Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > Scratch Building, Aircraft Design, 3D/CAD
Reload this Page >

Will aluminum fuselage interfere with electronics

Notices
Scratch Building, Aircraft Design, 3D/CAD If you are starting/building a project from scratch or want to discuss design, CAD or even share 3D design images this is the place. Q&A's.

Will aluminum fuselage interfere with electronics

Old 03-13-2014, 08:18 AM
  #101  
zacharyR
My Feedback: (5)
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I'll qoute dirty bird here .. after i said my friend freaking flew a metal plane with no specialy gear or instaltion multiple times .. look at the qoute man you don't think that this B.S should go unchecked ?

this is the type of personality your moderating to protect

really .. if you where me you wouldn't get pissed off by these guys getting away with lining bending reality ... to match their egos.. you think you'd be all happy happy joy joy ... ? your messing with the checks and balances .. the only way they won't talk nonese sense if they get flamed or discreditd .. but if you come on and moderate everything down .to puppy kisses and butterflys only..then that can't happen and they will just go on talking trash ... don't you see what I'm getting at your protecting the bad guy ...


"[QUOTE=dirtybird;11750376]Anytime anyone on these forums says it worked and therefore it should always work, he simply knows nothing about statistical analysis.
Its the ultimate statement of arrogant ignorance.
It only says it worked under these conditions at this time.
Now we all know someone that flew an aluminum aircraft and got away with it.

e.
zacharyR is offline  
Old 03-13-2014, 08:56 AM
  #102  
AMA 74894
Moderator
My Feedback: (1)
 
AMA 74894's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Spicer, MN
Posts: 1,214
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

I understand your point completely I simply disagree with it.
Allow me to make something very clear, which I hope will help:

members are allowed to post questionable advice, or advice that others may think is incorrect.
posting questionable advise DOES NOT give other members the right to break RCU's rules of posting, plain and simple.
'flaming' is specifically prohibited here, as is name calling. (I'm WELL aware more than one member resorting to name calling in this thread.)

all I am trying to point out is that this discussion will only proceed in a civil manner, as there are several members posting on this thread (NOT just one) who are starting to get out of hand.
AMA 74894 is offline  
Old 03-14-2014, 11:41 PM
  #103  
Kentli22
Thread Starter
 
Kentli22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: hong kong, HONG KONG
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

neglecting of how they said it or what words they used, those who said aluminum has interference to RF had never said an all metal planes won't work. those who said that it has little or no interference because they had seen people did it and perhaps they know much more then just seeing it, those who know exactly how to make it work because they had done it could only share the idea that this will work when it is done properly, but without further mentioning of how to do it properly.

I personally have benefited from both sides' point of views. Now i know i can go on to build my "all aluminum" plane, but i will also do what i had learnt to minimise the metal interference to the Tx-Rx signal strength, but also pay attention to the possible interference that an metal surface could produce among all the electronic components.

at post #10, BMethews had advised that I should find out the answer for myself, I think it must be a man of insight and a man of experiences to give such an advice.

I wonder, if the argument of this thread is similar to the argument of whether cigarret smoking harms health?
Kentli22 is offline  
Old 03-24-2014, 12:16 PM
  #104  
BMatthews
 
BMatthews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chilliwack, BC, CANADA
Posts: 12,421
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 19 Posts
Default

As someone that worked in the RF field for most of their working career I know how well even a thin layer of metal shields RF. But similarly it does not take much of an opening to let the RF in either.

Mention was made earlier in the thread about testing from the inside of metal clad trailers. But I'll bet dollars to donuts that if you look underneath these trailers that you'll see an exposed plywood floor. And that is more than enough to let the RF in.

Very few models have full metal wrap fuselages either. First off there's cabin windows and cockpits. Then we would typically have a plywood fuselage with fiberglass or plastic cowl. Again another opening.

Even the glue used for things like Flitemetal can provide enough insulation between panels that the panels themselves can become passive radiators to guide the RF into the inside of the model.

But one thing that is certain. The thickness or material does not matter. Metal is a conductor, it will not NORMALLY pass RF. But lots of odd things happen when you're working with smaller pieces that can become passive radiators and directors due to size and shape.

