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

Typhoon H antenna upgrade - some (helpful?) points

Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
458
Reaction score
215
Location
Northern Territory, Australia
I've recently upgraded the antenna's on my Typhoon H (Yuneec External Antenna Kit for Typhoon H, & Pro Upgrade Kit) (and ST16: ITELITE DBS Upgrade for Yuneec Typhoon H, Tornado H920L, ST16, ST24 Radio) and after the first few flights, I noticed that there was still some slight 'glitching' with the video, even at close distances of less than 50m. Nothing really bad, but I am fussy about this stuff.
After some thought, I decided to go back to the H and dismantle it again so I could get a look at the wiring. My idea was to put some copper shielding between the battery and the antenna cables, and to also re-route the antenna wire on the right side (facing the front of the H). This is also the same side as the radio module and this is where I think that people are having some issues when the landing gear is raised or dropped.

Finished product now has the copper shield in place which should negate any possible RF issues between the battery and the antenna wires and I have now re-routed the antenna wire on the right side (same side as the radio module) so that it is as far away as possible to the landing gear mechanism.

I plan to head out over the next few days and test this to see if there are any noticeable differences.

Hope this may help other members out there in some way.

Pics attached to hopefully show what I am talking about.

IMG_1648.jpg
Bottom cover removed to show the existing array. Note the radio module on the left of the image, which is the right hand side when upright and facing forward.

IMG_1649.jpg
With the bottom cover removed, you can see that the left side antenna wire goes across the base of the battery tray.

IMG_1650.jpg
Copper shield attached.

IMG_1651.jpg
Inside the battery tray, showing the shield.
 
Last edited:
They all radiate.

Ant's post got me to thinking about shielding. I wonder how well the GPS and compass are shielded from the primary power supply? Hmmmm.
 
I wonder how well the GPS and compass are shielded from the primary power supply? Hmmmm.

From memory, when I had it opened up, there didn't seem to be a lot of shielding anywhere. Seems to be a common item that is left out to save costs during production (??) I might crack mine open again just to make sure.

@Steve Carr - true, the video antenna is located within the camera. Maybe part of my issue is also with shielding the cables in the ST16 from the upgrade I did there as well? I'll see if the next few flights are any better, and if not, then I'll look back into the ST16 as well. As I said initially, it isn't really a big problem, and it was doing this before the upgrade to some extent, but I thought the new antenna systems would have improved things. I have more of the copper shielding here so I guess I can put it to good use.
 
GPS looked well shielded to me:
ZR9UBfv.jpg


Not sure I'd worry to much about rf from the battery but shielding the retracts and the vTX in the gimbal (if that is where it is) maybe.

I put three batteries thru my H yesterday with the upgraded antennas with no problems.
 
GPS looked well shielded to me:

Interesting. I wonder if you can do me a favour. when you remove the lower part of the shell, the rear LED board has a date stamped on it. Mine says 2016.03.14 (clearly visible in my first image). Can you check to see the date on your board. I'm keen to see if modifications were done to frames depending on their production date and I'm hoping that the date on the LED board may help in finding this out.
 
Which distance are you able to fly before and after your modification ?

I'm no good to you on this one dude. The furtherest I have flown my H is about 800m (from memory) and that was before the upgrade. I haven't done the upgrade to fly further, but merely to ensure I have the best signal possible.
I use the motto "don't fly further than you are prepared to walk to find a lost craft". After 800m, I'd need to stop, go back, and get another beer....
 
I'm no good to you on this one dude. The furtherest I have flown my H is about 800m (from memory) and that was before the upgrade. I haven't done the upgrade to fly further, but merely to ensure I have the best signal possible.
I use the motto "don't fly further than you are prepared to walk to find a lost craft". After 800m, I'd need to stop, go back, and get another beer....

Thanks for your reply .. I only asked cause I'm wondering about the problem.
My TH RS reached about 1900m without big problems without any modification.
 
wedbster - that is a great outcome. Makes me think that there may have been some minor changes to address the potential RF issues when the RS model was brought out.
I was previously using the FPVLR antenna set on my ST16 and was getting some good results, but they were still not what I would call 'perfect'.
 
wedbster - that is a great outcome. Makes me think that there may have been some minor changes to address the potential RF issues when the RS model was brought out.
I was previously using the FPVLR antenna set on my ST16 and was getting some good results, but they were still not what I would call 'perfect'.


