Comment by ionut on August 30, 2008 at 8:53am

Hi,
I have a question.Which system do you think gives better range a 2.4Ghz 1000mW or a 900Mhz 500mw power?It's realy confusing.It seems like the 900Mhz system beats the 2.4Ghz even if it has half the power ,size and consumption

Comment by ionut on August 30, 2008 at 9:05am

Actualy I found on internet some interesting claims
:http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=799087

Comment by Chris Anderson on August 30, 2008 at 9:28am

Typically, lower frequencies will propogate better over longer distances because the longer wavelengths allow them to go around obstacles, so it is not so unexpected that 900 Mhz would perform better than 2.4Ghz. It's also a less crowded frequency range.

Comment by Sgt Ric on August 31, 2008 at 1:40pm

There is little reason to add an amp, unless you plan to fly out 20 miles or more.
(don't let the FAA hear that)

Increasing the output of your video TX only increases the interference and RF noise on servos and the RC RX itself.

Optimizing the antenna systems is more practical. Patches are great, even the "losey" ones sold commercially. I use homemade 2.4 R/C and 900 video ones from plans here:
http://rc-cam.com/gp_patch.htm

Like they say, these are "goof proof" ...other than the location of the SMA (they are actually RP SMA) The dual output video Rx from Range-video has the SMA connector on the front, and I had to move mine onto the side to attach the 900 mhz patch directly.

I had intended to add a Hawking brand LAN amp to the back of my Futaba TX, but since hanging the patch onto it, I found the amp is not necessary.

Comment