The bottom line is that each case will be different. And each case needs to be checked for any degradation in range. To simply say that one setup will work because you've seen it done by others is to risk a lot.
BMatthews is offline  
Old 04-01-2014, 08:58 AM
  #105  
mattnew
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Haverhill, MA
Posts: 821
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

---deleted, I had read pages 1-3, ran my own test, posted, then read page 4.... I want no part of this ----

The forum should have a rule, if you think you "know" something, you need to post with factual data...

Last edited by mattnew; 04-01-2014 at 09:11 AM.
mattnew is offline  
Old 04-01-2014, 10:01 AM
  #106  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 8,838
Received 147 Likes on 127 Posts
Default

I hear ya Matt, in my case I posted everything I could without risking getting a call from the DOD. All I can say is take a look at any non stealth fighter aircraft and see if you can find the antennas. Hint, they are all exterior.
speedracerntrixie is offline  
Old 04-01-2014, 04:54 PM
  #107  
mattnew
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Haverhill, MA
Posts: 821
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
I hear ya Matt, in my case I posted everything I could without risking getting a call from the DOD. All I can say is take a look at any non stealth fighter aircraft and see if you can find the antennas. Hint, they are all exterior.
The question is does aluminum interfere with electronics. That answer is yes... but in reality the OP asked the wrong question I think. The better question is for practical RC application, are there issues with aluminum fuselages, what are they and how are they mitigated. My thought/hope is due to the closeness that we typically fly ( lets exclude long range FPV.. ) any degradation due to a metal skinned fuselage is probably for all practical purposes irrelevant. If my range decreases from 3 miles to 1.5 miles, I still can't fly that far away, so ultimately I don't care...

your examples are valid, those antenna's have to work reliably for 100's if not 1000's of miles so it would make sense to limit anything that would serve as a shield...I'm just struggling a bit trying to decide how that translates to RC where the distances are so much shorter. obviously you have different magnitudes in signal power as well...


I have interest in this simply b/c I'm finishing up a plane that is going to be sheeted in aluminum foil and obviously don't want to lose a plane due to finishing choices made....
This afternoon I put a servo, battery, and receiver in a box, wrapped it tightly in 3 layers of aluminum foil and range tested it. Worked fine... while I don't disagree that it can cause issues, I wish I knew of a way to create a scenario that would help to show the limits of what is possible/not possible.
mattnew is offline  
Old 04-01-2014, 07:25 PM
  #108  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 8,838
Received 147 Likes on 127 Posts
Default

Matt, all good points. Obviously you are someone with some knowledge on the subject. My view is that reduced range would also be a reduction in reliability.
speedracerntrixie is offline  
Old 04-02-2014, 05:32 AM
  #109  
mattnew
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Haverhill, MA
Posts: 821
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
Matt, all good points. Obviously you are someone with some knowledge on the subject. My view is that reduced range would also be a reduction in reliability.
Give anybody enough rope and they can hang themselves :-)

For reliability, the question for me would be does the aluminum introduce any sort of noise to the signal. If the signal is simply dampened/attenuated by the aluminum, then I think your reliable until the signal gets too weak. If you have some sort of RSSI you can measure that easily. I don't have the guts of a receiver ripped apart here, but it would be interesting to know if they keep track of the error rate of the incoming signal and if that is something that could be tapped into with a scope. If you could do an A-B comparison of the error rates with/ without the aluminum at range for an RC airplane, I think that would give you some sort of "confidence level" on what the reliability would be...


hmmm.....
mattnew is offline  
Old 04-02-2014, 05:54 AM
  #110  
Len Todd
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Baldwin, MI
Posts: 1,536
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 20 Posts
Default

Here is a possible test method: Get a two Rxer Spektrum unit. Put one inside a metal can and another on the outside of the can, on the side facing the transmitter. Start walking away. My bet is you will eventually see many more Fades and Frame Losses and the first Hold recorded on the Rxer inside the can, I have seen the increase of fades and frame losses situation when I just get a remote Rxer too close to a carbon fiber wing tube.
Len Todd is offline  
Old 04-02-2014, 11:07 AM
  #111  
BMatthews
 
