Hello Fellow Yuneec Pilot!
Join our free Yuneec community and remove this annoying banner!
Sign up

Antenna (aerial) ideas for 2.4 GHz?

Joined
Sep 28, 2020
Messages
1,287
Reaction score
507
Age
55
Location
Kozloduy, Bulgaria
I'm looking for different ideas about antennas for 2.4 mounted in leg tubes, on motor arms, and so on.

Collinear, J-pole, something different concerning the wind resistance for high-speed flights...

Did someone do something similar?
 
I can tell you how to increase the 2.4 4ange by a long way,, further even that the 4hawks xr, but the video i haven't been able to test because it seems everyone thats sold me a typhoon 520 or h plus has sent them with bad cameras. I have one with john at the moment with two more on the way and a third that he supposedly repaired thats also broken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steve Carr
Inside a carbon tube is not a good place for an antenna. One thing came in my mind: Replace the carbon tubes in landing gear by metal tubes and use it as slotted cylinder antenna. I have not checked sizes for 2.4GHz and feasibility, just an idea.

Another good antenna type is a helical antenna. But it may have more wind load than an slotted antenna.

br HE
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vaklin
What works great on planes is using aramid fiber or glass fiber instead of carbon fiber in areas where internal antennas have to penetrate the hull. Since those have hardly any dampening effect on electromagnetic waves you will have plenty of range. Furthermore they are often even better suited for many use cases. I would estimate that in more than 50% of the cases carbon fiber is only used because it is this awesome, lightweight, high tech material everyone wants to use although there are better and cheaper alternatives.

In other words if you replace a carbon fiber tube by a glass fiber tube will most likely not encounter any severe disadvantages but you can use internal antennas. Aramid fiber can be even better but it is not that common and not every diameter or wall thicknesses is available.

I would not recommend to place an antenna anywhere near a motor wire. I did not notice any major disadvantages if I did not find a way to avoid it but at least in theory it is not a good idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h-elsner
You dont need to worry about the signal getting to your unit at all inside carbon or not. It makes absolutely no difference. See heres what i learned after months of trial and error. With the 2.4ghz you only have to worry about your signal REACHING the drone, what comes back is nothing or very, very, very minimal. Throwing boosters on the 2.4ghz on the drone is pointless. Even throwing dual 4w boosters on the st16 2.4ghz was pointless because id lose all visuals WAY before i could see any drop in the 2.4ghz signal. The issue is that ONLY the control of the craft and control for the pan and tilt are transmitted via 2.4ghz. The video feed with telemetry itself goes via the 5.8ghz.
Eventually, i just went with the stock st16 transmitter with some big antennas on it. These antennas will give you twice maybe even three times the range of the 4hawks XR and the antennas coming from the legs are just there to receive the signals from the st16 receivers that really dont need to be touched.

The thing you really want to be able to work with is the wifi module built into the video transmitter which is a self contained unit built inside the camera itself. That way at least you can see whats going on. This alfa brand patch antenna gave me the best range even better than the 4hawks units, but again, the 5.8 transmitter in the camera really is crappy. This is why Yuneec is far inferior to the DJI units.
I spent a fortune on different antennas and testers and spent days testing when five minutes listening to John from yuneecskins while i was preparing for an offshore project Gave me more information and knowledge than weeks of on again off again testing did.

The guy is a working encyclopaedia and just a few minutes of his knowledge really gave me a much greater appreciation of what is and isn't possible.
It is possible to use a software repeater which can take the signal from the yuneec and transmit it to another frequency and Have the receiver transfer it back to original. I think it was called Hack rf one or something and was an open source programmable software extender. Theres another one available, but i dont want to give that one out as it not only changes the frequency, it also has anti blocking technology which is completely illegal.

Probably the easiest way i personally found to proceed is to find a long range FC and then break into each of the 6 esc's on the yuneec boards. This is easy to do and takes the least amount of space. this also gives you different voltage points you can power different items from. This is the best and easiest way unless you want to go ahead and make your own hexacopter. Just remember, you cant use the st16 when you go this route (not that you need to, theres some much more refined open source options available. I may even do a video showing how to do some of these changes.
 

Attachments

  • 16611075657686130049291826664235.jpg
    16611075657686130049291826664235.jpg
    4.2 MB · Views: 19
  • 16611107384274448222993705625682.jpg
    16611107384274448222993705625682.jpg
    3 MB · Views: 19
  • 16611107609403377816512116117294.jpg
    16611107609403377816512116117294.jpg
    3.9 MB · Views: 18
Slim Jim in replaced with nonconductive material leg tubes is a promising idea for me. As a first step, I'll try it outside of the legs, mounted on them with some 3D printed clips.

Should look where I can buy fiberglass tubes.
 
Pre-carbon era fishing rod should be a good candidate. I'll ask nearby.

The copter is composed and flies very well. It needs antennas now.20220815_200704.jpg
 
I'm looking for different ideas about antennas for 2.4 mounted in leg tubes, .........
Not sure what you mean by "leg tubes'. If the 2.4 antenna are simply mounted inside the landing gear leg tubes, the 90-degree relative alignment would no longer exist when the landing gear is raised.
I suppose you could run one of the two antennae all the way down into the smaller, horizontal portion of the landing gear.
 
At any time works only one of the antennas. So, no need to have 90 degrees between them. More than that, the original H design doesn't meet this criterion On the ST16 one of the antennas will work with raised legs and one with lowered legs.

The leg tube is the vertical leg tube in my explanation.

Of course, in some future designs, I can add two perpendicular aerials in every leg and match their impedance, but this is over I think.
 
waited to basic testing was done with the first gen h520 modified with 2.4 ghz antennas attached on the arms. with new 2.4ghz antennas are those that are used on the h520e oem style using h920 motor blocks as the antenna mount points. there is a design flaw with the h520e 2.4 odfm antennas that will damage led light shade mount point leading to lamp shade antenna mount to break off from the bottom of the arm and just dangle there unless the antenna wire freys off in flight. the mod was successful and should be able to be applied to the h plus with ease. the h480 going to take bit more retofit work but should be doable as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steve Carr
So, no need to have 90 degrees between them.
There is not necessarily a need but usually it is the best choice to do so. If you arrange them in a 90° angle you will have the best signal strength on average. If you plot the radiation pattern you will find that you have the smallest overlap when they are arranged that way. This supports the concept of a diversity receiver since the area where the receiver is indifferent between both antennas is very small. As a result it is beneficial but not a need.
 
Everything is possible. Now I'm looking for a good material to prepare my legs. Carbon tubes there are not a big advantage for this drone.
 

New Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
20,955
Messages
241,599
Members
27,286
Latest member
lahorelaptop