All Day Dan

My Feedback: (5)

This has been discussed before but I would like to find out if there is new information out there because of the popularity of the 2.4 radios. I have read the MSDS sheets for Rustoleum Aluminum and One Shot Silver paints. They both list aluminum flakes as a component. I don't know if this is common for all metallic paints. Benjamin Moore does not have any metallic material in their silver paints. Do the metallic paints effect the performance of the radios on 2.4 gigaHertz?

bigtim

My Feedback: (13)

actually the Ben Moore modern masters metal paints do have metal flakes in it, this has been well done over, there has not been any interference problems with metallic paint posted any where I have read on RCU .

considering there are many planes covered in flight metal which gives a much thicker metal covering on planes skins, and guys are not having problems with that why would a metallic paint give any problems,there isn't any evidence that its a issue

All Day Dan

My Feedback: (5)

Thanks for the input Tim. I don't understand how the guys are getting away with it. Wrapping you plane with a metallic covering is like putting your receiver in a tin can. Hopefully a physicist or better RF engineer than I am can contribute an input. Dan.

Zor

The concern here is the shielding effect of a metallic covering or a metallic shrinking wrap.

Sheilding effectiveness depends on the electrical conductivity ot the material.

A foil or aluminum (food wrap as often used in an oven cooking food) is an excellent shield.

As it was suggested a while ago in some thread, connect the receiver and some servos to it and wrap the receiver in one layer of the covering material. Proceed to make a PROPER range check.

If all works fine then this material can be used for covering.

There is no way I can think of to make a conductivity measurement of this covering material because some plastic layer may be on the surfaces (both faces).

Its conductitvity might be next to nothing or it can be quite good depending on the density of the metallic flakes or powder used in its fabrication.

Anyone with a better idea ?

Zor

All Day Dan

My Feedback: (5)

Zor, I sent an email to Futaba with the same question to see what they say. Maybe they did some tests to determine if a metallic paint with a volume by weight of 15 percent aluminum flakes is any threat to the reception. It would be great if they had some information. Dan.

Zor

Hi DAN,

It certainly would be great if they have some information.
It would be great if you get a reply from Futaba.

I have great suspicions that you will not but we have to wait and see.

If any reply does arrive check where it is from.
I have reasons to believe that the exclusive importer handles all queries and correspondence.

The importer-distributor staff is notfully acquainted with the manufacturer's engineering knowledge and may not have a suitable pre-written selectable answer for this question.

In such cases we simply do not receive any reply or, as per my experience, we receive an answer that does not relate to the question.

I did not pursue the subject about my inquiry. I considered it useless.

Hoping you will have more luck than I did.

Let us see what happens.

Zor

goatnick

My Feedback: (11)

I had a Bucker that I built a number of years ago and never could fly
it because I had painted it with Bell Helicopter Metallic Silver, paint I had used
AM,Fm and Pcm Radios but always had interfence,But when the 2.4 Radoos
came out I bought one. installed it in Bucker and have flown it for Two years
with no problems,Radio is a Futabs 7-C.
Bob

Zor

Thanks goatnick, yourpost creates some interesting thinking.

A number of years ago using lower frequencies the antennas would have been outside the painted airplane and not shielded by the paint.

I also cannot think of metallic paint generating radio interference. It is quite possible that the interference was from an outside source.

Cnanging to 2.4 Ghz is an entirely different situation.

What is interesting is that you have had no communicaion problem in the last two years with he new 2.4 Ghz system.

I have to guess that your 2.4 antenna(s) is (are) fully inside the metallic paint fuselage.

Could you please confirm that ?

Thanks de Zor

All Day Dan

My Feedback: (5)

Great post Bob. That is good information. I assume that the antennas are inside. Dan.

daven

My Feedback: (1)

I have used mettalic paints for years with completely enclosed antennas for years (10+), both 72 mhz and 2.4 ghz.

Just do a good range check and you should be fine.

daven

My Feedback: (1)

there is a ton of flake in that paint (PPG base coat clear coat) in there as well, no issues.

