Everyone happy with the 5.8ghz range?

[FC40 Pilot]

Hi
Just wondered if everyone using their 5.8ghz fc40's are happy with range ( knowing it's less than 2.4ghz) and how much if any interference or issues near tress etc?

Reading up online I've heard users mention that 5.8ghz has some penetration problems compared to 2.4ghz !?

Any feedback from actual users would be much appreciated ... Thanks

 

[Bigbells]

In my 7 week "career" as a Phantom pilot I've used only 5.8Ghz controllers and 2.4Ghz video links: Phantom 2 Vision and FC40. I've been happy with that arrangement, but can't yet make a valid comparison to a system that uses 2.4Ghz for the controller. I've only used 2.4Ghz with small non-GPS, short-range helicopters and my brother's AR Parrot. The Phantom 2 (non-Vision) that I have on the way will have 2.4Ghz for the controller and 5.8Ghz for the video. I'll stop now before I tell you more than I know.

 

[FC40 Pilot]

In my 7 week "career" as a Phantom pilot I've used only 5.8Ghz controllers and 2.4Ghz video links: Phantom 2 Vision and FC40. I've been happy with that arrangement, but can't yet make a valid comparison to a system that uses 2.4Ghz for the controller. I've only used 2.4Ghz with small non-GPS, short-range helicopters and my brother's AR Parrot. The Phantom 2 (non-Vision) that I have on the way will have 2.4Ghz for the controller and 5.8Ghz for the video. I'll stop now before I tell you more than I know.

Ok thanks. I've moved to phantom from Ar Drone . I found the Drone relatively stressful and quite difficult to control ( especially too steep angles and falls out of sky!?) .

What distances/range have you achieved with your 5.8ghz phantoms ?

Thanks

 

[Bigbells]

Ok thanks. I've moved to phantom from Ar Drone . I found the Drone relatively stressful and quite difficult to control ( especially too steep angles and falls out of sky!?) .

What distances/range have you achieved with your 5.8ghz phantoms ?

Thanks

With the Vision, video and remote control both stayed connected generally to about 1000 feet. The distances seemed well-matched; when pushing the limits it was just as likely that I'd lose camera connection as it was that I'd lose communication with the Vision.

My FC40 keeps camera connectivity up to about 425 feet, with an absolute maximum just shy of 500 feet. I haven't yet had a copter control disconnection. Once I lose the first person view I'm not going to push the distance further. Instead, I'm bringing it back.

Line of sight is important. Put just a couple of barren tree branches in between you and the aircraft and you'll reduce the distance significantly. My experiences with remote control range seem to indicate that vertical distance is easier to attain than horizontal distance, even with full line of sight in both cases.

 

[FC40 Pilot]

Ok thanks. I've moved to phantom from Ar Drone . I found the Drone relatively stressful and quite difficult to control ( especially too steep angles and falls out of sky!?) .

What distances/range have you achieved with your 5.8ghz phantoms ?

Thanks

With the Vision, video and remote control both stayed connected generally to about 1000 feet. The distances seemed well-matched; when pushing the limits it was just as likely that I'd lose camera connection as it was that I'd lose communication with the Vision.

My FC40 keeps camera connectivity up to about 425 feet, with an absolute maximum just shy of 500 feet. I haven't yet had a copter control disconnection. Once I lose the first person view I'm not going to push the distance further. Instead, I'm bringing it back.

Line of sight is important. Put just a couple of barren tree branches in between you and the aircraft and you'll reduce the distance significantly. My experiences with remote control range seem to indicate that vertical distance is easier to attain than horizontal distance, even with full line of sight in both cases.

Why the shorter distance with the FC40? Was it on FCC output or CE? Or is this just camera range? I'm using my own camera and 2.4ghz fpv but have the option this weekend to change my mind to a v1.1.1 2.4ghz phantom if I feel 5.8ghz isn't giving a good range. I've only taken delivery of my fc40 but in 2 minds whether to change to v1.1.1 for greater range. However it will mean spending more money on a completely new 5.8ghz fpv . Also 5.8 may have a cleaner less interference connection which maybe be advantageous against potential flyaway issues .

 

[ericdes]

Hi.

The importance here is that 5.8GHZ has less traffic on it right now. So less chance of disconnects or flyaways from external interference. Also you mentioned you have a 2.4GHZ camera. Forget using that with Phantom 1.1.1

Now if you want to fly more than 1500 feet at line of sight, than you will require more range than the 5.8GHZ stock setup of the FC40.

