Range extending antennas - bang for buck and what is inside that flat little box ?

[CrashALot]

antennas such as 4hawk and itelite, etc seem to NOT be such an advanced 'antenna' as in maybe just an amplified 'circuit board' (flat) type antenna similar to many internal antennas which do not have special amplification ? (amplified means they amplify the received signal and then that is the signal sent across coax to controller-st10+ in my case)

but you come across some physically larger left or right hand spiral antennas (spiral to handle multiple frequencies) or even plain long whip 2.4ghz antennas (use them for my home wifi) which to a engineer type like me seems a better but much larger and vulnerable solution.

so does anyone know which types provide the more reliable extension to range, i guess especially the 5.8ghz video link ??

and has there been any semi scientific comparison reviews ? (i have search and not found)

Thx !

 

[Steve Carr]

I can attest to the improvement in the video and telemetry signals. I have not seen any testing data that would show the difference. The spiral antennas seem to be much more directional. I believe both the Itelite and 4Hawks contain flat panels and have been designed and tuned for the aircraft they are made to fit. They are somewhat a compromise to allow improved signal without the need to be extremely directional. I've tried a few different spiral and patch antennas and settled most recently on the 4Hawks. It supposedly has higher quality components.

 

[CrashALot]

yes 'better' antennas are generally always more direction (you always need more elements to get higher gain), fundamental to antennas to be honest, but to a degree, directional should not be a huge issue since most ppl always point themselves toward the copter.

BUT, if lucky enuf to have waypoints, then less directional if range good enuf is the better & safer way.

since very expensive to add waypoints to a Q500 (new ground controller, internal parts,etc), then directional is less a issue for Q500/st10+ owners, but then less directional is easier to live with.

thx for response, trial and error can be very expensive and most 'trial' can not be returned for $$, thats why many of us buy amazon/ebay, returns are very easy, not so for many small sellers on web at large.

 

[Steve Carr]

It's impractical to add waypoints to the Q. I would never fly it past 2000'.

 

[CrashALot]

that is purely an opinion, a conclusion and why would waypoints imply distances at all, and your 2k limit is yet again an opinion and not a tech one in all honesty, extension antennas can make it feasible 2x that distance, and more reliable, no ?

waypoints are a way to fly a pre-determined path, as for video i would assume it for getting a specific viewpoint that could be tedious or hard to do due to viewpoint/angle/obstructions of the pilot & yes possibly distance too.

there is a very obvious reason that professionals need and must use a pilot and a 2nd cam person USA (safety from distractions), waypoints can allow a single person to perform a 2 person feat.

and no a q500 can easily? be made to do waypoints (replace all components to H components), but it can not be done with std equip (at least by yuneec - give ppl the sdk for both copter f/w and st10+ controller, and then see if possible), coptor components AND a st16 or some such controller are needed.

the question is, at what point is a 1953 chevy truck NOT a 1953 chevy, does the new LS8 motor or the 4L80e trans or the floor shifter or the noise padding or non original paint make it NOT a 1953 chevy ?

same for copter, when does a Q500 cease being a Q500, so NO to your response, and yes if you don't want the effort AND $$ to add waypoints !

do not forget, sometimes it is the path and effort that makes a thing important and gratifying, lazy is when you just BUY IT !