BMatthews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chilliwack, BC, CANADA
Posts: 12,421
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 19 Posts
Default

.....This afternoon I put a servo, battery, and receiver in a box, wrapped it tightly in 3 layers of aluminum foil and range tested it. Worked fine... while I don't disagree that it can cause issues, I wish I knew of a way to create a scenario that would help to show the limits of what is possible/not possible.
But what sort of opening did it have to allow you to see the servo moving as you did your range check? At 2.4Ghz it doesn't take much of an opening in the box to allow a good portion of the signal into the box. Or if it was a music wire pushrod extending through an opening it could act as a passive passage for the RF to conduct into the box along the pushrod wire.

RF is certainly funny stuff. And those of us that have worked with shielded rooms know that it takes very little to ruin the seal and let in RF like water through a sieve. But when the seal is tight even a thin and light layer of metal is VERY effective at blocking out signals.
BMatthews is offline  
Old 04-02-2014, 04:22 PM
  #112  
invertmast
My Feedback: (23)
 
invertmast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Capon Bridge, WV
Posts: 8,063
Received 54 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
I hear ya Matt, in my case I posted everything I could without risking getting a call from the DOD. All I can say is take a look at any non stealth fighter aircraft and see if you can find the antennas. Hint, they are all exterior.
Technically not All of them...

the glideslope antenna's "can" be mounted internally. Same goes with Radar antenna's. But the rest of them are all exterior.
invertmast is offline  
Old 04-02-2014, 05:02 PM
  #113  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 8,838
Received 147 Likes on 127 Posts
Default

Thomas, some antennas are flush mounted but behind a composite radome. The same could be accomplished by cutting a window in an aluminum structure then filling the window with a fiberglass panel and mounting a satellite RX behind it. Just for the record, I'm not of the opinion that it couldn't be done I just feel that the guy planning an aircraft needs to do his homework to optimize his installation. Safety dictates this IMO.
speedracerntrixie is offline  
Old 04-02-2014, 09:24 PM
  #114  
Kentli22
Thread Starter
 
Kentli22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: hong kong, HONG KONG
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mattnew View Post
The question is does aluminum interfere with electronics. That answer is yes... but in reality the OP asked the wrong question I think. The better question is for practical RC application, are there issues with aluminum fuselages, what are they and how are they mitigated. My thought/hope is due to the closeness that we typically fly ( lets exclude long range FPV.. ) any degradation due to a metal skinned fuselage is probably for all practical purposes irrelevant. If my range decreases from 3 miles to 1.5 miles, I still can't fly that far away, so ultimately I don't care...

your examples are valid, those antenna's have to work reliably for 100's if not 1000's of miles so it would make sense to limit anything that would serve as a shield...I'm just struggling a bit trying to decide how that translates to RC where the distances are so much shorter. obviously you have different magnitudes in signal power as well...


I have interest in this simply b/c I'm finishing up a plane that is going to be sheeted in aluminum foil and obviously don't want to lose a plane due to finishing choices made....
This afternoon I put a servo, battery, and receiver in a box, wrapped it tightly in 3 layers of aluminum foil and range tested it. Worked fine... while I don't disagree that it can cause issues, I wish I knew of a way to create a scenario that would help to show the limits of what is possible/not possible.
mattnew, you had properly rewritten the OP question, I didnt know enough to ask a specific question to start with. Now with all the inputs from so many who know about RF, plus the little experiment that I did, I don't worry any more about the aluminum planes that I am/will be building, because a fuselage has so many openings that are not sealed with metal, and I am planning to have an certain area under the fuselage where the electronic components are, to be covered with silver monokote to ensure better transmission of signals.
Kentli22 is offline  
Old 04-03-2014, 09:11 AM
  #115  
mattnew
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Haverhill, MA
Posts: 821
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BMatthews View Post
But what sort of opening did it have to allow you to see the servo moving as you did your range check? At 2.4Ghz it doesn't take much of an opening in the box to allow a good portion of the signal into the box. Or if it was a music wire pushrod extending through an opening it could act as a passive passage for the RF to conduct into the box along the pushrod wire.