All Day Dan

My Feedback: (5)

Nice plane daven. My aged reflexes no longer allow me to fly those hot planes any more. I get along with the 1/5 scale warbirds OK . Well, it's been more than a week and I have heard nothing back from Futaba as Zor predicted. I found a Benjamin Moore color named Metallic Silver which actually looks like a light gray and with a lot of imagination may look like aluminum. I could not wait any longer and used it to paint the plane that was ready for paint. Thank you all for your posts. They were all good ones and about the subject. A rare commodity on RCU. Dan.

Zor

Six days and counting LOL .

LesUyeda

One needs to realize that in "metallic" paint, even though it contains real metal, the particles of "metal" are surrounded by a carrier, that in reality insulates one metal particle from the other; therefore you do not have a sheet of metal, but rather a million little individual pieces.

Les

All Day Dan

My Feedback: (5)

Les, All those particles do add up to some value of radio frequency attenuation. It's that reduction in signal level at the receiver's antennas that I am concerned about. It doesn't block the signal completely but may be enough to reduce the margin of safety. I know guys have gotten away with using it but I would rather not risk it unless one of the manufacturers, like Futaba, can provide test data one way or the other. That's why I went with the faux metallic paint. Dan.

Zor

It seem so simple to install the antenna(s) outside the covering particularly if the antenna(s) are fed through a transmission line.

Zor

All Day Dan

My Feedback: (5)

Zor, putting the antennas outside the air frame is a possibility but it would take some engineering. You could do that with the Futaba type of antennas but I am not too sure if it could be done with some of the others. In fact, I think that Futaba will install longer length antennas in your receiver if you send it in. Even then, it’s not a good idea. Having the antennas parallel to the body is not the best configuration for RF reception. Having them perpendicular would be better but very difficult to implement. Even then, of the metal flakes in the finish add up to a substantial RF barrier you would expose the antennas to periods of time of significant blockage. Dan.

Zor

DANREISS,

I appreciate your comments

Now ___what do you suggest to do ?

I can think of at least two solutions but do not wish to influence your ideas.

Zor

All Day Dan

My Feedback: (5)

What am I going to do? I already did it. I chose the conservative way and went with my usual opaque oil based paint. I'll continue that until I hear something definitive about the metallics. Dan.

Zor

Agreed. That was one of my thinking. Use non metallic covering.

The other is go back to 72 Mhz and use a long outside antenna. Then metallic covering would not bother reception worth talking about.

Zor

LesUyeda

All arguments withstanding, I don't think you could get a paint much more "mettalic" than Chrome Monokote, and I never had any problems with this one.

Les

Zor

Looking at your nice pictures (beautiful airplane models) I have to assume that your antenna(s) areinside the metallic Monokote but you did not say so.

Zor

All Day Dan

My Feedback: (5)

That's a great looking plane Les. I've heard about that chrome Monocote being a problem but as long as it works for you, that's all that is important. I have the same question about the antenna location and another one about whicj band you are operating on. Dan.

LesUyeda

Thank You.

Antenna is about 75% inside, with only 25% exiting aft of the cockpit. The radio frequency is 6 meters (50 MHz). If there was to be a problem, I would have expected a much shortened range, (especially off the nose or tail) but it flew as long as I could see it. I do understand that being a longer wavelength that the 72, results may be slightly different, but I would expect the difference between the two frequencies to be negligable(sp). Perhaps one caveat, is the monokote is put on in panels, not one continuous sheet, but again, at these frequencies, I would not expect the RF to notice that.

Les
WA6EER
(just so no one complains about my frequency)

Zor

Hello Les,

Ah! ___the cat is out of the bag ___Hee! Hee! ___LOL

No more wondering is needed.

You are a ham and using the 6 meter band like I used to do with some of my home brew radios in the good old days.

Beside having the covering in sectons likely insulated from each other by the glue on overlaps, It is not likly that any of the covering areas are resonating to 6 meter range.

Perhaps you also are using much higher power like I used to with about 5 watts in the antenna.

Thanks for your post. 73

Zor ___VA3??