Heng long transmitter ANTENNA upgrade help

[Rubicon99]

Here is the thing, from my viewpoint. There are already transmitters and receivers for rc aircraft that have miles of range. If anyone were to seriously want to breach something they would fly a model aircraft with a few pounds of explosive right into it. They could do it from a mile or two away. They dont need to try to figure out how to extend the range of a toy tank transmitter / receiver. They can already simply buy better. The reaction to the original posters question seems very much like someone complaining a bout a kid trying to improve his slingshot and ignoring his neighbors backyard machine gun range. Paranoid people worry me. They are like very religious people. Both tend to over react, badly.

Well there are numerous soldier and civilian that have been killed or wounded by cheap TOY RC systems used in countless IED attacks in Iraq and elsewhere that would disagree with you.

Closer to home Boston Marathon bombers set theirs bombs off with TOY RC systems and the husband and wife in San Bernardino attempted too as well during their attack.

Yes other hobby grade RC systems have more range but toy systems are cheaper and easier to come by with typically less of a “paper trail”.

[oldwolf]

I think you guys missed some of the key buzz words that sent up red flags and I think both of you would have phrased your issues, problems and discussion differently about what your doing.
If you go and read about the specific event Rubicon mentioned, which was close by some of us, you may understand more. Specifically it was about using toy radio control for terror and just by the grace of God as to why it failed.

I think you guys are jumping to conclusions much further than I did IMHO. Your on here posting builds and help and various things. If you come up and say he my kid and I are doing this battle scenario in our house and back yard but we keep having issues because our signal drops out or the tank gets slow to respond, I need a better radio yada yada yada that makes alot more sense. A person with no history pops up and says he wants to build something that is basically a breaching vehicle scenario though he phrased it differently, thats something to take notice of. Realistically, how many other people in this or any RC hobby have the issues he was adressing and planing for before he had the issues.

This gentleman threw out exactly what he wanted to build and said he had no idea what he was doing, yet he immediately said he expected to see a dipole antenna inside the radio. Very few people that dont work with radios even know what a dipole antenna is. Now sure I hope I am wrong but his entire approach was just written in a way that anyone that has been around the real deployed stuff realizes that sounds like what he wants to build. Everyone has a spidey sense and its interesting that this guy tickled it the same way for a few of us.

I myself have used FPV on one of my Shermans to IR battle with. I spent alot of money and played with it and tweaked the install a bit and decided it just wasnt suitable for what I wanted to do so I abandoned the project.

Here is the thing, from my viewpoint. There are already transmitters and receivers for rc aircraft that have miles of range. If anyone were to seriously want to breach something they would fly a model aircraft with a few pounds of explosive right into it. They could do it from a mile or two away. They dont need to try to figure out how to extend the range of a toy tank transmitter / receiver. They can already simply buy better. The reaction to the original posters question seems very much like someone complaining a bout a kid trying to improve his slingshot and ignoring his neighbors backyard machine gun range. Paranoid people worry me. They are like very religious people. Both tend to over react, badly.

[RichJohnson]

I think you guys missed some of the key buzz words that sent up red flags and I think both of you would have phrased your issues, problems and discussion differently about what your doing.
If you go and read about the specific event Rubicon mentioned, which was close by some of us, you may understand more. Specifically it was about using toy radio control for terror and just by the grace of God as to why it failed.

I think you guys are jumping to conclusions much further than I did IMHO. Your on here posting builds and help and various things. If you come up and say he my kid and I are doing this battle scenario in our house and back yard but we keep having issues because our signal drops out or the tank gets slow to respond, I need a better radio yada yada yada that makes alot more sense. A person with no history pops up and says he wants to build something that is basically a breaching vehicle scenario though he phrased it differently, thats something to take notice of. Realistically, how many other people in this or any RC hobby have the issues he was adressing and planing for before he had the issues.

This gentleman threw out exactly what he wanted to build and said he had no idea what he was doing, yet he immediately said he expected to see a dipole antenna inside the radio. Very few people that dont work with radios even know what a dipole antenna is. Now sure I hope I am wrong but his entire approach was just written in a way that anyone that has been around the real deployed stuff realizes that sounds like what he wants to build. Everyone has a spidey sense and its interesting that this guy tickled it the same way for a few of us.

I myself have used FPV on one of my Shermans to IR battle with. I spent alot of money and played with it and tweaked the install a bit and decided it just wasnt suitable for what I wanted to do so I abandoned the project.

