SMALL - espritmodel.com SMALL - Telemetry SMALL - Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Jan 29, 2013, 10:50 PM
I live my life 12oz at a time
arnav's Avatar
United States, FL, Miami
Joined Nov 2011
2,699 Posts
Thanks! Ok, how about this? Do you think this is better? Less blockage, away from the magnet and wider CF Rod, but in between those thinner CF rods.

I am paranoid as signal loss has been getting progressively worse in our field. Airplanes have been dropping like flies lately.
arnav is online now Find More Posts by arnav
RCG Plus Member
Last edited by arnav; Jan 29, 2013 at 11:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Jan 29, 2013, 11:18 PM
Registered User
South Africa, WC, Cape Town
Joined Dec 2009
1,402 Posts
you need not be concerned with those carbon rods
TimBle is offline Find More Posts by TimBle
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 29, 2013, 11:24 PM
I live my life 12oz at a time
arnav's Avatar
United States, FL, Miami
Joined Nov 2011
2,699 Posts
but you still would not do something like that though right (One parallel, one tip touching)? This is my default setup in other planes and in this case it seems to be the worst setup...

Oh I really hope not to crash-maiden this one...

arnav is online now Find More Posts by arnav
RCG Plus Member
Old Jan 29, 2013, 11:30 PM
Registered User
South Africa, WC, Cape Town
Joined Dec 2009
1,402 Posts
Personally I would mount the Rx longuitudinally in the fuselage and then mount the antenna high up in the fuselage, perhaps under the canopy at 45 degrees to the long axis of the aircraft.

This would be MY prefered antenna orientation
TimBle is offline Find More Posts by TimBle
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 09:11 AM
Skaluf's Avatar
Sadorus, IL
Joined Mar 2004
597 Posts
Your original install was better IMHO. Best not to have the antenna touching the rod, but close proximity is really not an issue. You want to want the antennas oriented roughly 90 degrees apart (which you do).

Hope this helps.

Steve

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnav View Post
Thanks! Ok, how about this? Do you think this is better? Less blockage, away from the magnet and wider CF Rod, but in between those thinner CF rods.

I am paranoid as signal loss has been getting progressively worse in our field. Airplanes have been dropping like flies lately.
Skaluf is offline Find More Posts by Skaluf
Site Sponsor
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 10:16 AM
I live my life 12oz at a time
arnav's Avatar
United States, FL, Miami
Joined Nov 2011
2,699 Posts
Thanks so much Steve for chiming in..
Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing, from what you are saying:
- Both setups are 90 degrees.
- The CF rods are immaterial for either setups (as in both they are appropriately in the same proximity to them).

So basically this has nothing to do with the CF and more about whether the best practice is to have 90 degrees laying "flat" in the fuse or 90 degrees vertically with one antenna pointing up... I take from what you said that the "flat" layout seems to generally work better which is why you like that one better...

Did I understand/guess your rational/preference correctly?

thanks again for the help
arnav is online now Find More Posts by arnav
RCG Plus Member
Old Jan 30, 2013, 11:02 AM
Skaluf's Avatar
Sadorus, IL
Joined Mar 2004
597 Posts
No flat is not better necessarily (it's all relative to the aircraft's attitude at any given moment), but your original install was a bit cleaner looking to me. The important thing is to position the antennas so one is always exposed to the transmitter (not blocked by something significant in the aircraft).

The good news is, that Futaba receivers are very tolerant to less than 100% ideal installations. But it is always best to do the best job possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnav View Post
Thanks so much Steve for chiming in..
Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing, from what you are saying:
- Both setups are 90 degrees.
- The CF rods are immaterial for either setups (as in both they are appropriately in the same proximity to them).

So basically this has nothing to do with the CF and more about whether the best practice is to have 90 degrees laying "flat" in the fuse or 90 degrees vertically with one antenna pointing up... I take from what you said that the "flat" layout seems to generally work better which is why you like that one better...

Did I understand/guess your rational/preference correctly?

thanks again for the help
Skaluf is offline Find More Posts by Skaluf
Site Sponsor
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 11:29 AM
I live my life 12oz at a time
arnav's Avatar
United States, FL, Miami
Joined Nov 2011
2,699 Posts
ok.

On the tolerance piece. So... this is not scientific and generally unproductive, so feel free to ignore completely.

