Spektrum Antenna-Less Receivers

These sport receivers are full range air models that have a number of features including no external antennas, no bind plug needed, telemetry and more.

Splash

New Receivers for Spektrum Radios

OK, Antennas on modern 2.4Ghz radios are not nearly as long as the older 72Mhz ones were, but they can still get in the way and be annoying to route. If that's an issue you've run into, you'll be happy to hear about Spektrums newest receivers. These sport receivers are full range air models that have a number of features including no external antennas, no bind plug needed, telemetry and more.

There are two receivers available right now, a 4-channel AR410 and a 6-channel AR620. The best part is the prices which is listed at $29.99 and $39.99 respectively. They also look pretty cool too. Check them out at in the links below.

Features:

  • Compact low-cost, full-range DSMX receiver with telemetry
  • Antenna-less design increases convenience, performance and durability
  • Integrated flight log and receiver voltage telemetry with fly-by range
  • Streamlined, end-pin design in a lightweight hard-case
  • Large bind-button eliminates the need for the old bind plug
  • Lightweight park flyer-size with full-range performance
  • Ideal for most aircraft including indoor sport models

Check out the new AR410 Receiver here

Check out the new AR620 Receiver here

Thread Tools
Sep 05, 2018, 09:32 AM
Sagitta Fanboy
2 weeks worth of discussion here:

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...R410-and-AR620
Sep 05, 2018, 01:06 PM
RCG Admin
Jason Cole's Avatar
Thanks for the link so those looking at this news article can find it.
Sep 05, 2018, 01:31 PM
Registered User
jpurcha's Avatar
I was shown these at the LHS last week. I hope the "bind button" works better than the original binding plug. I found it to be a nuisance at times.
Sep 05, 2018, 01:39 PM
Registered User
richard hanson's Avatar
It is very good
Plug in battery hit the button and it is in bind mode
Sep 09, 2018, 03:10 PM
Registered User
Hope they come out with. 10 channel
Sep 10, 2018, 09:08 AM
Sagitta Fanboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by grlaser
Hope they come out with. 10 channel
You won't see a 10ch RX from Spektrum anytime soon, and definitely not one in this line of sport receivers.

The reason is twofold.

1. Spektrum doesn't make a 10ch transmitter. They did briefly (the DX10t, before it got upgraded to 18ch) but that was a European-only TX and fairly low production at that. Spektrum makes 9, 12, 18 and 20ch TX's, so their receivers match those counts. They did make a 10ch receiver in the past for the DX10t (the AR10000, which also was sold in other markets as a 9ch AR9020, with a stealth 10th channel) but it was replaced by an actual 9ch unit (the AR9030T) and a 12ch PowerSafe unit.

2. While I expect to see the PCB antenna used in higher-end units, any 7+ch unit will require remote receivers in addition to the main unit. You won't see inexpensive units like these over 8ch (I wouldn't be surprised to get an AR800 to match the DX8e though).
Sep 10, 2018, 10:06 AM
Registered User
richard hanson's Avatar
The actual size of the model does not cause as much problem as does the ability of the rx to still see an unimpeded signal path
I have seen gliders with two servos a rx and a battery all balled into a two x two cavity
The owner said " If the rx is really good , it makes no difference how it is placed."
luckily the longer antenna peeked out .
Which leads me to ask, why do glider guys persist in making the fuselage as small as possible?
The early on pattern guys thought this minimized drag
then later on , thought a large frontal fuselage would slow downlines
wrong on both counts.
Last edited by richard hanson; Sep 10, 2018 at 10:11 AM.
Sep 10, 2018, 10:21 AM
Registered User
It might be more accurate (honest) to title this thread "internal/no diversity antenna receivers".

More interesting than the (pretty common) PC antenna configuration is the use of the TI chip in the design and the recent FCC cert for an RF module also using a TI chip.
Sep 10, 2018, 10:38 AM
AndyKunz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by teamdavey
It might be more accurate (honest) to title this thread "internal/no diversity antenna receivers".
The "antennaless" moniker was created by the surface modelers, so we're just using a term that is already common in the industry. While technically everything has an antenna, the lack of an external antenna to be routed is what's being touted, and rightly so.