[oldwolf]

You're not the only one, there's a lot of good info to be had here but if asking the "wrong" question is gonna have someone yell terrorist and report my post maybe there's better places to go.

Yea, it's sad. Until now I have very much enjoyed this forum and have had great respect for everyone I have interacted with. Don't the transmitters and receivers for the rc aircraft already have way more range than the tank transmitters and receivers? Right off the shelf? They must have given their speed. Otherwise they would just fly away and never be seen again.

[Delta_19]

Actually, having a tank with two of the tiny fpv cameras, I can see why one might want better transmission range on those. Two people trying to have a tank battle indoors, with the tanks two rooms away and maybe on another floor level could get signals badly degraded by intervening walls and floors. I dont think they would want to do the battle with airsoft however. The fpv cameras are never going to be able to spot airsoft hits. They would want to use ir.

As regards people making rc bombs, the large, fast rc aircraft always seemed much more of a threat. Lets face it, our toy tanks are actually pretty klutzy and likely to get stuck.

The thing that bothers me about this whole thread is that a while back I posted about my experiences using two fpv cameras on my hl challenger 2. I was using it to fight one of Legodei's ir mines, set up as an antitank bunker. I had fun doing it but the fpv cameras were huge energy hogs and I also came to the conclusion that I enjoyed seeing the tank a lot more than seeing out of the tank and I havent used the fpv camera much since. But, I certainly could have asked about ways to improve driving the tank by remote control. Lag made it pretty difficult. If I had asked such questions would I have been considered to have been making "hinky" posts?

Maybe it is just because I grew up a couple towns over from Salem Mass. but "witch hunt" keeps coming to mind. I find myself giving serious thought to dropping from this forum.

You're not the only one, there's a lot of good info to be had here but if asking the "wrong" question is gonna have someone yell terrorist and report my post maybe there's better places to go.

[oldwolf]

Actually, having a tank with two of the tiny fpv cameras, I can see why one might want better transmission range on those. Two people trying to have a tank battle indoors, with the tanks two rooms away and maybe on another floor level could get signals badly degraded by intervening walls and floors. I dont think they would want to do the battle with airsoft however. The fpv cameras are never going to be able to spot airsoft hits. They would want to use ir.

As regards people making rc bombs, the large, fast rc aircraft always seemed much more of a threat. Lets face it, our toy tanks are actually pretty klutzy and likely to get stuck.

The thing that bothers me about this whole thread is that a while back I posted about my experiences using two fpv cameras on my hl challenger 2. I was using it to fight one of Legodei's ir mines, set up as an antitank bunker. I had fun doing it but the fpv cameras were huge energy hogs and I also came to the conclusion that I enjoyed seeing the tank a lot more than seeing out of the tank and I havent used the fpv camera much since. But, I certainly could have asked about ways to improve driving the tank by remote control. Lag made it pretty difficult. If I had asked such questions would I have been considered to have been making "hinky" posts?

Maybe it is just because I grew up a couple towns over from Salem Mass. but "witch hunt" keeps coming to mind. I find myself giving serious thought to dropping from this forum.

[Delta_19]

You are blind. The camera is not the issue. And maybe I did drop a line to the proper authorities.

It's not that I'm blind I know what they could do with this same as what someone could do with a cell phone and pay as you go Sim card paid for in cash, I was just raised not to immediately see bad in people over small questions with no proof of guilt.

[Rubicon99]

Well if you think it's such a big problem why don't you report it to the FBI and let them do their job instead of accusing someone of being a terrorist over a first person view camera and a 2.4Ghz range extender.

https://tips.fbi.gov/

You are blind. The camera is not the issue. And maybe I did drop a line to the proper authorities.

[Delta_19]

As someone who's in right now and seen this tech, your not paranoid enough.

Well if you think it's such a big problem why don't you report it to the FBI and let them do their job instead of accusing someone of being a terrorist over a first person view camera and a 2.4Ghz range extender.

https://tips.fbi.gov/

[RichJohnson]

As someone who's in right now and seen this tech, your not paranoid enough.

[Rubicon99]

Don't you have a uhaul center to be staking out?

What did I hurt your feeling too....Awwweeeee I am sorry.

[Delta_19]

Thank you for your service.

I am sure your wisdom is a sign of your position, training and experience. I will more than happily wear the idiots badge proudly right next my other badges and honors.

Don't you have a uhaul center to be staking out?

[Rubicon99]

As someone that's in right now you're both paranoid idiots.

Thank you for your service.

I am sure your wisdom is a sign of your position, training and experience. I will more than happily wear the idiots badge proudly right next my other badges and honors.