I only know about this little update by yuneec for the antenna, but not for the camera.


yuneec-typhoon-h-pro-009.jpg
 
Please note: I have been talking with Carlos (Yuneec Typhoon EU) and he has suggested that I remove the copper shielding as it is not needed. The upgrade kits he sells include cable that are already double shielded and by adding copper (as I had done) will only act as a RF mirror, which is a bad thing.
Apparently, the majority of RF issues can be attributed to the landing gear. I wonder how easy it would be to use a different material for the landing gear instead of the carbon fibre?
 
ArnhemAnt said:
Please note: I have been talking with Carlos (Yuneec Typhoon EU) and he has suggested that I remove the copper shielding as it is not needed. The upgrade kits he sells include cable that are already double shielded and by adding copper (as I had done) will only act as a RF mirror, which is a bad thing.
Apparently, the majority of RF issues can be attributed to the landing gear. I wonder how easy it would be to use a different material for the landing gear instead of the carbon fibre?

Or a better design for the landing gear.....
 
The landing gear should only pose a problem when it is in the lowered position. Once raised, it shouldn't be a problem - unless you are above the H, which is not very common.
 
I am dubious as to the value of shielding a DC battery, I am guessing AC voltage is not generated anywhere in the H. I would have thought any interference would have come from the motors rotating.
 
Please note: I have been talking with Carlos (Yuneec Typhoon EU) and he has suggested that I remove the copper shielding as it is not needed. The upgrade kits he sells include cable that are already double shielded and by adding copper (as I had done) will only act as a RF mirror, which is a bad thing.
Apparently, the majority of RF issues can be attributed to the landing gear. I wonder how easy it would be to use a different material for the landing gear instead of the carbon fibre?

I can't understand from this post exactly what the problem is with the landing gear and shielding and/or RF noise. I initially assumed it related to noise generated when the retracts are actuated (lowering or raising the landing gear). But the discussion seems to be related to the CF material used for the structural members of the LG. We all know that CF blocks RF, but I fail to see how two small CF cylinders on either side of the craft could significantly affect RF link performance, even in the gear down configuration. And I assume that people generally aren't flying around with the gear down. With the LG retracted, it seems even less likely that the CF components of the gear would interfere with RF links between the ground station and either the camera or the aircraft. Usually I have a remarkable grasp for the obvious, but here I appear to be missing something...
 
To ensure you have the best signal link(radio and video), you need to try and rule out any possible interference. Carbon fibre has the tendency to block/interfere with radio/video signal. With the landing gear down (not ideal) the legs are almost parallel with the antenna on the underside of the H and will have an impact on signal strength, etc. Depending, of course on where you/the ST16 are in relation to this. When the landing gear is raised (what most people will do whilst flying), this lessens the issue, however, some situations (banking turns, being above the H, etc) will increase the chances of the CF restricting the signal.
Distance also plays a critical part in this. While both the H and ST16 are close to each other, the chances of losing link quality are pretty low, however, this is amplified the further each are apart from the other.

Put simply, there are a lot of variables that may come into play in regards to signal strength and quality, and the landing gear (legs) are just one of them. The antenna mod for the original H and the new antenna's on the Pro will all help to alleviate things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stevemo816
I can't understand from this post exactly what the problem is with the landing gear and shielding and/or RF noise. I initially assumed it related to noise generated when the retracts are actuated (lowering or raising the landing gear). But the discussion seems to be related to the CF material used for the structural members of the LG. We all know that CF blocks RF, but I fail to see how two small CF cylinders on either side of the craft could significantly affect RF link performance, even in the gear down configuration. And I assume that people generally aren't flying around with the gear down. With the LG retracted, it seems even less likely that the CF components of the gear would interfere with RF links between the ground station and either the camera or the aircraft. Usually I have a remarkable grasp for the obvious, but here I appear to be missing something...

I now have several flights in after mounting my H antennas external. My H is pretty solid for the most part and I have had no major issues since the upgrade.

Standing near the H I can raise and lower the gear with zero glitches. I have noticed a couple times if I'm in my vehicle where the ST16 may not have the most direct link to the H and I operate the gear there can be a momentary glitch.

The glitch only seems to happen when the gear is in motion. This makes me believe it is some kind of RF or noise from the retract motors in action. Orientation does not seem to matter only the gear in operation.
 
Considering the radio module is located pretty close to one of the landing gear motors, this may have an impact.
 

New Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
20,955
Messages
241,587
Members
27,284
Latest member
csandoval