that vidoes are older then i am ... think how much radio tech has changed and if worked back then .. LOL

zacharyR

My Feedback: (5)

bottom line

someone's right someones wrong


at the end of the day the planes are flying and vary practical nothing needed that requires experimentation or rocket science or windows cut out ..or crazy measures that are different from just normal RC airplane installations

moral of the story metal airplanes arnt different from any other airplane currently flying it's been proven by those doing it ..

its vary wrong that you guys are aloud to spew false information to back your egos and openions

this is not a opinion subject its a fact .. and you're turning it into a opinion just to over look reality

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Zach, the world is not a one side or the other deal. Us " Experts " as you call us have experience and education in the RF industry. Are you telling us that everything we were taught during our very expensive education or things that we see on a daily basis for years on end is wrong and we should abandon it all because of a couple videos we saw on RCU? We use aluminum shielding ( sometimes CF ) to keep the signal from spilling out the back side of antennas all the time. This is done so that the spillage wont interfere with other electronics in the airplane. Some of these antenna designs have been flying for over 30 years. You are correct and some people are being successful at metal airplanes and as I had stated my opinion on feasibility has changed however it is still my opinion that it is with reduced reliability. A loose spark plug cap, crack in an ignition module case ( ever wonder why ALL ignition module cases are plated? ) or simply going to an environment where more mobile devices are being used could raise the noise level to a point where the metal airframe pushes the R/C gear past its noise threshold. Ignoring something does not make it go away. You also need to remember that right and wrong can be just a matter of perspectives. Dirtybird's comment about Lipo batteries being the least reliable ( Although reliable may have been a poor choice of words ) is 100% correct from his perspective. When designing components for an aircraft one has to consider how the failure mode will affect the aircraft at the time of failure and if it will have a secondary affect. In case of a piece of equipment that requires batteries, nicads will show warning signs of failure before actual failure occurs and can be replaced. If actual failure does occur then the piece of equipment is down with little more danger. With lipo the failure mode is fairly fast and without warning, then there is the continued danger of fire. So from Dirtybird's perspective, he is correct. To address you last sentence, what we are telling you is factual science and has been used for over half a century, your " I seen it done " is the opinion.

mattnew

My Feedback: (2)

1. the people that have done it and are flying aluminum planes that have come on here and while they "choose not to share" the specifics of how they got it to work, have said that they had to do there own testing and come up with their own setup that worked. Even they have implied that it wasn't necessarily cut and dry getting it to work.

2. I have created and shown a set of test cases where I was able to show that I could cause loss of bind between receiver and transmitter within 200' with direct line of site to my antennas... in extreme cases within 15'. While the extreme case i agree isn't likely to be found in an RC setup... the 200' case I wouldn't think would be that far off from a possible real life implementation as with that case I could visibly see the antennas yet wasn't able to make a connection.

The take-away here is that it is highly setup dependent .. I can easily make it work, I can also easily make it not work. My test cases didn't take more than 5 minutes to create. The people that build and are flying aluminum planes found a setup that worked and didn't cause issues and went with it.



thats the summary of this thread, outside of your "nuh-uh's" and "dude man up's". The truth is outside of your first post.. you've done nothing but dumb down this thread. None of your other posts actually contribute to any understanding here. If anything the RCU mods are enabling you b/c you are the problem, you are the one that not only knows nothing about the subject yet continues to post crap that doesn't help and actually hurts the thread.. What exactly in your last two posts would make me change my mind or go back and adjust my experiment so I get better results? "oh your right, I forgot about blues and yellows... thats a good point.. never mind that the experts made some valid points, and the people actually flying aluminum covered planes made some valid points.... blues and yellows ! how could I have been so blind." you have offered nothing... and until you offer something valid, nobody is going to listen to you...




and with that, I really am done with this thread, I've learned what I needed to learn. OP, thanks for starting this thread, its unfortunate the path it took, but I learned quite a bit from not only the experts here but from some of the people that actually have flown the aluminum planes.

zacharyR

My Feedback: (5)

what batterys have you had fail .. me its not lipos its nicad lead acid .. lipos are prone to the most user error .. is only agrument i can give to dirty bird but really they work better then a nicad they have more cycle life.. i just know that not becouse i went to MIT becouse i seen it .. just like the airplanes i seen it .. and dammit everything is using Li something battery tech there really is no point to argue this with you ..

