Modded the Mavic 3's Remote with Alientech's Amplified Duo Antenna, compared range with unmodded remote w/ Yagi Antennas.

[cgmaxed]

Edited Distances:
I'm not one to obey VLOS as an absolute, every second of every flight, so you BVLOS haters need not comment. Anyway, I attached the Alientech Amplified DUO antenna to my Mavic 3's standard remote. I did a distance test before and after the install in a relatively populated suburban environment without hills on an almost windless day.

Results were impressive. The test was done in Sport mode with a constant speed between 46 and 47 mph. The stock remote with Yagi antennas attached gave me 5 miles distance before complete signal loss and a RTH was auto initiated. At 4 miles the Yagi antennas started showing video corruption and video latency or lag. The Alientech Amplified DUO gave me 7 miles distance due to low battery, not signal interference. I was only able to go 7 miles because I was flying in sport mode and the battery hit 50%, so I turned around. I still had a full set of white reception bars when I turned around. If I had followed the recommended 15 MPH speed, perhaps I would have had more battery life to go further, but I wanted to test the battery life at top speed as well and spend as little time in the air BVLOS as possible. Also, of note, I was able to fly at a lower level for a longer distance with the Alientech mod due to the stronger signal. Not one time did the video become corrupted or suffer latency with the Alientech Amplifier.

I've tested the Alientech Amplified DUO with the Air2s, EVO2, M2P, and now the M3. The alientech duo was most effective with the M3's remote. The new Occusync system, and extra internal drone antennas, combined with the amplified Alientech antenna gives the user the best signal with the least latency and or video feed corruption, and not just at long distances. At short distances within VLOS, with obstacle and signal interference, the Amplified Alientech Duo performed flawlessly. But of course, large Buildings caused significant interference, but not nearly as much with the use of the Alientech mod.

I posted this test, so those of you considering increasing remote reception and signal stability, won't have to do it. This was my only test, and last range test assessing Alientech's Amplified Duo antenna for the Mavic 3 standard remote.

I have read that the Mavic 3's Pro Remotes have removable SMA antennas. I believe they are SMA antennas? Is this correct? By placing the correct adaptors on the Mav 3 Pro remote, putting an Amplified Alientech DUO on the pro remote would be easy. But, adding another 450 dollars on top of it's already steep price would be difficult to justify.

 

[BSauce955]

I'm not one to obey VLOS as an absolute, every second of every flight, so you BVLOS haters need not comment. Anyway, I attached the Alientech Amplified DUO antenna to my Mavic 3's standard remote. I did a distance test before and after the install in a relatively populated suburban environment without hills on an almost windless day.

Results were impressive. The test was done in Sport mode with a constant speed between 46 and 47 mph. The stock remote with Yagi antennas attached gave me 6 miles distance before complete signal loss and a RTH was auto initiated. The Alientech Amplified DUO gave me 9 miles distance due to low battery, not signal interference. I was only able to go 9 miles because I was flying in sport mode and the battery hit 55%, so I turned around. I still had a full set of white reception bars when I turned around. If I had followed the recommended 15 MPH speed, perhaps I would have had more battery life to go further, but I wanted to test the battery life at top speed as well and spend as little time in the air BVLOS as possible. Also, of note, I was able to fly at a lower level for a longer distance with the Alientech mod due to the stronger signal. Not one time did the video become corrupted or suffer latency with the Alientech Amplifier. With the Yagi Antennas on the unmodded remote, I began experiencing video corruption and increased latency at 5 miles; at 6 miles signal loss was total and automatic RTH initiated.

I've tested the Alientech Amplified DUO with the Air2s, EVO2, M2P, and now the M3. The alientech duo was most effective with the M3's remote. The new Occusync system, and extra internal drone antennas, combined with the amplified Alientech antenna gives the user the best signal with the least latency and or video feed corruption, and not just at long distances. At short distances within VLOS, with obstacle and signal interference, the Amplified Alientech Duo performed flawlessly. But of course, large Buildings caused significant interference, but not nearly as much with the use of the Alientech mod.

I posted this test, so those of you considering increasing remote reception and signal stability, won't have to do it. This was my only test, and last range test assessing Alientech's Amplified Duo antenna for the Mavic 3 standard remote.

I have read that the Mavic 3's Pro Remotes have removable SMA antennas. I believe they are SMA antennas? Is this correct? By placing the correct adaptors on the Mav 3 Pro remote, putting an Amplified Alientech DUO on the pro remote would be easy. But, adding another 450 dollars on top of it's already steep price would be difficult to justify.

Have you ever considered flying to a distant location and flying until the connection is lost? However, have someone drive out there alongside the drone's flight path. Then, when the connection is lost and RTH starts, you'll regain connection at some point and you can land and have the people in the car pick it up. Maybe maintain contact (telephone/walkie-talkie) and when you need to land, agree on a location and have them drive there and you can land. That would probably be the best way to see what the range really is. The only potential issue I see with that is VLOS. However, the people in the car can act as spotters or visual observers so I guess it'd be legal.