[Delta_19]

As someone that's in right now you're both paranoid idiots.

[RichJohnson]

Im going to say this and let me clear. People that have been in the military and other tactical fields in recent years use tech like what you want to build for highly tactical situations that involve significant violence to neutralize threats and protect life.

As I was reading your first post my thought was, this guy wants to build a breaching robot. Im sorry, thats where my mind went to right away.

What you want to make can add an element of fun I to your play I guess, but really is not necessary and there are all sorts of red flags there.

In the current situation we have in the US with Antifa and BLM and militias having radical followers that want to do violence and hurt and kill people, I dont feel we should discuss how to develop a toy into something like a recon or breaching robot on an open forum for all to read, especally when we do not know you personally. Im sorry, no offense to you, but please find an engineer that you are friends with and knows you are a great guy just playing with your nephew to help you out with your build. And please do not post how to do it publicly.

[TwoThumbs]

Bloody hell that's a stretch and half, could say the same to a person wanting to rent a uhaul and the London Bridge 2017.

It's not outside the realm of reason for someone with an RC vehicle that has an FPV camera in it to want to extend the range. Hell I'd say anyone that throws an FPV camera in their tank would want more then 150' line of sight.

@Delta_19

Thanks for the support but don't worry about it. I found the information elsewhere that I needed. It's not like it is a mystery, it's readily available on the internet. I came here hoping to get into the community, share in the hobby and learn from others with common interest.

Had Rubicon99 clearly stated what he was implying, which is that he apparently thinks I'm trying to make some sort of remote bomb or some thing, I might have been able to have some sort of meaningful discussion about it.

Apparently he has set himself up of some sort of hobby cop.

It was late last night when all these comments landed and I forgot to remove my account. I will do so now. If you guys want to keep bitching at each other, have at it.

[Rubicon99]

Bloody hell that's a stretch and half, could say the same to a person wanting to rent a uhaul and the London Bridge 2017.

It's not outside the realm of reason for someone with an RC vehicle that has an FPV camera in it to want to extend the range. Hell I'd say anyone that throws an FPV camera in their tank would want more then 150' line of sight.

It might be a stretch until it is not. Been in this hobby for decades and have never once heard anyone want or need to extend the reception of a toy tank receiver to be able to operate beyond 150 feet while out of line of sight and behind structures. To me that raises an eyebrow. If it causes someone to be butt hurt then they need to explain themselves in a manor that makes more sense. The OP gave very short answers to my questions.

There are countless incidents in Iraq were toy RC remotes with extended receiving ability were used to command detonated IEDs that killed or wounded soldiers and civilians. I have a few friends that were wounded by such IEDs. And in 2015 terrorist used toy RC remotes in an attempt to blow up a Christmas party close to where I live, I had friends heading to attending that party and by God’s good grace they were late.

I guess my background makes me a question things others would simply glaze over.

If the OPs intentions were pure, I apologize for hurting his feeling. But not knowing him and given his newest to this forum, I would rather error on the side of caution.

[Delta_19]

It speaks for itself and is meant exactly as it was intended. You might be totally truthful in your request but I have lost friends to the flip side of toy RC remotes being used for deadly purposes and your question and answers scream toward the hinky.

Ref: Inland Regional Center 12/2/15 look it up.

Bloody hell that's a stretch and half, could say the same to a person wanting to rent a uhaul and the London Bridge 2017.

It's not outside the realm of reason for someone with an RC vehicle that has an FPV camera in it to want to extend the range. Hell I'd say anyone that throws an FPV camera in their tank would want more then 150' line of sight.

[TwoThumbs]

Flip side of RC toy remotes?! Dude whatever. I'll go elsewhere for help. I don't know what's for the fantasy world you're living in, but I sure as hell don't need your contrived to drama.

[Rubicon99]

What are you talking about? What is hinky about my question? I just finished discussing the same thing over chat with Stanley from RC Tank Legion.

There's nothing confusing about what I've asked, nefarious, or hinky.

I'm playing with remote control tanks with my 10 year old nephew.

I was under the impression this community existed to help members share, learn, and enjoy the hobby.

You've chosen to respond using a phrasing that is intentionally selected a characterize my question as having a arterial motives or false intent.

Can point out to me exactly what you think is "hinky" about my question?

It speaks for itself and is meant exactly as it was intended. You might be totally truthful in your request but I have lost friends to the flip side of toy RC remotes being used for deadly purposes and your question and answers scream toward the hinky.

Ref: Inland Regional Center 12/2/15 look it up.