I for one don't intend as of now to fly near that, this is my first and will need many hours of practice to confidently control my Phantom without seeing it, through FPV.

Keep in mind for a relatively cheap sum you can acquire an Amped SR10000 repeater and extend the range of the WIFI camera to around 1000 feet. If you want it to be portable, just make a short cable with an XT60 adapter and a Size M barrel type DC adapter (5.5MM outside OD, 2.1mm ID).

Plug it to a Phantom battery and there you have it. 1000 feet range.

As of right now I am rather pleased with the FC40 and having 5.8GHZ doesn't make it flyaway proof but there are much less talk of flyaways with this setup.

 

[FC40 Pilot]

Hi.

The importance here is that 5.8GHZ has less traffic on it right now. So less chance of disconnects or flyaways from external interference. Also you mentioned you have a 2.4GHZ camera. Forget using that with Phantom 1.1.1

Now if you want to fly more than 1500 feet at line of sight, than you will require more range than the 5.8GHZ stock setup of the FC40.

I for one don't intend as of now to fly near that, this is my first and will need many hours of practice to confidently control my Phantom without seeing it, through FPV.

Keep in mind for a relatively cheap sum you can acquire an Amped SR10000 repeater and extend the range of the WIFI camera to around 1000 feet. If you want it to be portable, just make a short cable with an XT60 adapter and a Size M barrel type DC adapter (5.5MM outside OD, 2.1mm ID).

Plug it to a Phantom battery and there you have it. 1000 feet range.

As of right now I am rather pleased with the FC40 and having 5.8GHZ doesn't make it flyaway proof but there are much less talk of flyaways with this setup.

Yep fully aware of the compatibilities with FPV 5.8/2.4. Im going to use a 2.4ghz FPV setup with a Mobius lightweight 1080p camera so no need to mess about with wifi repeaters. Will also add gimbal but keeping close eye on weight especially as I also want to add a mini GPS tracker. Im using a zippy compact 25c battery which is about 12g lighter than the stock battery

Im doing much research on issues around fly aways and it seems to point towards compass calibration which should be looked at closer via the software . Good that this issue seems to be less with 5.8ghz which is what I wanted to hear. Cheers

 

[ladykate]

The 5.8 freq is much more susceptible to interference. I run FPV on 5.8 and if I was trying to control an airframe, I would have had many Failsafes by now.

 

[FC40 Pilot]

The 5.8 freq is much more susceptible to interference. I run FPV on 5.8 and if I was trying to control an airframe, I would have had many Failsafes by now.

I think that could be more to do with your setup. Try cloverleaf antenna for both tx and rx. Hobbyking do them cheaply

 

[ladykate]

The 5.8 freq is much more susceptible to interference. I run FPV on 5.8 and if I was trying to control an airframe, I would have had many Failsafes by now.

I think that could be more to do with your setup. Try cloverleaf antenna for both tx and rx. Hobbyking do them cheaply

This has been hashed in another thread (active), too. The results of adding clover-leafs are not a panacea. Some have had the same results although I agree that better antennas and equipment help. You will still run into situational issues with the 5.8 that will limit range considerably.

 

[FC40 Pilot]

The 5.8 freq is much more susceptible to interference. I run FPV on 5.8 and if I was trying to control an airframe, I would have had many Failsafes by now.

I think that could be more to do with your setup. Try cloverleaf antenna for both tx and rx. Hobbyking do them cheaply

This has been hashed in another thread (active), too. The results of adding clover-leafs are not a panacea. Some have had the same results although I agree that better antennas and equipment help. You will still run into situational issues with the 5.8 that will limit range considerably.

In the UK the CAA state that unmanned aircraft (below 7kg) have a max height of 400ft (120m) and a maximum distance horizontal of 500m in controlled airspace. Ive set my Naza to these limits as well so to be honest I don't need massive range anyway.
2.4Ghz is still more likely to receive interference than 5.8Ghz especially in built up areas. How can you say not!? There are far more 2.4Ghz waves with common WIFI than the relatively new 5.8Ghz. In open ground such as the desert then im sure 2.4Ghz would be a no brainer but then how many of us live in the desert?

 

[ladykate]

I think the problem with 5.8 is the LOS issue but I can only go by what I see. 5.8 will fade out if a tree gets in the way. I'm not saying it is impossible to use or inoperative, just saying it has issues that cause reception problems that give us conflicting answers at times.

