Thread Tools
Sep 16, 2019, 11:15 AM
Registered User
PaunFD's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Target0815
Fly 10 km in max. 100 m height, then you can appreciate 1G2 .
Actually just was able to get to 12km at a bit lower than 100m (maybe 90) in a couple of automated (way-point arduplane mission flights).
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Sep 16, 2019, 11:26 AM
Registered User
PaunFD's Avatar
Look what that WiFi-Fresnel app says about 5665mhz Fresnel zones vs 1300mhz Fresnel zones:

Tower"A" Vrx antenna in those simulations was at 3m and the Vtx/plane was at 100m. Distance was 17, something km.

According to this simulations flying in 5,8ghz is better than 1,2ghz due to less Fresnel zones violations
Sep 16, 2019, 11:28 AM
Registered User
Theory is not practice. You certainly know that ...
Sep 16, 2019, 11:36 AM
Registered User
PaunFD's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Target0815
Theory is not practice. You certainly know that ...
No doubt about that ... I know for a fact that the Fresnel can be violated and video image can be flight-usable.

The main benefit of having 1,2/1,3Ghz is the higher wave penetration - again, i'm well aware of that ...
Sep 16, 2019, 11:44 AM
Registered User
PaunFD's Avatar
I'm looking for something like this:
Sep 16, 2019, 09:41 PM
'Extreme Fabricator'
Well a dish antenna works exactly the same way as a parabolic light reflector, with exactly the same performance results, With 5.8gHz you don't need a large diameter dish for high gain, but the surface should be as accurate as a spotlight reflector. Those collander style wifi builds are far from perfect and really just work more as a crude reflector than a parabolic gain device.
Sep 16, 2019, 10:06 PM
'Extreme Fabricator'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closus
I have to disagree slightly on that one: in most populated environments, 5.8G is far superior to 2.4G, even for long range. I have some pretty high end 2.4G gear (TrueRC Gatling, Singularity, FuriousFPV 800mW VTXs) and even in not-so-densely populated areas, this never got me further than 25km as it was getting wiped out by interference from the thousands of devices filling up the 2.4G band.

On the other hand, on 5.8G with a cheap Eachine 800mW VTX and a $70 23dBi patch, I flew over 50km last weekend - even on bad days, this setup gets to >35km which is still further than most people fly these smaller planes
Can't really speak for 1.2G though, as I haven't experimented much with that - but my point is that for 99% of people, cheap 5.8G equipment is probably sufficient
Those experiments were done back in the 90's so not likely to have been affected by so much wifi or other local interference, however there is no escaping the fact that 5.8 is much more impacted by natural conditions than 1.2.
I've never seen 50km with 5.8, but good work if you can rely on it. I still think 5.8 is most reliable as a short range option, and agree it's ideal for most peoples builds.
I have achieved 30km with 150mW on 1.2gHz, but hadn't run out of range. None of my 5.8 gear would even get half that distance with four times the power and only have half the image quality (in and out)
Sep 17, 2019, 12:59 AM
Registered User
PaunFD's Avatar
Well i've been flown routinely ranges between 15 to 30, and even 40km ranges with 5,8Ghz gear.
However, i did use Vtx power at 600mW, 1,200mw or 2W, and i have to be honest ant say that the image along the way do decrease at certain distances, but as soon as the plane gets beyond those threshold image comes gets clear - sometimes crystal clear.
Also at those thresholds where the image quality decreases, depending on Vtx power - image quality decreases to almost unusable if the power in lower, but if the Vtx power is higher - the quality decrease is less - but still is.

Humidity do have a huge impact in image quality too. In days with excessive humidity at 2W Vtx power i can barely get my planes to 25km and the image sucks from 18km mark all the way to 25 ... At 25km i can barely see the horizon line and major - like really major land-marks, such as a big village within 5km range of the aircraft.
In days when humidity is not that present, i get crystal clear image all the way up to 22 - 25km and it start decreasing towards 35km range mark.
This for instance is a 26km range flight in a heavily radio-crowded area:
PICT0326 (16 min 42 sec)


Please note that i'm sitting down in the lawn-chair, and sometimes - when the image goes away - i most-likely did turn my head (with goggles on) away from the general direction where the plane was, to ... watch for somethings near me ... Like some wild life, of people or trucks, tractors - whatever. My point is that those episodes where image goes completely away are not caused by the freq itself.

As i said, i know that for planes like Binary and wing-span above Binary's ... a 1,2 or 2,4Ghz system will give better results. Yet, for me the existing gear is more than enough ...
I mean, lets be real - look at that footage at 26km range ... Why would i invest in 1,2Ghz or 2,4Ghz gear - from ground-up, if i already have that kind of image quality???? It does make no sense to me ...
And for that matter, all other planes that i have, they all have 5,8Ghz gear.
My logic is this:
- in days when i want to fly Binary - i have to take with me a tripod with a Vrx in 2,4, goggles and batteries and Tx;
- in days when i want to fly other planes - i'l have to take with me just goggles, Tx and battery ...
Does not worth it ... really. Not to me.