but my point is dirtybrid made this comment to back his expertise as a eletrical enginner .. my god man really ? thats vary far from a expert openion its just commen knowldge . so there is only a few logical out comes .. either dirtybrid is crazy .. dirtybrid is trolling or dirty bird don't know **** . my point was to prove lack of knowledge lack of juse sense ..

but whatever man its futile and dumb to agrue with you .. reality is just thrown out the window fact is turned to openion .. knowldge is only not what works .. that doesnt count .. its " what i've done " what i know "

lipo batterys are more reliable then other battery this is just a fact , man just like metal airplanes arnt that much differnt in radio performance then any other airplane out there.. with carbon airplanes being more of a issue ... but whatever man will throw that out the window

the side is yes or no its is one sided

you said .. metal planes would have negative affects and your context was a micro affect you said range you said windows you said a bunch of crap that ant the case.. and i mean are you going to make me go qoute you now man your trying to bend words here to favor your side of the agrument and your streching man really a smantic low no balls way of dealing with right or wrong

i have zero repsect for you in this hobby just the pure fact your so full of yourself you refuse to accept

zacharyR

My Feedback: (5)

this is the context .. the reailtly is NO its has just as much practical use as a airframe as any other building meterial that airplanes are being build out of .. and its probably even better then carbon .. and carbons widly used man youd have more justice agruing a negative affect to carbon .. and it would still be a dumb agrument on your side .. because at the end of hte day carbon works..

you say YES .. you impile a negative return that is greater then a value that would affect normal flight ..this is what you said this is the context.. are you going to make me start quoting you man ?

and lets talk vaild ..

this all started when dirtybrid your buddy your counterpart.. discredited me when i say my friend did i have frist hand knowledge i was there i seen it i touched it .. i didnt fly it physical but guess what you ant flown one either...

whats your" vaild "man how can anything get more vaild then physical proof ?

some bogus biased expermation with a freaking box or something .. man how is that more vaild then actualy doing the deed and the videos of planes doing it over and over again .. and some of them vary vary old with vary vary old tech ?

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

You have a right to that opinion, unfortunately that attitude will only keep you from learning.

zacharyR

My Feedback: (5)

what do i gota learn how something doesn't work that does work LOL ?

Kentli22

I am sure Mr. allmetal plane had done the same sort of metal box experiments in the beginning. To me, I think he had shared very critical information already. He had given precise answers to the 2 questions that I wanted to know in the OP:

(1) He clearly told me it could be done, with proof provided.
(2) He clearly told me that there are proper ways to do it in order to make it work properly. His mentioning of him doing a lot of homework and experiments to make it work properly is the same as telling me there are extra issues needed to be considered when building aluminum planes. In order word he was telling me that the RF interference is an issue and it needed to be considered.

It is fare enough that I should find out for myself how the details of my set up should be done since we might all build our planes in very different ways even though the material is the same. Mr. allmetal plane had spent his time and effort to get the answer, why should I deserved to be fed with the answer just by simply asking. Of course I appreciate a lot when simple answers were given to me to help me resolve my problems, but in this case I also appreciate Mr. allmetal plane allows me to learn from my ow efforts.

BMatthews

Just a warning that the tone in this thread is getting very close to getting some posts removed. Disagreement and debate is wonderful. But keep the tone and wording respectful or posts will be deleted.

Whatever side of the fence we are on this is a great thread since metal skinning is a dandy finish on some models. I'd like to keep this topic open so both theory and results can live side by side for others to see. But if we can't keep the language and attitudes respectful I'll lock it down. So please play nicely. Do not say things online that you would not say in person and face to face.

FliteMetal

Kentli22:

Have you asked yourself if the signals were being blocked then how do all those covered models function without
problems flying at all those scale model contests around the world? Think about that a moment then if you have any further questions
you might go to the 2.4 Q&A sections within the .com web site.

http://004edc4.netsolhost.com/FliteMetalimages/Customers/George%20Tu-95/Tu-95%20Second%20Flight.wmv George Maiorana's Tu-95 initial flight at X Pad in Muncie at AMA NATs.

At this time I would estimate well over a million $ worth of scale models are flying regularly with laminate applied to them.