Andy
Sep 10, 2018, 11:04 AM
Sagitta Fanboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by richard hanson
Which leads me to ask, why do glider guys persist in making the fuselage as small as possible?
The early on pattern guys thought this minimized drag
then later on , thought a large frontal fuselage would slow downlines
wrong on both counts.
It is about drag reduction, and the glider guys actually have the data to support it. It was irrelevant for the pattern guys (not wrong, just irrelevant) as their ships are so overpowered that drag is not a significant performance issue for them, but it's critical for sailplanes as reducing drag components by definition improves the L/D ratio which is the determinant factor for sailplane performance.

Remember, the current design trends in gliders were developed with significant research support, including multiple noted aeronautics PH.D's (Dr Mark Drela and Dr. Michael Selig being the two most notable). Dr Drela is probably the worlds most notable expert in low-reynolds number wing design, and he's one of the most noted RC sailplane designers of the last 20 years, and also is responsible for the trend to small cross-section fuselages (or to be exact, pod style fuselages, as it's shape, not just cross section, which determines total drag).

Soaring is about the only part of fixed wing R/C flying where people seriously look at simulation & test data as a matter of course when designing or evaluating aircraft. It's a little odd to follow some of the discussions on polars in the soaring forums as compared to wing design discussions elsewhere.
Sep 10, 2018, 11:13 AM
AndyKunz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mawz
It is about drag reduction, and the glider guys actually have the data to support it. It was irrelevant for the pattern guys (not wrong, just irrelevant) as their ships are so overpowered that drag is not a significant performance issue for them
Actually, drag is very relevant, as there is a need to maintain a constant speed and the lightest way to do that is by having drag. That's why you see thick airfoils and large frontal sections on fuselages.

Andy
Sep 10, 2018, 11:18 AM
Sagitta Fanboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyKunz
Actually, drag is very relevant, as there is a need to maintain a constant speed and the lightest way to do that is by having drag. That's why you see thick airfoils and large frontal sections on fuselages.

Andy
True,

What I was suggesting was irrelevant is drag reduction, not drag itself. Lots of drag + lots of power gives you a lot of ability to control speed as you say.
Sep 10, 2018, 11:25 AM
Registered User
richard hanson's Avatar
I know a bit about drag and it’s causes.
In the tiny sizes used by most modelers, I would suspect the r n of the pods is pretty darn low and drag due to them, relative to induced drag of the models very small.
On a man carrying one, quite important
Anyway , modelers being modelers, I don’t think the practical aspects are all that important
It’s a hobby
Just wondering if any one had any hard data, in these sizes.
Last edited by richard hanson; Sep 10, 2018 at 11:37 AM.
Sep 10, 2018, 11:36 AM
Registered User
richard hanson's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyKunz
Actually, drag is very relevant, as there is a need to maintain a constant speed and the lightest way to do that is by having drag. That's why you see thick airfoils and large frontal sections on fuselages.

Andy
In the early 1990s I suspected a constant drag setup was going to be necessary for future pattern models .
That was why I did my EMC. Design with a lot of fuselage side area , actually very small by current standards.
Wings tho went to even thinner sections
Guy still has a set of super duper light panels he did for one of Jeskys designs
I routinely band sawed wings on large IMA C to reduce difference between span and overall fuselage length
Again, present designs have lift/ drag differences due to flight attitude, minimized
Full sized aerobats don’t need this but it really works for present stuff
The old cl models used super thick sections to minimize drag differences when doing tight radius turns
I once did a 34 ounce Nobler using a built up profile shaped fuselage and kit wings and stab and Monokote
Worked very well with a Fox stunt 35
Last edited by richard hanson; Sep 10, 2018 at 11:50 AM.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Spektrum receiver antenna Dennis Heard Radios 2 Aug 24, 2018 06:55 PM
Discussion Running spektrum receiver with just one antenna? handydandyandy Beginner Training Area (Aircraft-Electric) 10 Jun 01, 2018 03:01 PM
Question Spektrum Receiver Antenna Frayed, Is it A Problem? aymodeler Radios 4 Sep 29, 2017 10:51 AM
News Spektrum SR2100 DSMR Antenna-less Micro Receiver Matt Gunn Car Talk 10 Jan 04, 2017 06:30 AM
Question I need to extend the antenna on a spektrum nanolite receiver Steve Bailey Radios 9 Sep 14, 2009 01:39 PM