|
Ryan STA ARF 70.8" I'm having trouble deciding where to put the receiver
Ryan STA ARF 70.8" I'm having trouble deciding where to put the receiver. I'm brand new to installing and using 2.4 Ghz radio systems. The antennas are supposed to be 90° from each other. I'm not sure where or how to put it in the fuselage so that they are 90° from each other and yet not too close to metal. The receiver is an Optima 9 and the I'm flying it on a Glow Engine. I was wondering when they say 90° do they mean the entire antenna wire or just the tips of the antenna?
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...aee883e847.jpg https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...647a19872b.jpg https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...6218a448f3.jpg https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...ceec1f40a1.jpg |
I'm still using 72 MHz, and mounted mine right behind the tank
|
Originally Posted by bhady
(Post 12451120)
I'm still using 72 MHz, and mounted mine right behind the tank
I already decided to use the new 2.4 Ghz. If anyone has got an idea how I should install the double antennas in this plane please let me know! |
I brought it out the side of the fuse and then back to under the horizontal stab
|
Originally Posted by bhady
(Post 12451170)
I brought it out the side of the fuse and then back to under the horizontal stab
|
How about out the ottom of the fuse. and then enclosed in a pushrod tube, a white one would hide it pretty well
|
In my opinion you are overthinking this. In my experience it is not critical to have the antennas 90 degrees apart. Is it a good idea, yes it is. I have flown thousands of flights on 2.4 (Futaba) without the antennas being oriented any particular way with no issues whatsoever. But since you are concerned about this, fix your receiver in place and then run one antenna to one side of the fuselage and the other one to the other side. Hold them in place with a piece of clear tape.
You absolutely do not need to run any part of your 2.4 antenna outside of the fuselage. |
Originally Posted by Steve Collins
(Post 12451401)
In my opinion you are overthinking this. In my experience it is not critical to have the antennas 90 degrees apart. Is it a good idea, yes it is. I have flown thousands of flights on 2.4 (Futaba) without the antennas being oriented any particular way with no issues whatsoever. But since you are concerned about this, fix your receiver in place and then run one antenna to one side of the fuselage and the other one to the other side. Hold them in place with a piece of clear tape.
You absolutely do not need to run any part of your 2.4 antenna outside of the fuselage. Several people have already told me that 90 degrees is what they need to be. This is the best idea I've been able to come up with so far: https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...76b92d40f3.jpg https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...77e277dc99.jpg https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...1866edfb45.jpg |
That will work.
|
From the pictures it looks like only the very end of those cables are the actual antenna. The "wire" I suspect is a coax cable and therefore has no impact on reception of the actual signal.
The idea behind the dual antennas for 2.4 is this. The signal is so easily blocked by anything in the model that at least one of the antennas has a clear shot to the Tx at any given time. Antenna theory dictates the 90 degree orientation in order to maximize the radiation pattern. The best install for performance has the antennas at 90 degrees and the RX and antennas as far away as practical from metal (engine, pushrods) and carbon (pushrods, re-enforcement). From the standpoint of radio function, the old 72MHz FM sets are better radios than the 2.4 sets. The 2.4 have more features. But when it comes to sending a signal from point A to point B, the 72 sets don't need all the fail safe features, dual antennas, satellite receivers, etc. etc. But Americans do like their complex gadgetry! |
I'd mount it where that empty servo spot is, then run one antenna straight forward under the tank and the other pointed to side right behind the tank. That would have them as far as possible from metal rods and the servos and give you the 90 degree separation that you need.
|
Originally Posted by Steve Collins
(Post 12451401)
In my opinion you are overthinking this. In my experience it is not critical to have the antennas 90 degrees apart. Is it a good idea, yes it is. I have flown thousands of flights on 2.4 (Futaba) without the antennas being oriented any particular way with no issues whatsoever. But since you are concerned about this, fix your receiver in place and then run one antenna to one side of the fuselage and the other one to the other side. Hold them in place with a piece of clear tape.
You absolutely do not need to run any part of your 2.4 antenna outside of the fuselage. it only takes a second or two of poor reception for any reason to destroy many hours of work and potential enjoyment,.......why would someone challenge that ?. |
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...24c0072528.jpg https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...6cc34deb01.jpg I have been flying the Optima receivers for 6 years now and have had virtually zero issues. The only issue I had was when I placed the antennas close to a fuel tank. It was a small airplane and I opted for that position as opposed to close to the servos. Bottom line is that 2.4 ghz will NOT penetrate fluids. Keep the antennas away from the fuel tank. The only part of the Hitec antenna you are concerned with is the very tip. The part that looks like silver stranded wire covered with clear teflon tube. What I would suggest is mounting a tray across your hatch opening and mounting the RX to the bottom of that tray. Mount one antenna ( Boda ) on the top of the tray horizontal and pointing towards the tail, the other antenna should be mounted vertically or at a vertical 45 degree angle. This is the orientation I run on everything that affords me the room to do so. On the subject of external placement, only required when running a carbon fiber fuselage. I have two all CF sailplanes and have room for only the Optima 7 channel RX. The Boda is mounted internally and the antenna makes a 90 degree bend into a short peice of plastic tube that routes it outside the fuselage. Then the tube and antenna gets a layer of heat shrink. |
Originally Posted by gregoryshock
(Post 12451184)
I was trying to avoid doing it that way because some of my old receivers have antennas that are cracking from sun and wind damage. That was back when they were setup that way on other models.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:49 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.