Model Boat Mayhem
Technical, Techniques, Hints, and Tips => Radio Equipment => Topic started by: tomocj on January 26, 2009, 01:20:59 pm
-
Hi all new to boats,looking for a radio what would you recommend ,I will be building a Deans marine ASRL so only two channels needed.
I also do aero modeling and it has become apparent that carbon fibre gliders shield the signal from 2.4ghz ,you have to drill four holes in the Fus so that the 4 stubby antennas (Spectrum) stick out ,not a nice sight.
How is a 2.4Ghz set up in a boat hull?
as for aero Ive gone back to 35mhz should i stick to 40mhz for boats? If 40 mhz how is the antenna routed?
Thoughts please.
-
Legally, you cannot use 35MHz equipment for surface craft, it's reserved for aircraft use.
2.4Ghz is ok for surface use. There was an article in either Model Boats or MMI in the last few months where someone had used Spektrum 2.4GHz equipment in a boat, and it perfromed more than adequately.
I thought 2.4GHz receiver aerials had two parts, and they had to kept at right angles to each other.
-
2.4Gig radio is very popular with us boat boys for the same reasons the 'fly boys' like them, ie, no crystals, always the frequency available, great range, etc. etc. You can't use 2.4 is subs apparently but great for all surface boats if you can afford it.
Most of my radio is 27Mhz ('steam powered!') as most people have moved onto 40MHz and 2.4GHz which leaves 27Meg quite free most days!
........ no matter what your radio problems, it's NOT recommended you drill holes in your hull! ok2
-
I have seen 2.4Ghz for boat use discussed on other forums.
It seems to be perfectly good for boats.
But not submarines, 2.4Ghz does not seem to penetrate water.
27 Mhz ok for boats.
40 Mhz AM OK for boats
40 Mhz FM less prone to interference.
I have been using Futaba Attack 2 ER 2 channel 27 Mhz AM with no problems at all. And very cheap.
Some say antena should be upright ant thread it through the mast.
Others say vertical is not essential. My antena are horizontal, and under the deck, stuck to a stick and pushed up towards the bow. Others feed them up to a brass handrail.
I am sure others will have another viewpoint.
Not having them uprght may effect the range, but 200 meters is the limit of how far I want to sail.
-
[color=blue
........ no matter what your radio problems, it's NOT recommended you drill holes in your hull! ok2[/color]
Aw spoilsport Martin - what did you go and tell him for :D
Mike
-
........ no matter what your radio problems, it's NOT recommended you drill holes in your hull!
Not the underwater bit, any way.
-
Spectrum Rx 6200 had 4 stubby antenna in two parts linked by wire.in a carbon Fuselage glider the signal was not reliable so holes had to drilled to get the antenna outside of the Fuselage ,obviously I would not drill the hull of a boat as suggested on here.
Ive read the other posts about 2.4Ghz and it seems to fit the bill.
-
Legally, you cannot use 35MHz equipment for surface craft, it's reserved for aircraft use.
2.4Ghz is ok for surface use. There was an article in either Model Boats or MMI in the last few months where someone had used Spektrum 2.4GHz equipment in a boat, and it perfromed more than adequately.
I thought 2.4GHz receiver aerials had two parts, and they had to kept at right angles to each other.
I think both mags have run articles about 2.4GHz recently. I'm not biassed of course but the one in MB is under my byline :-)
I won't repeat the contents here as I think the article is available on the MB website, but the gist is that 2.4GHz won't work in subs (if it did your microwave oven wouldn't work) and that Spektrum gear is IMHO fine for most purposes with slight reservations for very fast boats, where an external throttle failsafe may give added confidence. WRT keeping the antennas at rt angles, a good idea but it didn't make any significant difference to range in my tests at the sort of range we'd use for boats.
BTW MB has a review of the DX5e (largely positive) awaiting publication ATM.
HTH
Guy
-
A recent update to the MMI article on Spektrum DX5e seems to indicate that the failsafe situation is resolvable - haven't tested it out, but I can forward the article if anyone is interested.
The early Spektrum Rx were in two parts each with two stub aerials, the AR5000 supplied with the DX5e is in one part and has only two aerials - one longer than the other. It is recommended these be at right angles to each other.
Barrie
-
A recent update to the MMI article on Spektrum DX5e seems to indicate that the failsafe situation is resolvable - haven't tested it out, but I can forward the article if anyone is interested.
The early Spektrum Rx were in two parts each with two stub aerials, the AR5000 supplied with the DX5e is in one part and has only two aerials - one longer than the other. It is recommended these be at right angles to each other.
Barrie
First thanks for pm Barrie. Yes the failsafe issue is resolvable. It's basically due to lack of clarity in the binding instructions. I can't say more here as, rightly, MB would not be happy if I discuss the contents of my review pre-publication. The correct procedure has been confirmed with Horizon Hbbies UK. There is another "Easter Egg" as well, revealed in the article. WRT the AR500 it is two dual receivers in one case (ie DSM2 technology) and the aerials feed both receivers. To be pedantic, the second aerial is not longer as such. If you look closely, the longer wire is a piece of miniature coax an the arerial is the short, thinner bit at the end where the outer sheath is stripped off. It does make getting one aerial high above the w/l much easier.
HTH
Guy