[moo]

Originally Posted by Max

Whoa!!! I thought that was real!

. . .

+ YouTube Video

[moo]

. . .

[Luke Planemaker]

Moo, old truck box was removed from truck, sitting on ground for a few years now. Looks like you found the inspiration for LGM's model. I haven't a clue about anechoic chambers tho.

Jeremy, I see 2 antennas there, makes me wonder if one isn't enough for full metal skin. Wish I could ask the builder a few questions bout his radio setup.

Wayne, I had to test your story when it popped into my head while moving the barrel. After being amazed at the radio working, I had to try the RC radio!

[moo]

Originally Posted by Luke Planemaker

Moo, old truck box was removed from truck, sitting on ground for a few years now

My wife doesn't allow that.

The second antenna may have been for a second receiver, perhaps something like a weatronics setup.

Anechoic chamber in Webster NY, the walls inside absorb all radio waves, the walls outside are grounded copper sheets, no radio waves get in.
(and coincidently all sound is absorbed as well)

This is for testing radio interference on electronics, and just happened to be big enough for the printer we were testing.

Eric

[reo]

Originally Posted by Luke Planemaker

What the heck is a barrel test?
Well, I put my PCM receiver in an old truck box, put a 45gal barrel over it,(one end removed) leaving the servos (5) outside of the barrel (to observe movement), then proceeded to see what the range was. Turned out to be about 100' with antenna collapsed.

I'm wondering what thoughts people might have, as to the reliability of said radio in a metal framework plane (not metal covered).
What range could be expected, is this a stupid idea, or what? Doesn't seem to be a whole lot of info on planes with significant metal content. Any thoughts appreciated, real life experience preferred, thanks.
Breaking ground here, I hope.

to each his own, but the question I have is......why??????...Ron

[Luke Planemaker]

I'm basically trying to find out if FM radios have major problems when long metal pieces are used in the airframe. First hand testing seems to be the solution, due to lack of info, so on to the next test. I'm thinking testing the radio in the airframe (not completed yet), while rolling it in different directions, should simulate actual flight conditions.

What kind of range is it normal to have at ground level, for safe flight without signal loss? How far away can you guys fly, close to the ground, before being worried about losing signal? Five hundred feet, 1/4 mile, or what? Also wondering what range difference should be expected between fully extended, and collapsed antenna.

Need to know if plane will fly, or fly not. Hate to see "fly briefly and crash", tho at least I will have tried. My thanks for the interest and reply's everyone.

[Daren71]

Originally Posted by Luke Planemaker

I'm basically trying to find out if FM radios have major problems when long metal pieces are used in the airframe. First hand testing seems to be the solution, due to lack of info, so on to the next test. I'm thinking testing the radio in the airframe (not completed yet), while rolling it in different directions, should simulate actual flight conditions.

What kind of range is it normal to have at ground level, for safe flight without signal loss? How far away can you guys fly, close to the ground, before being worried about losing signal? Five hundred feet, 1/4 mile, or what? Also wondering what range difference should be expected between fully extended, and collapsed antenna.

Need to know if plane will fly, or fly not. Hate to see "fly briefly and crash", tho at least I will have tried. My thanks for the interest and reply's everyone.

Do you think that a ground test is accurate, since the plane will be in the air right? Let me rephrase that, will the signal be the same on the ground as in the air? The antenna partially covered up, on the ground, or totally exposed to the signal in the air. Hope my questions seem clear. Daren

[Luke Planemaker]

Originally Posted by Daren71

Do you think that a ground test is accurate, since the plane will be in the air right? Let me rephrase that, will the signal be the same on the ground as in the air? The antenna partially covered up, on the ground, or totally exposed to the signal in the air. Hope my questions seem clear. Daren

I guess I'm just looking for examples of what others have experienced with planes made from standard construction materials.
For example, something like " I have flown close to the ground (x)number of feet away"

Or "With my Tx antenna collapsed, I get reliable signal for at least (x) feet on the ground, before servos get glitchy"

Or "I never fly low, farther than (x) distance away, cause I lost a plane once doing that."

I understand the signal should improve with height, just looking for some normal plane radio specs, regarding distance limits for reliable control. Hope this makes sense. When I get a chance and have a helper, I'll try a range check, Tx ant fully up, receiver and servos up a tree to simulate plane flying. If a squirrel steals my equipment, I'm blaming Daren!

[mtnflyer]

I truly do commend you for your experimental efforts, I affectionately refer to you as Dr. Frankenstien. You must be a youngster, to try such experiments.

In all my flying history, I've never seen anyone fly beyond the field limits. The most I've seen is 500 yards with the FM radio still in control. That's a long way if your sighting in your rifle. If your flying a plane, it's farther than I want to be

Over the last few years, I've lost a couple of planes flying in the mountains. Don't know that the range of my FM equipment had anything to do with it, I'm guessing it didn't help. None of those planes were metal

[moo]

Scientific method be damned! We're here for the fun and beer.