does the location of the 2.4 GHZ transmitter antenna, really affects its range ? from the actual performance point of view.

Here are the 3 posible positon.

1. a few inch away from the Transmitter Base such as Spektrum and JR
2. at the Base of Transmitter - Futaba, Aurora, Hitec
3. Inside the Transmitter - Newer Futaba


from the Theoretical Point of view, The further the Antenna from the Transmitter will give the Best Performance, due to Less obstacle on the Radiation Pattern........a Human Body can also act as as Obstacle......

here is my guest on the relative Performance of the 3 posible position:
1. a few inch away - this is the Best - 100%
2. at the Base of Transmitter - 99.9999% (base on a few inch compare to 1 Kilometer)
3. inside the transmitter - 99 %

I just hope someone can make a Measurable Performance comparison.

The position as orientation is more important than distance to transmitter.
So, keep antenna vertical, which is not easy inside body.
The "modern" no antenna radio solutions, which hide antenna inside radio making it horizontal are a big mistake and shouldn't be allowed for other than park flyers, imo.

Why consider your body as obstacle, are you pilot with the a... beeep... ... ? you should be always with the face to the plane.

Originally Posted by RENATOA

The position as orientation is more important than distance to transmitter.
So, keep antenna vertical, which is not easy inside body.
The "modern" no antenna radio solutions, which hide antenna inside radio making it horizontal are a big mistake and shouldn't be allowed for other than park flyers, imo.

Why consider your body as obstacle, are you pilot with the a... beeep... ... ? you should be always with the face to the plane.

Two things:

1. The antenna emits strongest signal in a plane perpendicular to the antenna and almost no signal in line with the antenna.

2. We tend to face the aircraft which is anywhere from our level (on the ground) to high above our head.

Antenna pointed away from the pilot will point at the aircraft = minimum signal; antenna pointed up will send strong signal to aircraft on or close to the ground. Antenna pointing left or right will send the strongest signal to the aircraft regardless of its altitude if the pilot always faces the aircraft. So horizontal antenna is the best orientation.

Originally Posted by RENATOA

The position as orientation is more important than distance to transmitter.
So, keep antenna vertical, which is not easy inside body.

Do you mean vertical in relation to the ground? The transmitter is usually more or less horizontal, so this would mean bending it up at 90 degrees. Would you like to explain please.

My own practice is to bend it to one side (JR transmitter), on the theory that since I normally turn to face the model, this minimizes the probability of pointing the tip at the model.

But I should say that in five years of flying 2.4 (DSM2, Fly Dream, FrSky) I have had no cases of lost signal (except with an apparently defective AR500, which was not in any way a range issue) with any antenna orientation. I am astonished at the reliability of 2.4 after many years of flying FM.

On a recent range test, I had 95 feet of range with the transmitter antenna horizontal (pointing to the right, horizontally). I moved the antenna to the vertical position ( pointing toward the ground at an angle) and my range went to 107 feet.

I think this relates to a previous post that the best reception is being perpendicular to the plane.

The radio was a Futaba 12FG and the receiver a 6008. The reason for the low range is I was testing the receiver inside a carbon tube sitting directly on the ground (worst way to range test). It proved that the antenna should be pointing toward the ground at the angle allowed and be perpendicular to the plane.

Phil

Originally Posted by podrieger

On a recent range test, I had 95 feet of range with the transmitter antenna horizontal (pointing to the right, horizontally). I moved the antenna to the vertical position ( pointing toward the ground at an angle) and my range went to 107 feet.

I think this relates to a previous post that the best reception is being perpendicular to the plane.

The radio was a Futaba 12FG and the receiver a 6008. The reason for the low range is I was testing the receiver inside a carbon tube sitting directly on the ground (worst way to range test). It proved that the antenna should be pointing toward the ground at the angle allowed and be perpendicular to the plane.

Phil

This test could completely relate to the orientation of the antenna in the airplane. Best reception is when both antennas are in the same orientation, vertical to vertical, horizontal to horizontal.

Disarry,
The antennas in the carbon tube were horizontal with the tube laying on the ground. The range increased when the trans antenna was rotated to a vertical position. I was standing near 90 degrees to the tube.

I think this says the antennas were perpendicular to each other when the range increased..

Phil

Originally Posted by podrieger

Disarry,
The antennas in the carbon tube were horizontal with the tube laying on the ground. The range increased when the trans antenna was rotated to a vertical position. I was standing near 90 degrees to the tube.

I think this says the antennas were perpendicular to each other when the range increased..

Phil

Well so much for my fancy book learnin.