- Joined
- Feb 13, 2014
- Messages
- 1,492
- Reaction score
- 34
- Age
- 49
- Location
- Boca Raton, FL
- Website
- www.fpvlr.com
Actually best range on inspire is achieved at an insane and illegal altitude of 1500ft.
Anyone do long range testing with FPVLR antennas yet ??
- Thread starter MadMitch88
- Start date
Actually best range on inspire is achieved at an insane and illegal altitude of 1500ft.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2014
- Messages
- 1,492
- Reaction score
- 34
- Age
- 49
- Location
- Boca Raton, FL
- Website
- www.fpvlr.com
Anyone doing distance testing should not post their location, as some forum members could report this. Keep your locations and identities and videos private and password protected. CYOB
Attachments
Fpvlr for the inspire now? As if this wasn't already so addictive. Can't wait to see the photos.
As I have reflected on your reply: These "tests" are exactly the kind of behavior that could get us all grounded. Just remember, if this happens, you have no one to blame but yourselves (those who feel the rules and common sense do not apply to them).
You, FPVLR, of all people, should be promoting responsible flying. If you fear that your flying will get you in trouble with the law, then you shouldn't be flying. Period!
Just one person's opinion.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2015
- Messages
- 1,880
- Reaction score
- 733
He is making a business selling gear of which the main purpose/advertising is facilitating those inappropriate/illegal actiivties, with equipment that is now illegal to use (you can't replace the antennas on a certified device that does not have a user-accessible connector without voiding FCC compliance, you can't use a higher gain antenna than what's supplied on anything that transmits, etc). If he listened to you he should close his business, so don't expect him to
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2015
- Messages
- 346
- Reaction score
- 178
- Age
- 75
I did not get his antenna mod for longer illegal flights, only to make my connection more stable and safer. What he's doing is no different than manufacturers legally selling 200mph cars, motorcycles, guns, etc, or legal prescription drugs. Also, the standard antennas enable you to already fly "illegally" if you want, just like any car can be driven faster than posted speed limits.He is making a business selling gear of which the main purpose/advertising is facilitating those inappropriate/illegal actiivties, with equipment that is now illegal to use (you can't replace the antennas on a certified device that does not have a user-accessible connector without voiding FCC compliance, you can't use a higher gain antenna than what's supplied on anything that transmits, etc). If he listened to you he should close his business, so don't expect him to
He is making a business selling gear of which the main purpose/advertising is facilitating those inappropriate/illegal actiivties, with equipment that is now illegal to use (you can't replace the antennas on a certified device that does not have a user-accessible connector without voiding FCC compliance, you can't use a higher gain antenna than what's supplied on anything that transmits, etc). If he listened to you he should close his business, so don't expect him to
No, I won't. I can't hold my breath that long.
Good for you! But he is promoting illegal behavior: "Anyone doing distance testing should not post their location, as some forum members could report this. Keep your locations and identities and videos private and password protected. CYOB"
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2015
- Messages
- 346
- Reaction score
- 178
- Age
- 75
I agree to an extent…. I disagree that flying long distance, contrary to FCC proposed or existing rules, ie beyond los, is per se illegal at this time in the USA. Nobody is going to be prosecuted in the USA for flying beyond los at this time. I do not see anything wrong with publishing proof of long distance flights in the USA, if not risky to the general population below. There's no difference in what he's doing, than when I bought my last Corvette and it was advertised to go 0 to 60 in 3.7 seconds, or taking delivery of my BMW at the factory in Greenville and then they take you to their test track and encourage you to drive it to the limits of braking in the turns, etc., which I think would be considered illegal reckless driving on a public road.
Last edited:
1. Flying long distances may not be illegal at this time, but it is stupid. Do you really like to gamble that much?
2. Somebody will be prosecuted for flying beyond LOS when his heli crashes and destroys property, does bodily injury, or worse, kills someone. Are your pockets really that deep?
3. Now, you're comparing apples to oranges. He isn't offering anyone a closed test course over which to test their copters. He's telling people to test them and keep the location and videos secret. Why? Because he knows it could get them (and him) into trouble.
This is all of the mindset that the sin is not in doing something wrong, the sin is in getting caught. Like Will Rogers used to say, "Common sense isn't too common any more." I would add that today it appears to be nonexistent.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2015
- Messages
- 346
- Reaction score
- 178
- Age
- 75
I personally agree with you. But I do not condemn anybody else that wants to fly long distance because I do not think its illegal per se or a sin. Just like when I ride my motorcycle, I always wear a helmet even though here in SC it's not illegal to not wear one.
No, not a "sin" in the Bibical sense.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you do see the inherent danger in flying a six and a half pound quad over your neighbors' homes as far as you can go, just because you have that capability. Yet, you're not willing, being aware of the inherent danger, to speak out against it and encourage others to seriously consider the consequences and fly more responsibly. Is that an accurate interpretation of your stance?
Have we regressed so much that we must (like children) have someone (like government) dictate to us what is and isn't right and/or acceptable? What's so bad about being self-governing, responsible, accounbtable adults?
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Messages
- 10,825
- Reaction score
- 5,701
But unfortunately, by getting these illegal antennas fitted as soon as you turn on your transmitter you are then breaking the law, unlike a 200mph car where you have the option to drive over the speed limit or not.
These high gain antennas will alter the EIRP into the ether and you then fall foul of FCC regulations with the associated penalties attached.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2015
- Messages
- 346
- Reaction score
- 178
- Age
- 75
No, I said its ok, "if not risky to the general population below". I don't see anything wrong with long distance flights if done responsibly, like over open water, desolate areas, etc. Sorry if I've been ambiguous…
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2015
- Messages
- 346
- Reaction score
- 178
- Age
- 75
I do not know whether or not Tony's mods would increase the output so that the antennas would be illegal, nor do I have the technical knowledge to determine it. I wish you could somehow calculate his changes to see if his mods exceed the fcc limits. Based on my trial flights, although the results are more stable, I don't think the mods are so extreme that it would make them fcc illegal, but it would be good to know. Even so, if I'm flying in areas so as not to interfere with other 2.4 and other radio transmissions, doesn't this minimize any fcc concern? I respect your technical expertise in this area, but Tony's mods shouldn't be immediately judged illegal without further evidence. Unless a mere modification makes it illegal, which I think is UnAmerican.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2014
- Messages
- 271
- Reaction score
- 102
- Age
- 57
His modifications do not increase the power output of the antennas whatsoever -- they simply reshape the waveform so it is more efficient in some directions, and less efficient in others. It's a give and a take. With the new antennas you get twice the reception in front of you, and half the reception behind you.
I believe people are referring to FCC rule 04-165, issued July 12, 2004, which has some substantial changes for devices that use unlicensed spectrum, most significantly Wi-Fi. It is against that regulation to replace ANY antenna on any consumer device, whether there is a "user-accessible connector" or not. You are legally not allowed to replace any antennas on a wireless WiFi router you buy, walkie-talkies, etc. Manufacturers can SELL them legally, you just can't (legally) replace existing ones on your equipment without recertification. Bear in mind that there have been approximately zero prosecutions for the use of aftermarket antennas on home or business systems. The people on this thread referring to these mods as "illegal antennas" might as well also go on the WiFi forums and start posting around there about how illegal antenna modifications are.
It is ironic that the first post in this thread asked for no trolls on this topic, and now this thread is full of trolls.
I believe people are referring to FCC rule 04-165, issued July 12, 2004, which has some substantial changes for devices that use unlicensed spectrum, most significantly Wi-Fi. It is against that regulation to replace ANY antenna on any consumer device, whether there is a "user-accessible connector" or not. You are legally not allowed to replace any antennas on a wireless WiFi router you buy, walkie-talkies, etc. Manufacturers can SELL them legally, you just can't (legally) replace existing ones on your equipment without recertification. Bear in mind that there have been approximately zero prosecutions for the use of aftermarket antennas on home or business systems. The people on this thread referring to these mods as "illegal antennas" might as well also go on the WiFi forums and start posting around there about how illegal antenna modifications are.
It is ironic that the first post in this thread asked for no trolls on this topic, and now this thread is full of trolls.