If there is anything I can answer I will do my best to explain or the analysis results on our web site may more clearly answer them.

http://004edc4.netsolhost.com/FM_and_2.4_Radios.htm

http://004edc4.netsolhost.com/FliteM..._customers.htm

[TABLE="class: MsoNormalTable"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD]265' and still worked.
[/TD]
[TD]Receiver quit @ 94'
[/TD]
[TD][TABLE="class: MsoNormalTable"]
[TR]
[TD]*Tested and found equal to
Xtreme.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD]Receiver quit @ 415'
Regained signal @ 413'
[/TD]
[TD]Receiver quit @ 175'
Regained signal @ 125'
[/TD]
[TD]Receiver quit @ 119'
Regained signal @ 118'
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD]530', continued to 700' and it still worked correctly.

Put TX on ground and receiver quit working.
[/TD]
[TD]530', continued to 700' and it still worked correctly.

Put TX on ground and receiver quit working.
[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]800' and still worked correctly.


Put TX within 6" of ground & receiver quit working.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD]530' still worked well.
Continued to 700' and it still worked correctly.

Still worked well when TX
antenna at ground level.

Low power also worked at this distance.
[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Deemed unnecessary
[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Deemed unnecessary
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Results were an analysis of Flite-Metal's alloy effect on George Maiorana's B29, one of five giant scale Flite-Metal covered designer scale models designed and
built for competitive flying scale modeling by George Maiorana of Sterling Heights, Michigan. George currently has a C-133 competing at the Toledo Show. Note
the data shown to right of Inside Fuse High Power .....

049flyer

My Feedback: (18)

Deleted

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Flte metal, thanks for posting. I know that you guys have been around for a very long time and I really did not mean to imply that your product was unsafe in an manner. I think that the thin self adhesive layer keeps the shielding aspect of your product to a minimum and leads to successful results. I did however notice in the data that you posted that on the 6EX system on low power with the RX inside the aircraft that signal was lost at 415 ' yet the same setup with the RX external went beyond 700'. Did I read that correctly?

zacharyR

My Feedback: (5)

this is my fav part of flitemetal jets


" The results were the same, whether each system was sealed up within the fuselage, or sitting on the flat test bed not in any airplane."

FliteMetal

Results to any application of an alloy to the exterior of a model are finite and subject to great differential. That being said condition of
an R/C system are obviously going to effect its performance, much less result in less than favorable results when components are less
than than their manufacturer intends them to be.

There are facts which remain and each is specific to an explicit alloy and r/c system condition. My post here is solely intended to state
the results of an SST 2.4 test conducted at ground level in Detroit when atmospheric conditions were as good as you would expect to
fly in at your favorite flying field.

There is no magic in one alloy over the choice of another. Some work, some don't work quite as well as others...all effected by content
of the alloy itself. We strive to provide heads up knowledge to existing and prospective customers without overly simplifying this issue.
In my observation its been more of an issue with the condition of the R/C system when comparing similar aluminum alloys.

As our recommendations state: Always follow your R/C manufacturer's recommendations for receiver and satellite antenna placement!

zacharyR

My Feedback: (5)

i like this part too

"After the initial test of the Futaba© system it became apparent receiver & antenna placement was of little concern because evaluation results were the same as when the system sat outside of plane on a board. Please re-read that sentence again before continuing."


we back to right and wrong man .. you look wrong in my book and this is where you apologize

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Thanks again ED. as I had stated that will all the information in this thread so far I have a better opinion then when it started. I'm just trying to cast a safety net out there that everyone needs to do their due diligence and not just leave the thread with an attitude that there would be no difference in reception between an all aluminum aircraft and a wood aircraft. I would think that if it was of no concern at all then you would not have run your tests. I think we would agree that there would be a difference between an aircraft constructed of all aluminum vs a fiberglass or wood airframe covered in your product.

zacharyR

My Feedback: (5)

So we are over looking right and wrong now

what about the part on flute metal where it said it didn't matter if the rx was inside the fuse or out i. The open o. A bord the results where the same that contradicts speed racer Matt and dirty that supports myself. So I shouldn't of been discredited that's a wrongdoing and deserves an apology


Call it For what is guys come on give credit for right and wrong please.