 

[FC40 Pilot]

I think the problem with 5.8 is the LOS issue but I can only go by what I see. 5.8 will fade out if a tree gets in the way. I'm not saying it is impossible to use or inoperative, just saying it has issues that cause reception problems that give us conflicting answers at times.

For proper FPV range seekers 5.8 isn't the choice but if you wish to play roulette and long range your $600-$1500 expensive kitted up flying object then 2.4 is the way. As the v1 only has about 10mins flight then you are not going to get much range anyway. Long range and prolonged out of site FPV is just too risky for many reasons. You can get into a lot of trouble publically and financially if you are not careful.

LOS issues is more concerning but I guess there could be a number of factors that vary per individual. I had no choice as I already had a 2.4Ghz FPV setup and would have had to spend another $300-$400 for a new 5.8 kit which I wasn't prepared to do on top of a new phantom .

 

[ericdes]

Seems to me that my FC40 in stock form gets about 10-12 mns tops from a battery. Dual batteries may get 15 mns.

Add gimbal, GoPro, FPV (or stock camera as FPV), reduce these numbers by a lot.

Why would you want 1 mile range? While filming?

 

[Bigbells]

As the v1 only has about 10mins flight then you are not going to get much range anyway.

Horizontal speed of the Phantom is 10 meters/second. More with the 9" rotors, I believe. Even at 5 meters/second you could go 3 km in 10 minutes, or 1.5 km away and then back again if you had the connectivity. Not a whole lot of time to stop and smell the roses, but a pretty good distance nevertheless. Depends on one's definition of long range, of course.

 

[Jermz]

The 5.8 freq is much more susceptible to interference. I run FPV on 5.8 and if I was trying to control an airframe, I would have had many Failsafes by now.

If you're flying right by the 5.8 source, it may be more susceptible. Outside if that, 5.8 is much less likely to run into interference because:

A. 5.8 doesn't penetrate through trees, buildings, hills and whatever else is out there as well as 2.4. Bad if you want to fly your fc40 beyond los, good if you want to stay away from other peoples stuff. The interference doesn't make it to you as easily as 2.4 does.

B. 5.8 is not nearly heavily used as 2.4.

I work for a wireless ISP, and I can tell you that the 2.4 range in this area (Dallas / Ft Worth) is heavily over loaded. It's very difficult to find open channels due to all the stuff that's out there. While 5.8 is utilized, it's a lot more open than 2.4. We're having to move away from the 2.4 range (just like we already have done with the 900mhz band, which is now virtually useless) and go with 5.8, and semi-licensed bands like 3.65ghz.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ladykate]

The 5.8 freq is much more susceptible to interference. I run FPV on 5.8 and if I was trying to control an airframe, I would have had many Failsafes by now.

If you're flying right by the 5.8 source, it may be more susceptible. Outside if that, 5.8 is much less likely to run into interference because:

A. 5.8 doesn't penetrate through trees, buildings, hills and whatever else is out there as well as 2.4. Bad if you want to fly your fc40 beyond los, good if you want to stay away from other peoples stuff. The interference doesn't make it to you as easily as 2.4 does.

B. 5.8 is not nearly heavily used as 2.4.

I work for a wireless ISP, and I can tell you that the 2.4 range in this area (Dallas / Ft Worth) is heavily over loaded. It's very difficult to find open channels due to all the stuff that's out there. While 5.8 is utilized, it's a lot more open than 2.4. We're having to move away from the 2.4 range (just like we already have done with the 900mhz band, which is now virtually useless) and go with 5.8, and semi-licensed bands like 3.65ghz.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unfortunately, as sound as your logic seems, our experience with 5.8 as an FPV source has shown it to be pretty fickle. I've had experiences where I couldn't get 5.8 to work from 50 meters while the 2.4 controller freq worked just fine. There is a big thread about this on here. With the right antennas and placement, it does work but it is not as plug and play as 2.4.

 

[Jermz]

Unfortunately, as sound as your logic seems, our experience with 5.8 as an FPV source has shown it to be pretty fickle. I've had experiences where I couldn't get 5.8 to work from 50 meters while the 2.4 controller freq worked just fine. There is a big thread about this on here. With the right antennas and placement, it does work but it is not as plug and play as 2.4.

You seem to have actually used 5.8 in this case, so I'll say you're probably correct. The experience I've had (this does not include the phantom or fpv) I find 2.4 really fickle. Maybe it's a difference in long range wifi (3 to 5 miles at times) vs pushing video over shorter distances. I suppose it's apples and oranges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk