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

Newbie question... what is this?

No worries but ideally 2.4 antennas should be oriented and maintained in a fixed position that has them form a 90* relative separation. Using the ST-16 stick antennas as an example, angling each one 45* towards each outside end of the transmitter would form a 90* relative angle.

Of course that also presumes the antennas are are bent at the flex joint to assure the antenna tips are not forming a straight line path to the aircraft.

No omni antenna should ever have the tip of the antenna pointed at the aircraft as omni antennas have a “null” zone straight out from the end.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DCH and KellyR
I wonder if tilting the camera up or down would help the video loss when you raise the legs? I'll have to try.

You might try routing the camera antenna out the front of the camera to hang a little lower.
 
They protect the fragile small diameter coaxial cable that the antenna is made from
You are absolutely correct about the tubes maintaining antenna geometry, this is what I pointed out in my post. However they are not coaxial cables, they are made from a single insulated wire. A radiating element cannot be shielded. If they were made from coaxial cable the antenna radiator would be shielded by the counterpoise, and not operate as an antenna. For RF transmission and reception we want to avoid any shielding of the radiator.

It's all about aesthetics guys, come on! ;)
Aesthetics are definitely improved, but actually it's more about improving the reliability RF connection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Good time Charlie
You are absolutely correct about the tubes maintaining antenna geometry, this is what I pointed out in my post. However they are not coaxial cables, they are made from a single insulated wire. A radiating element cannot be shielded. If they were made from coaxial cable the antenna radiator would be shielded by the counterpoise, and not operate as an antenna. For RF transmission and reception we want to avoid any shielding of the radiator.

Every 2.4GHz "wire" antenna I have ever seen is a small diameter coaxial cable. The very end is stripped off. The shielded portion is there to get the antenna away from the RX and other equipment.

2.4antenna.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: DCH and KellyR
Every 2.4GHz "wire" antenna I have ever seen is a small diameter coaxial cable.
I know you like to be correct in your facts as do I, so here a little technical explanation that should help clear up the confusion. Coax cable is used to make the antenna, but the antenna itself -the actual radiating element- is only the stripped portion of exposed wire, which is no longer coax, but a specific length calculated for resonance. This is the only portion that radiates RF, and the only portion in the plastic tube, and this is the "Antenna" we are discussing here. The shielded portion of coax in the photo above is considered the feed line.

It isn't that your aren't right in your knowledge, but the terminology gets confusing if you don't use the correct terms when drawing a distinction between coax and an antenna.
 
I know you like to be correct in your facts as do I, so here a little technical explanation that should help clear up the confusion. Coax cable is used to make the antenna, but the antenna itself -the actual radiating element- is only the stripped portion of exposed wire, which is no longer coax, but a specific length calculated for resonance. This is the only portion that radiates RF, and the only portion in the plastic tube, and this is the "Antenna" we are discussing here. The shielded portion of coax in the photo above is considered the feed line.

It isn't that your aren't right in your knowledge, but the terminology gets confusing if you don't use the correct terms when drawing a distinction between coax and an antenna.

Yes, I failed to provide the full explanation. I was trying to correct the statement that the antenna was a simple piece of wire and not coax. In fact, some hobby RC manufacturers like Futaba make a some extended antennas with longer shielded portion to allow you to get the antenna piece itself (the exposed wire end) out and away from things that block 2.4 signal.

Many lower frequency radios operating on 72 MHz, 50MHz, etc. did use a simple piece of wire. 2.4 GHz radios are different.

Most people refer to the complete assembly as the antenna, and do not make the distinction that only the exposed unshielded end is the antenna part itself.
 
DCH you beat me to the point of the coax, feeders and elements.
But plastics can and quite often do attenuate the signal in tiny powered microwave transmissions.
So sourcing the correct grade of plastics to cover the elements is important.
You can have the best designs and products in the manufacture of these antenna, but means JACK if its being shielded in heavy plastic and metal body parts and being swamped in stray electrical and magnetic interferences.
Even these simple wire types work very well if they are aloud to, considering the very low power aloud to play with.
Location, Location, Location is key
Shielding as much noise from reaching the antenna and not swamping the receiver in the first place is the first priority, then making sure it can be seen without obstructions.
BIGGER is not always better, Its how you use it !!!!!!!!!!!! " So I am always being told "
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: DCH and KellyR
Let's say you broke one of the plastic tubes off by flying directly into a tree at speed. Would that ruin the connection to the st16?
 
  • Like
Reactions: KellyR
No it would still be OK, just flimsy wire with no protection,assuming no damage to the wire.
No wire is totally undamaged. Holder broke off right at the plastic tube. I think my ego was more damaged from such a rookie mistake.
 

New Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
20,955
Messages
241,591
Members
27,287
Latest member
wccannabis