Given the fact that i did flew, back in the day at 48 - 52km ranges with a dish, and a 600mW Vtx, i think that getting a smaller - foldable dish might be able to give me better results for existing gear - without the need to invest in new gear from the ground up. (Vtx's, antennas, Vrx's antennas, good sensitivity Vrx, testing ... range testing ... and so on)

To me, investing in another video system, is like starting from scratch ... from zero ... And lets be honest, there not that many options from one to chose, and the performance ... needs to be determined - thru live tests - in various conditions.
Last edited by PaunFD; Sep 17, 2019 at 01:23 AM.
Sep 17, 2019, 01:30 AM
Registered User
PaunFD's Avatar
And flying at lower altitudes over those areas - is something that i refuse to even think of. Someone might hear and see the damn plane, and call local 911 ... thinking that aliens come to earth or something.
Sep 17, 2019, 01:38 AM
Registered User


Ok, with aliens you have to be careful ...

I also fly with 5G8 and am testing the equipment from post #861 for long range. Mainly because there are much more modern components for 5G8. With 1G2 there are many antennas, also good antennas, but with good transmitters/receivers the choice is very limited. And you don't even have to think about things that are natural with 5G8 (power, channel selection via transmitter) with 1G2.

I'm curious what such an "umbrella" antenna can do .
Sep 17, 2019, 02:11 AM
FPV Enthusiast
Closus's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Target0815
Fly 10 km in max. 100 m height, then you can appreciate 1G2 … .
That's barely possible here anyways, as we have mountains in all directions The longest I can possibly go without flying >2000m high is about 20km, after that I need to fly much higher to even get over the mountains.
But I do really appreciate the lower frequencies for flying low - I love flying my Z84 with 2.4GHz very low for many kms

Quote:
Originally Posted by alicecooper
Those experiments were done back in the 90's so not likely to have been affected by so much wifi or other local interference, however there is no escaping the fact that 5.8 is much more impacted by natural conditions than 1.2.
I've never seen 50km with 5.8, but good work if you can rely on it. I still think 5.8 is most reliable as a short range option, and agree it's ideal for most peoples builds.
I have achieved 30km with 150mW on 1.2gHz, but hadn't run out of range. None of my 5.8 gear would even get half that distance with four times the power and only have half the image quality (in and out)
That is true, factors such as humidity etc. certainly play a larger role in 5.8 than on any other frequencies. Still, on most days conditions are good enough for flying out very far - it's just image quality that varies by some amount.
I will try flying 60-70km on 5.8 in the near future, as I feel that's definitely feasible on my setup. Image quality certainly degrades a lot after >20km, but then doesn't change much for quite a while. I've attached a screenshot of just over 40km on a bad day with lots of moisture etc., and on the monitor it still looked quite a bit better than this DVR screenshot. Still felt very flyable...
Of course 1.2G is going to perform better for most people, but I love the simplicity of 5.8

Anyways, sorry for getting off topic here
Sep 20, 2019, 06:17 AM
Registered User
Good morning to all the tread.
The binary comes from bangood uk.
the package arrived perfect.someone already uses it with inav or arduplane?
Sep 20, 2019, 08:01 AM
Registered User
PaunFD's Avatar
I'm using arduplane.
Sep 22, 2019, 07:05 AM
Registered User
PaunFD's Avatar
Looking thru my friend's old video archive, i stumble upon a video done by him in 2013's autumn with its Binary flying long-range.
Here it is part when plane was coming back from 29km range, or i guess it was 29km given or take few hundred meters:
Binary coming back from 29kmh range mark (12 min 41 sec)

Looks like also there was a bit of wind and turbulence, even at higher altitudes. The footage as i remember was done using 5,8Ghz FPV gear, back in the day with a AKK 2W Vtx and a Foxeer Falkor camera.

Great days where in 2012 - 2013 for FPV flying ... those days will never come back ...
Sep 22, 2019, 12:57 PM
FPV Enthusiast
Closus's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaunFD
Looking thru my friend's old video archive, i stumble upon a video done by him in 2013's autumn with its Binary flying long-range.
The binary came out in 2019 - what magic is it that he had one six years ago?
(Kidding, I know its probably just a similar plane)


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Product Free Testing - Sonicmodell Binary 1200mm Wingspan EPO Twin Motor FPV RC Airplane KIT BGKevin FPV Aircraft 41 Aug 20, 2019 01:00 PM
New Product Sonicmodell Binary 1200mm Wingspan EPO Twin Motor Multirole Aerial Survey FPV Platfor scousethief FPV Aircraft 0 May 14, 2019 04:19 AM