RF is certainly funny stuff. And those of us that have worked with shielded rooms know that it takes very little to ruin the seal and let in RF like water through a sieve. But when the seal is tight even a thin and light layer of metal is VERY effective at blocking out signals.

we went with the metal pushrod so there were no apparent openings, and tried our best to wrap the aluminum tightly around the area the pushrod exited.


https://plus.google.com/photos/yourphotos?banner=pwa&pid=5997366939448602002&oid=110532337644765466986 Certainly not fool proof, and I realize I don't show the range test in the video... my cell/camera doesn't have the resolution for that.

so.. to make this thread somewhat useable... how does one go about mitigating the affects of an aluminum fuselage..
1. place antenna's outside the fuselage is the best option
2. if placing antenna's internally, near openings such as windows or areas not covered by aluminum would be option #2
3. Ignoring the 2 suggestions above...realize that you are shielding the antenna from external signals, i.e. your transmitter . and the quality of the connection your tx/rx has is directly related to how well your shielding job was done. Hopefully you suck at it
4. range test range test range test. For range tests, I'd not only verify that the controls "move" but you don't observe any sort of glitching/twitching or unintended movement that could be signs of a problem that may become significant later.


Ultimately its on the owner to be comfortable that his setup is as safe as possible, and the responsibility of choosing to fly is his alone.





2 edits... not sure the video link worked, but its just a servo moving... and I'm still not sure for RC application if #3 is really that bad.still thinking how to test this...
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	20140401_124137.jpg
Views:	168
Size:	85.5 KB
ID:	1983681   Click image for larger version

Name:	20140401_124238.jpg
Views:	180
Size:	96.5 KB
ID:	1983682  

Last edited by mattnew; 04-03-2014 at 09:14 AM.
mattnew is offline  
Old 04-03-2014, 10:01 AM
  #116  
zacharyR
My Feedback: (5)
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

why do you have to go through all this experimentation when IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE

how can you guys just over look this fact ? and make up your own reailitys really drives me nuts
zacharyR is offline  
Old 04-03-2014, 10:22 AM
  #117  
Tampaflyer
My Feedback: (42)
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Columbus ,oh
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default



well this was one of two aluminum cover aircraft entered in TOPGUN 2011. this one was covered over a conventional fiberglass/wood frame. futaba system.
the over was a full aluminum miniature of the SONEX full scale aircraft.

you are more likely to have problems with the ignition systems than the airframe.

do you range checks.. on the BT.. we installed it and drove the transmitter till we couldn't see the airplane anymore on the ground. And still had contact.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	226756_2004922448705_2700669_n.jpg
Views:	174
Size:	77.0 KB
ID:	1983717  
Tampaflyer is offline  
Old 04-03-2014, 10:53 AM
  #118  
mattnew
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Haverhill, MA
Posts: 821
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by zacharyR View Post
why do you have to go through all this experimentation when IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE

how can you guys just over look this fact ? and make up your own reailitys really drives me nuts

ITS BEEN DONE! Thread over!

The thing you fail to realize is this isn't a yes/no question. It is a "how much" question...

What I can't understand is why your upset and complaining b/c myself and others trying to understand the impact of aluminum on our own planes. Learning is supposed to be a good thing... sometimes the "why" is just as important as knowing that something works.
mattnew is offline  
Old 04-03-2014, 12:02 PM
  #119  
zacharyR
My Feedback: (5)
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

no dude you dont understand


so the point of the thread has been made that it has a negative affect and that pepole where getting lucky .. thats the context

so whats the point of HOW MUCH

if the plane flys inside its flyable envlope just fine with out modifcatioins .. where we going here .. us subject matter experts can't be wrong ? we going to semantics of will my model airpalne be affected while flying across the Atlantic ?


so theres no point to HOW MUCH carbon has a greater affect on HOW MUCH but it's widely used and with great succes so why you guys re inviting the wheel here ? so that your stance of metal fuses affect Radio tech stance being the correct stance ?

when in fact its not the correct stance ?

