nano, nano wherefore art thou nano?
ron

Still waiting on RF chips.

Originally Posted by JimDrew

Still waiting on RF chips.

stop ordering your stuff from Alpha Centauri!

Some good news. The chips are in route. There will be two new "MicroRx" receivers, the Nano IV and the Pico. The Pico is a smaller single output receiver. The new Nano IV and Pico can output multiple protocols (XPS, SBUS, XBUS, PPM, etc.). Also, like the new X10+, a new voltage regulator with reverse polarity protection is being used. This will eliminate returns due to plugging in the battery backwards.

Originally Posted by JimDrew

Some good news. The chips are in route. .

I hope those Centaurians are using the 'space folding' technique instead of FTL.

Joke aside, will you supply bare-boards (no connectors) for the Picos also?

Well, the Pico uses a 1.5mm connector (same as Spektrum satellite) so I don't think it will be available without a connector.

Pico + SBUS = Nice.

Originally Posted by ron locke

nano, nano wherefore art thou nano?
ron

Bump again...........

Mark

Still waiting for boards to arrive. We then have secondary assembly, programming, testing to do once they are here.

I decided to scrub the Pico. It turns out that the RFU is so far superior to dual Picos that it makes no sense to even make the Pico. The RFU is about 10dBm better sensitivity than than the Nano or Pico. That is about 150% further range, and the diversity is actually a bit better than dual Nano or Pico receivers.

Originally Posted by JimDrew

Still waiting for boards to arrive. We then have secondary assembly, programming, testing to do once they are here.

I decided to scrub the Pico. It turns out that the RFU is so far superior to dual Picos that it makes no sense to even make the Pico. The RFU is about 10dBm better sensitivity than than the Nano or Pico. That is about 150% further range, and the diversity is actually a bit better than dual Nano or Pico receivers.

OK, so I need to look towards a couple of RFU's. Problem is; my wings are finished, I have minimal space to squeeze an RFU past the aileron servo into
the adjacent bay. Space between ribs is 2", space from edge of servo to next spar is 2.5". I would need to roll-up the antennas and position the
antenna tips close together tucked in the far corner OR I can try to squeeze the antennas over and between the spar and the covering into the
last trailing edge bay. I would have no control how the antenna tips lay. How far apart must they be? can they touch or cross?

After marking off and painting in excess of 2000 lozenges, I refuse to even consider cutting-up that wing to create extra bays for the receivers.

You just need a single RFU (it takes the place of two receivers). The RFU is smaller in overall size than our Nano receivers and the antenna leads extend 6" away.

Originally Posted by JimDrew

You just need a single RFU (it takes the place of two receivers). The RFU is smaller in overall size than our Nano receivers and the antenna leads extend 6" away.

Hi Jim, I know all that. The question was about the antenna tips, can they touch or cross and if not, how far apart must they be?

The white tips should be as far apart as possible - that's how you get diviersity. They should always be no less than 2" apart from each other. The black portion (antenna coax) can be next to any other wires, it's just the white tip that matters.

I am going to mount the Nano way back in the open fuselage of a 1/4 scale Bleriot XI-B. Does it matter if the antenna wires are vertical or horizontal?
If so, which is best?

The wires should be straight out. They form a single dipole antenna so they can't be bent at 90 degrees (or the range drops significantly). A range test will always tell you if your installation is correct.