RC version and range - a field report

Joined
Oct 11, 2013
Messages
299
Reaction score
85
Yeah, we know the A, B, and C versions of the TX have different output powers. But as any IT guy will tell you, more transmit power isnt necessary better. I met a guy at the local field with a P3P and A TX, I have a C TX with my P3A.

We yapped about power level of the TX and being that we had a wide open field, we manually selected two different channels (and think it was 29/30 or 30/31) and flew out at 250' into the same direction. What do you know? It didnt seem to make a lick a bit of difference how far out we were when the video started throwing pixels. It seemed to happen at about 3000 feet out, which is pretty standard from my experience where I fly. Pushing the bird to 400' cleared it up right away, Im sure I could have gone way further out at that altitude, but I dont fly beyond visual sight.

Anyway, to my question - does anybody have any evidence that the increased TX power of the older TX's really equates to longer ranges?
 
Higher power should definitely give longer range but it's not just the power of RC, we should consider power of AC too. The transmission in P3 is not like standard wifi but it's like one way transmission without handshakes, so General WiFi rules will not apply here.

In general quality of video transmission depends on the power of AC whereas the range of control signals depend on power of RC.

Video range can be increased by keeping the bit rate lower whereas signal transmission can be improved by reducing the interference.
 
Last edited:

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers