New 5.8 antenna, certainly seems better, especially for video - 4 patch 14dbi supposedly -- $16

[CrashALot]

no video loss even through some full dead leave trees, green/wet leaves may/will be diff.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/5-8G-FPV-Receiver-Antenna-14dBi-Directional-Patch-Panel-5-8GHz-RP-SMA-Inner-Hole/264033888116?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649

Rather than a large itelite or hawk antenna decided to try this, already seems better than either 5.8 from yuneec.

it appealed to the cheaper side of me !!

ps: link was not working so tried 'code'.

 

[Eagle's Eye Video]

ps: link was not working so tried 'code'.

Yes, since links from eBay will not function with this board, inserting HTML code is the best option.

 

[Rubik]

How did you install this antenna on the ST16? Is it directional?

 

[DoomMeister]

How did you install this antenna on the ST16? Is it directional?

It looks like this has a standard connector where the mushroom omnidirectional antenna or Yuneec’s patch antenna mounts to the ST-16.

Patch antennas are directional and the flat surface needs to be aimed at the target. In this case the Typhoon H, H Pro, or H920 that use the ST-16.

 

[Phaedrus]

My H+ came with a second, square flat topped, high gain antenna.

 

[DoomMeister]

My H+ came with a second, square flat topped, high gain antenna.

So does the TH Pro and TH. The one mentioned in the OP may have a higher gain than the Yuneec patch antenna, but it would take a side by side comparison since there is no tech data published for the OEM one.

 

[Thomas111]

Guys could one of you put this number in to eBay give me your thoughts on replacement for the black stock antenna on my st16 thanks

312385022179

 

[Phaedrus]

So does the TH Pro and TH. The one mentioned in the OP may have a higher gain than the Yuneec patch antenna, but it would take a side by side comparison since there is no tech data published for the OEM one.

Small point is here in the US it is not permitted to use any antenna on a Part 15 device that was not used at the time of certification. Essentially all third-party antennas are illegal to use. See FCC Part 15.203 and 15.204.

I know nobody cares about this, but I think it is worth knowing.

 

[mastertek]

So does the TH Pro and TH. The one mentioned in the OP may have a higher gain than the Yuneec patch antenna, but it would take a side by side comparison since there is no tech data published for the OEM one.

I have personally flown from my backyard and snapped a picture of my daughter's school which is just over 8000 ft away with the patch antenna from yuneec. No signal loss at anytime. Luckily i have a straight LOS and was able to snapped the shot for her. I was impressed with the range, it goes much farther than the Omni antenna.

 

[PatR]

Just to be clear, you certainly could not see your aircraft 8000' away so the LOS reference had to be relative to a lack of obstructions, not your ability to safely navigate and control the aircraft using your unaided eyes for line of sight.

 

[Thomas111]

Would these increase WiFi or am I better looking at the ITELITE


2pcs Foxeer Lollipop 5.8G 2.3dBi RHCP Super Mini FPV Antenna Red SMA/RP-SMA For | eBay

 

[thoneter]

Small point is here in the US it is not permitted to use any antenna on a Part 15 device that was not used at the time of certification. Essentially all third-party antennas are illegal to use. See FCC Part 15.203 and 15.204.

I know nobody cares about this, but I think it is worth knowing.

It's a good point but the gov't comes up with so many regulations that it's impossible to comply. We the people are now just human piggy banks for the gov't to grab $ for the useless regulations they create to justify the worthless departments that are created to create more useless regulations!

 

[PatR]

The FCC regulations pertaining to equipment modifications have been in place for many years before the introduction of multirotors. It’s not difficult at all to comply with them, one simply has to be cognizant of the regulations that are associated with compliance. It’s been pretty well established that very few involved in consumer drone activity bothered to research aviation law, privacy infringement, copyright law, FCC regulations, or trespassing laws before engaging in their activities. Had they done so there would be far less outrage expressed by either the general public or those that were advised of laws pertaining to their activities after the fact. In this age of widely disseminated and easily obtained information via the internet, the only reasons not to be informed is a lack of desire to be informed or pure laziness. People will spend hours performing feature and price differences on the web but won’t give 5 minutes learning about regulations that will keep them out of jail, prevent the levy of expensive, punitive fines, or avoid a lawsuit. Nor do they put much time into learning how their equipment works and what’s required for proper maintenance.

What we have is a severe shortage of “want to” and “round tuits”.

 

[Phaedrus]

The FCC antenna regulations are among some of the easiest to comply with. You simply cannot use any antenna other than the one that came with the radio (controller). The fact that aftermarket items are for sale does not mean it is legal to use them. Getting caught or not is not the point really. You either choose to operate in compliance or not. Simple.

 

[thoneter]

The FCC antenna regulations are among some of the easiest to comply with. You simply cannot use any antenna other than the one that came with the radio (controller). The fact that aftermarket items are for sale does not mean it is legal to use them. Getting caught or not is not the point really. You either choose to operate in compliance or not. Simple.

This is not meant to infuriate anyone. Why isn't the gov't going after the manufacturers of aftermarket antennas? Why should the consumer have to research both the regulations and the manufacturers?

 

[Phaedrus]

This is not meant to infuriate anyone. Why isn't the gov't going after the manufacturers of aftermarket antennas? Why should the consumer have to research both the regulations and the manufacturers?

They do sometimes. But the responsibility is always yours. Just like it is on you to know all the rules regarding flying safely.

 

[mastertek]

Just to be clear, you certainly could not see your aircraft 8000' away so the LOS reference had to be relative to a lack of obstructions, not your ability to safely navigate and control the aircraft using your unaided eyes for line of sight.

Yes your right i did use LOS as a reference to an unobstructed view but in this particular instance my lady and my daughter were staring up from the school playground connecting together to make letters or funny shapes which beyond being impressed with range is something i really enjoyed capturing. Isn't that part of the reason we love this hobby to pause those moments we want to keep with us, of ur families, those awesome vacations where you get to take in the beauty of this world or the top of that 8 mile hike capturing the light of that accomplishment. Law is good, with out them we would live in a chaotic world as humans are known to push the envelope but this is also the reason why we have cool drones to fly today. I never promoted the use of range extending antennas, even if they might have their place of a stronger signal, which can make the difference of coming home or receiving the correct telemetry data, i was advocating the stock equipment. Actually i really was only trying to give kudos to the brand we know and love plus how u don't need to go crazy with antenna upgrades as the stock battery can't handle much more than the stock patch. In a world where other manufacturers are advertising 4-5 mile ranges you have to respect yuneec for being able to do more than what they claim. I don't think dji is getting 5 miles out everywhere you fly and definitely not more than that. So props to yuneec!! We have to Big Up our brand or there won't be a yuneec to buy anymore in the future.

 

[thoneter]

They do sometimes. But the responsibility is always yours. Just like it is on you to know all the rules regarding flying safely.

So what if the supplier for the antenna for Yuneec is a seperate entity from Yuneec. Can they relabel the antennas and can we in the US buy them legally? If a 3rd party is illegally labeling them as Yuneec antennas and selling them on Ebay for a reduced price; is it our responsibility to research every item we purchase to check validity?

I buy "Nikon" gear all the time that's not manufactured by Nikon so this is a legitimate question. I'm looking at starting up a pedal pub. In South Dakota you can BYOB of any liquor and the drinker is responsible for their own actions while inebriated or buzzed. In Minnesota it's the bartenders and finally the owner of the pedal pub that's responsible for determining if they've had enough.

The law in MN is retarded. There's a reason police give breathalyzer tests. It's difficult to tell on some people by their behavior. I do think we are responsible for being responsible while flying. Knowing what regulations and coming to a common understanding of those regulations when it comes to government is typically impossible.

I have a business where I transport people in either wheelchairs or stretchers. The vehicles I have are Chrysler mini-vans. The laws are very clear for my industry. I am pay for hire and I travel into numerous states. I pay my taxes into the state that I declare.

The state of MN including the DMV commercial, DOT, IRP, Highway Patrol crimes and commercial division, DPS and local police are coming after me for 4 misdemeanors and 1 felony simply because they want my $ instead of it going to just SD. They have a letter to me that states that commercial reciprocity isn't valid anymore which is an outright lie.

My point is that gov't has completely bypassed common sense and we the people are no longer in control. The governments job is to police and protect us. We are now simply human piggy banks that can't comply with all of the statutes, regulations, rules etcetera.

 

[Phaedrus]

So what if the supplier for the antenna for Yuneec is a seperate entity from Yuneec. Can they relabel the antennas and can we in the US buy them legally? If a 3rd party is illegally labeling them as Yuneec antennas and selling them on Ebay for a reduced price; is it our responsibility to research every item we purchase to check validity?

If it is the identical antenna, then yes you can use it. And "re-labeling" etc. is not the issue. It is using antenna other than the exact type that was used to certify the radio. So using an antenna, even it says Yuneec on it, that has higher gain, different physical characteristics, etc. are not legal to use. It really is not that difficult.

My H+ came with 2 5.8GHz antennas, the lower gain mushroom, and the higher gain flat top. Both were used to receive the FCC ID. Both are legal to use.

From Part 15.204:

(4) Any antenna that is of the same type and of equal or less directional gain as an antenna that is authorized with theintentional radiator may be marketed with, and used with, that intentional radiator. No retesting of this system configuration is required. The marketing or use of a system configuration that employs an antenna of a different type, or that operates at a higher gain, than the antenna authorized with the intentional radiator is not permitted unless the procedures specified in § 2.1043 of this chapter are followed.

 

[Rubik]

If it is the identical antenna, then yes you can use it. And "re-labeling" etc. is not the issue. It is using antenna other than the exact type that was used to certify the radio. So using an antenna, even it says Yuneec on it, that has higher gain, different physical characteristics, etc. are not legal to use. It really is not that difficult.

My H+ came with 2 5.8GHz antennas, the lower gain mushroom, and the higher gain flat top. Both were used to receive the FCC ID. Both are legal to use.

From Part 15.204:

Hold up now! Aren't we talking about a Receiving antenna for video, not a radiator (transmitting) antenna? Does Part 15.204 apply here?