You must Sign-in or Register to post messages in the Hobby Squawk community
Registration is FREE and only takes a few moments

Register now

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

radio range, balsa vs foamy

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • radio range, balsa vs foamy

    This might sound really crazy but I get better range during a range check with a balsa plane as opposed to a foamy!!! My background is balsa/glow but I have a couple of EPO electrics and my range check with them is always about 30 feet shorter. Same receiver, Admiral RX 600 SP, in all my planes. Same transmitter. Doesn't seem to matter whether it's glow or electric but if it's foam I get less range. It's never been a problem in flight, never lost a plane. Go figure??? Any ideas?

  • #2
    How did you come about determining this. The standard range check is performed at approx. 30 paces or 100ft.
    Are you saying that your foamies are only able to do 70ft ?
    I personally have never had a Rx fail a range check at 100ft and I've had well over 2X the hands/feet count of foam warbirds
    Warbird Charlie
    HSD Skyraider; FlightLine: OV-10, Sea Fury; FMS 1400: P-40B, P-51, F4U, F6F, T-28, P-40E, 1700 F4U & F7F, FOX glider; Freewing: A-6, P-51; VQ: P-39; Dynam: ME-262, FW-190, Waco; ASM A-26; ESM F7F-3; LX PBJ-1 EFL CZ T-28, C-150

    Comment


    • #3
      As OV10 just said, 100’ is the standard “range test” with reduced signal strength. I’m thinking that what you did was a range test at an increasing distance till the test failed. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if you continue to walk further and further away till the test fails and you determined that one type of plane fails 30 feet closer than the other, I don’t consider this to be a valid or applicable comparison. We all know that a “passed” range test at 100’ can translate into an actual usable LOS distance measured in X-MILES. So, a range test that is 30’ less (likely already over 100’), means a reduced actual distance of less than 30% less and that translates into at least 70% of X-MILES. I think I’m OK with that since I can’t see even the largest plane I have (10’ wingspan) beyond a couple thousand feet and that’s if I never took my eyes off it. Generally, I lose sight of a fast plane if it goes further than several hundred feet. Who was it that said, “What, me worry?”

      Comment


      • #4
        What I'm saying is I get the expected 100 feet in a foamy but I get an extra 10 paces in a balsa. That is an unexpected mystery and all I really wanted was some input on that. I'm not saying that I have a range problem: I don't. I am saying that I have an unexplained mystery. This phenomenon was never apparent until I bought an EPO airplane, and then I noticed that my range check was down to the minimum of 30 paces.

        Comment


        • #5
          Alfred E Newman

          Comment


          • #6
            So, not so much reduced range test but "extended" range test, which translates into a real world range of "MILES" or "MILES + more MILES". I think it all boils down to how you've got the receiver mounted in one plane vs another - age/condition of RX, orientation of RX, proximity to battery, motor, ESC, how much carbon fiber is in each plane and how it's laid out and how close to the RX. The only way to do a definitive test is to have two identical planes - one made of each material and even here, someone will say they aren't "identical" in that one has different reinforcement and different this or that. The Alfred E. Newman in me just isn't curious enough to expend brain cells to figure out this "mystery".

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by xviper View Post
              So, not so much reduced range test but "extended" range test, which translates into a real world range of "MILES" or "MILES + more MILES". I think it all boils down to how you've got the receiver mounted in one plane vs another - age/condition of RX, orientation of RX, proximity to battery, motor, ESC, how much carbon fiber is in each plane and how it's laid out and how close to the RX. The only way to do a definitive test is to have two identical planes - one made of each material and even here, someone will say they aren't "identical" in that one has different reinforcement and different this or that. The Alfred E. Newman in me just isn't curious enough to expend brain cells to figure out this "mystery".
              I concur XV with your deductions to get to the lack of AEN effect
              Warbird Charlie
              HSD Skyraider; FlightLine: OV-10, Sea Fury; FMS 1400: P-40B, P-51, F4U, F6F, T-28, P-40E, 1700 F4U & F7F, FOX glider; Freewing: A-6, P-51; VQ: P-39; Dynam: ME-262, FW-190, Waco; ASM A-26; ESM F7F-3; LX PBJ-1 EFL CZ T-28, C-150

              Comment

              Working...
              X