I do agree. I have seen people fly successfully on our field with Futaba antennas crumbled into a ball... Our field has sketchy signal issues tough. It is between various antennas. 72 mhz get shot right away. DSM gets shot right away. Orange Rx get shot right away. I did better for a few months with Spektrum DSMX + Telemetry until I started to have signal issues as well. Over the years everyone pretty much switched to Futaba and we largely didn't have any issues with it. Just very recently we started to have signal issues even with Futaba and of course everyone is very concerned, as in our minds Futaba was "bullet-proof." I lost a 48" Edge myself a few weeks ago. They must have started broadcasting new signal around and hence my paranoia and quest for a "best job possible".
arnav is online now Find More Posts by arnav
RCG Plus Member
Old Jan 30, 2013, 11:37 AM
Registered User
South Africa, WC, Cape Town
Joined Dec 2009
1,402 Posts
With the futaba receiver antennae you can think of the install as a 3 dimensional plane with X,Y and Z axes.

you can have the antenna laying on the X and Y or on the X and Z or the Y and Z as long the orientation is 90 degrees to each other and not touching anything conductive the install is highly tolerant.
In my slope soaring glider I have the antennae under the canopy over the servos but one antenna is guided to the side of the glass fibre fuselage and running along the aircrafts Z axis while the other runs along the longitudinal axis against the glass fibre canopy.Around the antennae is a LiFePO4 battery, a switch two servo's, man it's cramped in there.

Inother aircraft I have them pointing at 45 degree each to the longitudinal axis from the Rx in the same plane ie. X,Y (spanwise)

Never had a glitch
TimBle is offline Find More Posts by TimBle
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 11:51 AM
I live my life 12oz at a time
arnav's Avatar
United States, FL, Miami
Joined Nov 2011
2,699 Posts
yeah, I think this is an excellent way to explain it. This is my understanding of how it works as well. I just still don't have a firm personal strategy as to when to deviate from my default 90 degree each to the longitudinal axis from the Rx in the same plane ie. X,Y (spanwise)....

In your "45 degree each to the longitudinal axis from the Rx in the same plane ie. X,Y (spanwise)" you need to stick the antennas hanging outside the fuse right? In my case for example I would need to poke holes in the covering to do so right?
arnav is online now Find More Posts by arnav
RCG Plus Member
Old Jan 30, 2013, 11:52 AM
Skaluf's Avatar
Sadorus, IL
Joined Mar 2004
597 Posts
Interesting, you should see if AMA can look into what is going on at your field. This is the first I've heard of issues like you are describing.

Steve

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnav View Post
ok.

On the tolerance piece. So... this is not scientific and generally unproductive, so feel free to ignore completely.

I do agree. I have seen people fly successfully on our field with Futaba antennas crumbled into a ball... Our field has sketchy signal issues tough. It is between various antennas. 72 mhz get shot right away. DSM gets shot right away. Orange Rx get shot right away. I did better for a few months with Spektrum DSMX + Telemetry until I started to have signal issues as well. Over the years everyone pretty much switched to Futaba and we largely didn't have any issues with it. Just very recently we started to have signal issues even with Futaba and of course everyone is very concerned, as in our minds Futaba was "bullet-proof." I lost a 48" Edge myself a few weeks ago. They must have started broadcasting new signal around and hence my paranoia and quest for a "best job possible".
Skaluf is offline Find More Posts by Skaluf
Site Sponsor
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:05 PM
I live my life 12oz at a time
arnav's Avatar
United States, FL, Miami
Joined Nov 2011
2,699 Posts
yeah, it is definitely interesting. Unfortunately a lot of it is anecdotal and circumstantial so it is hard to engage in meaningful conversation about it on RCG most of the time. it is not an AMA sanctioned field so I don't think they can help. it is only 5 to 7 minutes away from a large group of flyers so many people fly there. The nearest AMA sanctioned site is 30 mins away and really crowded so not all of us go there often. If the problems persist tough, we may not have a choice.... For what its worth, Futaba equipment still outperforms anything else there by a wide wide margin which is why virtually all of us switched to Futaba. in fact, the 8FG is the most popular radio there.
arnav is online now Find More Posts by arnav
RCG Plus Member
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:36 PM
A man with too many toys
United States
Joined Feb 2001
17,787 Posts
See is you can find someone with a spectrum analyzer. Maybe check with the nearest HAM club as they would probably know about any most of the high-energy transmissions in the area, or could find out for you. It would probably take a fairly powerful transmitter to wipe out the entire band and bring down a FASST radio. There are lists of such transmitters if you know where to look.