Last edited by zacharyR; 04-03-2014 at 12:08 PM.
zacharyR is offline  
Old 04-03-2014, 12:17 PM
  #120  
zacharyR
My Feedback: (5)
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

srsly how much is just the normal radio good for ? whats the point if you can't see it

if this theread was will metal body airframes affect FPV ... then maybe we can put some logic to " how much " but how much currently is out of line of sight ..
zacharyR is offline  
Old 04-03-2014, 12:22 PM
  #121  
zacharyR
My Feedback: (5)
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

srsly man up it's vary clear some flat out flase statments have been made here ..

can we do something about that ? and discedit some experts that ant so expert ?

Last edited by zacharyR; 04-03-2014 at 12:27 PM.
zacharyR is offline  
Old 04-03-2014, 01:28 PM
  #122  
mattnew
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Haverhill, MA
Posts: 821
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by zacharyR View Post
no dude you dont understand


so the point of the thread has been made that it has a negative affect and that pepole where getting lucky .. thats the context

so whats the point of HOW MUCH

if the plane flys inside its flyable envlope just fine with out modifcatioins .. where we going here .. us subject matter experts can't be wrong ? we going to semantics of will my model airpalne be affected while flying across the Atlantic ?


so theres no point to HOW MUCH carbon has a greater affect on HOW MUCH but it's widely used and with great succes so why you guys re inviting the wheel here ? so that your stance of metal fuses affect Radio tech stance being the correct stance ?

when in fact its not the correct stance ?

I understand fine;

I understand your just trolling here,
I understand you don't really grasp any of what we are trying to talk about
I understand that you think Lipo's are safe

I understand I'm done with responding to you b/c its a waste of my time and you have no desire to understand any of this.
mattnew is offline  
Old 04-03-2014, 02:09 PM
  #123  
zacharyR
My Feedback: (5)
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

the lipo agruemnt was reliable .. they are reliable ....they are safe.. people aren't safe.. dumb people like the experts in this thread but that's another argument
but just for the record

dirtybird clamed Lipo as the MOST UNRELAIBLE .. " not the word safe " .. and that's just bull****

now back to the troll topic I think I am a troll for wanting right and wrong ?


look man the argument the pro and the con .. the pro is in the right .. the planes work just as well as any other airplane.. and they work better then carbon planes that guess.. what those work fine too..

so the con part .. the con part as always been in one way or another a radio related diminishing return that would affect flight performance at a value greater then conventional airframes affecting radio gear

this is just not the case .. now you do the right thing and man up to that... because I shouldn't be getting discredited on this forum .. for seeing something done with my own two eyes knowing it works knowing it works more then one application . and getting told that I am just seeing " luck " or its a spoof .. all I see from the con side is straight b.s there is video of it being done .. there is no video of it not being done or there is no one that's doing it comeon on here saying they had to rocket sicence to do it ..


again my friend did it I was there I seen it .. I know what stuff is I know the instaltion it was standard .. NOTHING FANCY NO WINDOWS NO nothing that has been stated would be needed by the " CON ' side of this thread ..

and for the record the conside of this thread is speedracer Trixie dirtytbird and you matt and a few others that are middle of the road .. but not so outlandish

and the outlandish part if anything that's the trolling part of this thread .. to spue just negative false junk .. for your own ego ... that's trolling man...

and if being on the side of fact and truth is trolling then I'm a troll I guesss
zacharyR is offline  
Old 04-03-2014, 02:18 PM
  #124  
allmetal plane
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Tallevast, FL
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKltIrY5Wmc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSGj0LEMJyE
allmetal plane is offline  
Old 04-03-2014, 02:27 PM
  #125  
allmetal plane
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Tallevast, FL
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKltIrY5Wmc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSGj0LEMJyE

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

Facts, Facts, no time for talk.. Each one has done their homework!

The last video is AN ELECTRIC which makes things more complicated!

Last edited by allmetal plane; 04-03-2014 at 02:30 PM.
allmetal plane is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.