Yes but it still does not have believability on this group as immediately
there would be concern about the accuracy of the equipments used and the
suggestion that one must try for accuracy by going into free space as well
as the position of your body when obseving measurements.
To do thing right one must have complexity to convince a guru
Art
"Hal Rosser" wrote in message
...


How about if you get a field strength meter and walk away from the
reference
antenna (like a vertical 1/4-wave) until you get a mid-range reading. -
then
do the same with the tested antenna.
compare the distances - and note that signal strength is inversly related
to
the square of the distance.
If the distance for the same reading is double for the beam - that means
it
has 4 times the effective power in that direction.
then convert to db-gain



"Art Unwin KB9MZ" wrote in message
m...
Invariably when antenna gain is mentioned
questions arise as to gain measurement and accuracy there of.
I do a lot of antenna experiments and declarations of gain never get
any where.
Ihave now purchased a 27 Mhz electric model airoplane and am now in
the process of making a new design antenna and I intend to measure an
antennas
relative gain my comparing the distance travelled by the model by
usind a standard whip antenna and then by using newly designed
antenna.
I visualise keeping a record of distance travelled of my various
experiment antennas.
Does any body see any negatives about this aproach which will always
be done under zero wind conditions? I am looking for a real world
guide to gain to escape from the gain arguments of today.
Thanks in advance
Art


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004

I thought I had answered this one
As a child I made many balsa wood planes driven by coiled rubber bands.
These had a propensity to nose dive into the ground a condition I had
expected when the battery relay opened on a present day R/C electric plane
I always thought the the one with the most toys wins so the purchased plane
can't hurt
Regards
Artl
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Does any body see any negatives about this aproach which will always
be done under zero wind conditions?

How do you know the exact distance the receiver is from the
transmitter?



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

the one with the most grieving lovers and rich offspring wins
deal with it

if we fail to leave the planet we are toast

in the mean time there's 2 meter DXCC

73
H.


" wrote in message
news:%yTSc.246169$%_6.22544@attbi_s01...
I thought I had answered this one
As a child I made many balsa wood planes driven by coiled rubber bands.
These had a propensity to nose dive into the ground a condition I had
expected when the battery relay opened on a present day R/C electric
plane
I always thought the the one with the most toys wins so the purchased
plane
can't hurt
Regards
Artl
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Does any body see any negatives about this aproach which will always
be done under zero wind conditions?

How do you know the exact distance the receiver is from the
transmitter?



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

" wrote in message
news:PnTSc.246149$%_6.109745@attbi_s01...
Jerry, in the Midwest we have a lot of flat lands with corn and soya beens
so it is very easy to find a place to test after the harvest. Watched
somebody operate one of these and I wopuld expect that you would take an
average of say 5 flights each before the battery die.
One may see reflections off of a corn cob that has not been gleaned. 27
Mhz
was not my frequency of choice but this was available. Planes are two
engine
type and are controlled by turning the motors on or off for turns.....
no flap movements....very simple I would think that doing a distance
comparison is more believable when seen than any manufacturers specs and
would give me sufficient
guidance when an improvement occurs. I certainly think it would add
crededance when observed at a club meeting
even tho gurus with a little bit of knoweledge will require more
sophisticated equipment. If I was comparing one
manufacturer to another with respect to
R/C controlled equipment it sure would satisfy me as seeing is believing .
When I asked for comment I had already put in place all the good things
and it was my expectations that the group would focus on the negatives
which is how it came out with a balancing list of negatives to compare
Appreciate the comments
Art
"Jerry Martes" wrote in message
...

"Art Unwin KB9MZ" wrote in message
m...
Invariably when antenna gain is mentioned
questions arise as to gain measurement and accuracy there of.
I do a lot of antenna experiments and declarations of gain never get
any where.
Ihave now purchased a 27 Mhz electric model airoplane and am now in
the process of making a new design antenna and I intend to measure an
antennas
relative gain my comparing the distance travelled by the model by
usind a standard whip antenna and then by using newly designed
antenna.
I visualise keeping a record of distance travelled of my various
experiment antennas.
Does any body see any negatives about this aproach which will always
be done under zero wind conditions? I am looking for a real world
guide to gain to escape from the gain arguments of today.
Thanks in advance
Art


Art

If I'd be allowed to change my mind after I got more
thought/information
on this project, I really like the idea. It will be somewhat of an
instrument complex project ?wont it?.
A GPS could record alot of data if the plan includes things like that.
I would have thought that small variations in distance to the aircraft
wouldnt be excessively critical. But, it would be important to keep
records of the angle to the aircraft from the antenna.
I see Excel and some clocks somewhere in there.

This sure would be a fun project. If you do get it working, I'd go
to
where you are just to see it in action.

Jerry

Art

If the goal is to compare the signal strength of an antenna under test,
with the signal strength from a standard antenna, like a quarter wave
vertical, I'd think this aircraft method would provide decent information.
I do think there is no way to determine the performance of the 'antenna
under test' so the antenna design community could accept the data. But, it
would be a valid comparison of any antenna with a standard antenna. That
would be a "specific antenna gain".
How would you sense the variation in signal strength received at the
aircraft?

Jerry

ok - he could stand on his head while doing it - would that be complicated
enough ?

" wrote in message
news:%tTSc.113811$8_6.4732@attbi_s04...
Yes but it still does not have believability on this group as immediately
there would be concern about the accuracy of the equipments used and the
suggestion that one must try for accuracy by going into free space as well
as the position of your body when obseving measurements.
To do thing right one must have complexity to convince a guru
Art
"Hal Rosser" wrote in message
...


How about if you get a field strength meter and walk away from the
reference
antenna (like a vertical 1/4-wave) until you get a mid-range reading. -
then
do the same with the tested antenna.
compare the distances - and note that signal strength is inversly
related
to
the square of the distance.
If the distance for the same reading is double for the beam - that means
it
has 4 times the effective power in that direction.
then convert to db-gain



"Art Unwin KB9MZ" wrote in message
m...
Invariably when antenna gain is mentioned
questions arise as to gain measurement and accuracy there of.
I do a lot of antenna experiments and declarations of gain never get
any where.
Ihave now purchased a 27 Mhz electric model airoplane and am now in
the process of making a new design antenna and I intend to measure an
antennas
relative gain my comparing the distance travelled by the model by
usind a standard whip antenna and then by using newly designed
antenna.
I visualise keeping a record of distance travelled of my various
experiment antennas.
Does any body see any negatives about this aproach which will always
be done under zero wind conditions? I am looking for a real world
guide to gain to escape from the gain arguments of today.
Thanks in advance
Art


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004

Well I may be in luck as I haven't opened the parcel yet
Maybe a car aproach will satisfy some
Art
"Fred Hambrecht Sr - Gilbert News" wrote in message
...
The correct air craft control freqs are in the 72 Mhz band, 75 is used
only
for ground vehicles ie. cars, boats etc.

As a ham you may use any ham freq IAW amateur regs.

"Steve Nosko" wrote in message
...

"
In the US, 27 MHz is a hazardous frequency to be on...don't know about
elsewhere. Good units are in the 75 MHz range.

Well I opened the parcel to check things out
The frequency is 27.5 MHZ and is to be flown in an area
with 200 feet from obstructions such as trees. It will land when beyond
range of transmitter
Art
"Fred Hambrecht Sr - Gilbert News" wrote in message
...
The correct air craft control freqs are in the 72 Mhz band, 75 is used
only
for ground vehicles ie. cars, boats etc.

As a ham you may use any ham freq IAW amateur regs.

"Steve Nosko" wrote in message
...

"
In the US, 27 MHz is a hazardous frequency to be on...don't know about
elsewhere. Good units are in the 75 MHz range.

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

A Unwin wrote:
It will **land** when beyond
range of transmitter

Let's be precise - it will crash...



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

wrote:
I thought I had answered this one.

Sorry, my other newsgroup account lied and said it
didn't post the first time so I switched accounts
and asked the question again. 73, Cecil



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Your knoweledge exceeds mine on this subject
The instructions say it can take of and also land on at from hard surfaces.
With two engines being in the contol positions of either on or off it would
suggest that without power the plane will "glide" to a landing. this gliding
after exceeding transmitter range does present distance measurement
problems. Perhaps if the plane was weighted the landing could be more
"precise" as you say
but short of a "crash"
Seems like toys holds interests of every one .
Art
"Silly Penguin" wrote in message
...
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

A Unwin wrote:
It will **land** when beyond
range of transmitter

Let's be precise - it will crash...



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=