I'm going to see if I can get just a good LHCP helix and see what that gets me off the repeater like that
Can't decide if I should buy the parasitic disk or the helical
Can't decide if I should buy the parasitic disk or the helical
The 4km club Long Range FPV
- Thread starter themosttoys
- Start date
Re: The 4km club
Thanks.
I too am struggling with control signal limits. As I mentioned in your thread, one observation I've had is that in FCC mode I'm currently only seeing 79mw. While in a perfect theoretical world this is still plenty of power, it is obviously not enough for this particular configuration (or at least I need to be a lot more steady in my antenna aim ;-) )
I have considered servoless. Few problems are:
1) I'm actually using ch7 for camera tilt.
2) My concern is not landing on purpose (now that I'm use to it, I actually prefer to catch land) the problem is landing in an emergency or auto landing due to low battery. In these cases, where I may not be in control of the P2V I'd want a system that automatically raised the antenna. The idea that I'd like to try (if I get the time) is a simple spring / rubber band loaded system where the antenna is naturally in the up position. There would be a catch (simple plug and hole) with a rod that extended to just below the antenna. When landing, the rod would touch ground first, releasing the catch (removing the plug from the hole) and the antenna would spring / rotate up. It's a simple, very light weight solution, but will require some fabrication and the right type of plastic.
PVFlyer said:
Thanks.
I too am struggling with control signal limits. As I mentioned in your thread, one observation I've had is that in FCC mode I'm currently only seeing 79mw. While in a perfect theoretical world this is still plenty of power, it is obviously not enough for this particular configuration (or at least I need to be a lot more steady in my antenna aim ;-) )
I have considered servoless. Few problems are:
1) I'm actually using ch7 for camera tilt.
2) My concern is not landing on purpose (now that I'm use to it, I actually prefer to catch land) the problem is landing in an emergency or auto landing due to low battery. In these cases, where I may not be in control of the P2V I'd want a system that automatically raised the antenna. The idea that I'd like to try (if I get the time) is a simple spring / rubber band loaded system where the antenna is naturally in the up position. There would be a catch (simple plug and hole) with a rod that extended to just below the antenna. When landing, the rod would touch ground first, releasing the catch (removing the plug from the hole) and the antenna would spring / rotate up. It's a simple, very light weight solution, but will require some fabrication and the right type of plastic.
mr_3_0_5 said:
Sounds great, be sure to share your results.
Wish I could help you on the decision, if it were me and I were going the LHCP way, I'd buy both. The helical has a proven track record and as long as it's done right (FPVLR is excellent) will give you repeatable results and arguably more range than the parasitic (at the end of the day, no matter what she is telling you, size does matter). That said, the parasitic is (as it's name implies) smaller and in real world testing should produce similar (close enough) results, though it is new in this capacity.
For those that are interested, I've posted the modifications made to the P2V wifi in this thread : viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7448
I really like the work you do with the Phantom of good quality.themosttoys said:Just did 3.89km. My goal was a 4.5km (the road just beyond). Still had video, but can't seem to get the control to go any further. Might try different antennas on the P2V or an amp for the TX. Was again VERY windy (15 to 20mph) and I just made it back (20% battery remaining). While that sounds like plenty, it was dropping fast fighting the wind.
Later, I will update this post with video proof.
Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk 4
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2013
- Messages
- 101
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: The 4km club
themosstoy, i still waiting for my antennas LHCP, hope get them next week, buy the way, it will be very intereted of the landing o antenna modification so you can land you p2v, you solution look great, buy a lot of work maybe, landing gear servo looks great to, but i will use the 7 channel to, sooo... does the nava v2 have 8 channels? does exist ah swich or something can you plug to you RC tx, and send a signal to a landing gear servo to up and down? just ideas.
themosttoys said:
themosstoy, i still waiting for my antennas LHCP, hope get them next week, buy the way, it will be very intereted of the landing o antenna modification so you can land you p2v, you solution look great, buy a lot of work maybe, landing gear servo looks great to, but i will use the 7 channel to, sooo... does the nava v2 have 8 channels? does exist ah swich or something can you plug to you RC tx, and send a signal to a landing gear servo to up and down? just ideas.
Re: The 4km club
I don't know for certain, but I am only aware of 7 channels on the stock setup. NAZA is not the problem, it's the TX & RX (RX is outside NAZA.) In most cases it would be fairly straight forward to swap in something like a Futaba, but in our case we use 5.8ghz, so the options are limited (as far as I know, the Vision is the first and only RC craft to use 5.8ghz as the control frequency.) Using the standard 2.4ghz is not an option because of the WIFI link (2.4ghz.) It certainly is possible to install a completely different control link just for the landing gear (and at that point, other stuff like lights, ...), but I won't be taking that on ;-)
Very interested in how your LHCP antennas work out for you. Keep us posted.
Thanks
oukenfold said:
I don't know for certain, but I am only aware of 7 channels on the stock setup. NAZA is not the problem, it's the TX & RX (RX is outside NAZA.) In most cases it would be fairly straight forward to swap in something like a Futaba, but in our case we use 5.8ghz, so the options are limited (as far as I know, the Vision is the first and only RC craft to use 5.8ghz as the control frequency.) Using the standard 2.4ghz is not an option because of the WIFI link (2.4ghz.) It certainly is possible to install a completely different control link just for the landing gear (and at that point, other stuff like lights, ...), but I won't be taking that on ;-)
Very interested in how your LHCP antennas work out for you. Keep us posted.
Thanks
Two wires, each running half-way down the inside of diagonally opposite landing legs. The ends are "taped" to the legs...
Pull_Up said:
thanks pull_up for your quick reply, thinking on putting some 5.8ghz antenna to see if i can get better distance with the remote. by the way i'll be getting a rotorpixel gimbal as soon i see some videos of it in action , i know you are getting one too. :twisted:
Nice flight! I fly in that area all the time. I live on the other side of 1460 in Teravista. It blew my mind seeing that map lol!
Ok, so this is not 4km, but it is almost 3km and in an urban environment.
Been doing most of my long range testing in more rural areas. Decided to fly in a more urban area to a local High School 3km away. LOTS of interference (wifi everywhere, power lines, cell towers, trees and a hill), never lost FPV or control. Did a full 360 to be certain that I had full video in all directions then, because I flew with the wind (not a good practice), I headed back right away to be sure I could make it back. Unfortunately, I had to fly back pretty much directly into the sun.
Video: http://youtu.be/43rRozzyGek
Been doing most of my long range testing in more rural areas. Decided to fly in a more urban area to a local High School 3km away. LOTS of interference (wifi everywhere, power lines, cell towers, trees and a hill), never lost FPV or control. Did a full 360 to be certain that I had full video in all directions then, because I flew with the wind (not a good practice), I headed back right away to be sure I could make it back. Unfortunately, I had to fly back pretty much directly into the sun.
Video: http://youtu.be/43rRozzyGek
Attachments
Another video for the club. 3.75km, 2.33 miles, 12,300 feet. I should have kept going, I still had 48% battery after returning. Problem is that I've cut it close a couple times and am a little timid about making it back, especially when flying over water.
A little better scenery, I sped up the video by 2x so that it was not too boring.
http://youtu.be/UWkiqb3VlMc
A little better scenery, I sped up the video by 2x so that it was not too boring.
http://youtu.be/UWkiqb3VlMc
Attachments
I have noticed that a few have only used one feed for the extender. Does it make a difference, why and which one? Why not tap both antenna? Would that not double your output. I have seen some use two 9db out of the extender, will this accomplish the same effect?
flight-of-eye said:
The phantom range extender and camera use a diversity transmitter and reciever. Using two antennas will not increase range it just gives you a better chance at having a constant signal as it will use whichever has the best signal. You can also mix and match a directional with an omni directional which is the most useful config.
BenDronePilot said:
PVFlyer has asserted that the Phantom 2 Vision wifi implementation is MIMO (802.11n). If this is in fact the case, then using two of the same CP antennas 180 degrees out of phase (as the ones in the repeater are) would in fact be an improvement in range and reliability (and may in fact explain why the two relatively poor antennas in the stock repeater work as well as they do). It might also help to explain why some are having such good success with two linear antennas as MIMO actually works better with multipath. I have not bothered going down this path, but if someone did (Ex: FPVLR is working on a set of his half dome antennas mounted 180deg out of phase) it might bear new fruit.
Edit, BTW, it is worthwhile mentioning that PVFlyer uses two of his home brew CP helicals with a MIMO setup to achieve his range on the stock P2V.
themosttoys said:
If I am right then, by adding something of this nature to the extender, as seen in various YouTube videos, will in fact increase the possible range limit for FPV, or is it going from one type of antenna to another? Would I be better off going with one on the extender and one on the UAV. Not wanting to reach the 2mile mark just yet, but want to reach out a little farther then it does now. would like to be able to see as far as I can fly.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DMHSODS/ref ... s_24_title
Similar threads