.
RC Man is online now Find More Posts by RC Man
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:38 PM
Registered User
DeBary, FL
Joined Nov 2010
1,714 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnav View Post
yeah, it is definitely interesting. Unfortunately a lot of it is anecdotal and circumstantial so it is hard to engage in meaningful conversation about it on RCG most of the time. it is not an AMA sanctioned field so I don't think they can help. it is only 5 to 7 minutes away from a large group of flyers so many people fly there. The nearest AMA sanctioned site is 30 mins away and really crowded so not all of us go there often. If the problems persist tough, we may not have a choice.... For what its worth, Futaba equipment still outperforms anything else there by a wide wide margin which is why virtually all of us switched to Futaba. in fact, the 8FG is the most popular radio there.
Now I know absolutely *nothing* about the political/operational aspects of these three groups I suggest contacting, but these are the steps I'd go through...

Idea #1. I think AMA would be very interested on several counts. Regardless of sanction they're here to support the -hobby-. If there's a *SAFETY* issue then they'll be on it in half a heartbeat. They don't want planes getting shot down *anywhere* regardless of membership. Second, you might get a lot of support and encouragement to build a member club. AMA has to gain new space and membership at at least an equal rate that they lose.

Idea #2, and this might get even more support than AMA from a marketing outlook. Call Futaba and say 'Hey we've got an area here that the only reliable radios that work are yours, but we've got an anomaly recently. Come on over and check it out, and you can use it as a *advertising* tool to say that you make the *better* radio system.' (And also possibly find the source of the problem in the process which is of course -your- need.)

Idea #3. Call the FCC and say 'We've know got a tough area here and we've been trying to deal with it as best we can, but things are happening that never happened before.' Again emphasise that it's a *safety* issue (flyoffs and shootdowns.) Could be a piece of faulty equipment, or a bad design, or an improper or incorrect installation. If there is a -technical- problem the owner of the 'cause' *HAS* to listen to the FCC where they can ignore AMA or Futaba.

There're more antennas going up every day everywhere and that's not gonna change.
jbarchuk is offline Find More Posts by jbarchuk
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:42 PM
I never finish anyth
United States, TX, Houston
Joined Jan 2012
2,585 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by numnutchris View Post
Check eg. the HK product page, "Files" tab, for the manual.
Havent tried FrSky SBus RXes but there is no limit on how many RXes you can link at the same time. As far as I know, its only the new FASSTest which are limited to 2 and must BIND one at a time.
Ive only used TFR8 + TFR8S and set the 8S to respond on CH9-14. Check the TFR8SB manual on how to set the modes for CH1-8 or CH9-16 response.
(You wont mess up any RX when adding another, theres no model match. I use it eg. in a twin motor plane with one FrSky 7CH rx in the wing and another in the fuselage, thus both control CH1-7 only, simultaneously)
Ok so I finally got around to this project. I read the manual and from what I understand now after some testing is I can only use the conventional 1-8 ports as 9-16 if I use a compatible SBUS servo. I was wanting to use the conventional 1-8 ports as 9-16 for things like my camera switcher, or LEDs, or gimbal tilt control (via a gimbal controller. Is this possible? Is there a way to tell the Rx "hey, your ports 1-8 are all 9-16 now...". I see how it is possible for SBUS servos but not for my regular equipment.
MCrites is offline Find More Posts by MCrites
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Focus 3 FM question. Also, about that new Futaba 3 ch. . . EFoil Parkflyers 5 Oct 19, 2001 11:59 AM
Wanted New Futaba T6XHS / Complete xios3 Aircraft - Electric - Airplanes (FS/W) 2 Aug 04, 2001 06:16 AM
4- New Futaba S-148 Servos $45 Shipped xios3 Aircraft - Electric - Airplanes (FS/W) 0 Aug 01, 2001 04:49 PM
New futaba 3 channel ss radio! carl schaller Electric Plane Talk 6 Jun 24, 2001 08:21 PM
New Futaba FF9 to replace FF8? John E Electric Plane Talk 5 Jun 10, 2001 05:41 AM