 

[Lasidora]

Would love to see some pics of the install, I have the Alientech Duo II here, it's installed on my old Smart Controller & original stock controller for my still owned Mavic 2 Pro, would be great to do the same install as you have on the mavic 3 stock controller as I dont use it al all, I have the RC Pro but don't fancy butchering that yet as it cost me a kidney to purchase.

 

[cgmaxed]

Have you ever considered flying to a distant location and flying until the connection is lost? However, have someone drive out there alongside the drone's flight path. Then, when the connection is lost and RTH starts, you'll regain connection at some point and you can land and have the people in the car pick it up. Maybe maintain contact (telephone/walkie-talkie) and when you need to land, agree on a location and have them drive there and you can land. That would probably be the best way to see what the range really is. The only potential issue I see with that is VLOS. However, the people in the car can act as spotters or visual observers so I guess it'd be legal.

I've thought of it, sounds fun. But most of my friends aren't into drones and probably wouldn't want to waist their time following my drone to see how far it would go in one direction from a fixed launch point.

Regarding VLOS, having spotters in cars communicating with the pilot electronically isn't approved by the FAA. You have to have unaided communications. I know, it makes no sense. Ask yourself, How does a control tower communicate with an airplane pilot?. They use electronic communications. Why drone pilots and spotters aren't allowed to do the same doesn't make sense. I personally think flying drones with spotters using electronic equipment as phones or walkies would be a safer system than using spotters that need to stand close enough to the pilot to physically verbalize that they see the drone. The logic doesn't make sense.

By the way, I edited my post. The Alientech amplifier only got the drone 7 miles due to drone battery depletion, but not due to signal interruption. The Yagi antenna test only got 4-5 miles due to signal interruption. 15km or 9 miles is the advertised range. I wish I could do a range test at 15mph as DJI says they do them, but I don't want my drone in the air that long. Besides it would be boring.

 

[Lasidora]

After Xmas I'll order the bits to mod the stock Mavic 3 controller dont want to chance modding the RC Pro yet - if ever at all. Compared to modding the M2P stock controller & Smart Controller, this bigger bulkier controller looks like it would be a lot more forgiving. Plus I already have a spare set of Alientech stubby antennas to fit the controller if I ever want to sell it.

 

[zeusfl]

After Xmas I'll order the bits to mod the stock Mavic 3 controller dont want to chance modding the RC Pro yet - if ever at all. Compared to modding the M2P stock controller & Smart Controller, this bigger bulkier controller looks like it would be a lot more forgiving. Plus I already have a spare set of Alientech stubby antennas to fit the controller if I ever want to sell it.

I have the allientech Duo II, Duo, and the 5.8Ghz as well. The allientech can not compete with OccuSync3 from the RC Pro Controller. Believe me. I am not going to boost my RC Pro controller because I have not needed it at all.

Unless you already own the Allientech it's ok then just like me but you will don't feel a great improvement like what you feel from OccuSync 2 to OccuSync 3.

 

[cgmaxed]

Would love to see some pics of the install, I have the Alientech Duo II here, it's installed on my old Smart Controller & original stock controller for my still owned Mavic 2 Pro, would be great to do the same install as you have on the mavic 3 stock controller as I dont use it al all, I have the RC Pro but don't fancy butchering that yet as it cost me a kidney to purchase.

I though the RC Pro for the Mav 3 had unscrewable SMA attached antennas. The first smart controller did, I think. If the new RC pro doesn't have replaceable antennas, I for one wouldn't try modding it with the Alientech DUO either.

I got the Mod Kit for the Mav 3 Standard Controller from the owner of Covert Drones. I took the Alientech DUO and mounting Kit off my Mav Air 2 remote and Installed the Kit and Antenna onto the Mav 3 standard remote.

DJI slightly changed the design of the Mav3 Controller, so I had to drill a couple holes for the antenna wires then, I used Industrial Hot Melt glue to hold the Antenna Attachment Bracket in place.

Here are some Pics.

 

[zeusfl]

Both controllers from the Mavic Air 2, Mavic Air 2S, DJI Mini 2, and the Mavic 3 Standard are exactly the same. In fact, you can fly the M3 with any of those controllers. I did the test. Every time you switch from aircraft the firmware needs to be reflashed and is done by the DJI FlyApp.

The funny fact is that they can produce OccuSync 2 and OccuSync 3. OccuSync 3 when is paired to the Air 2S but they downgrade to OccuSync 2 when is paired to the M3 in purpose to make you buy the RC Pro controller when the controller can talk OccuSync3.

The Smart Controller does not have SMA connectors from the factory. You need to open and mod and change the plate. I have pictures of mine when I moded. In the mod show, QMA is the Allientech connector. I have QMA to SMA converters when I want to use my 4hauks XR antenna.

 

[Lasidora]

I have the allientech Duo II, Duo, and the 5.8Ghz as well. The allientech can not compete with OccuSync3 from the RC Pro Controller. Believe me. I am not going to boost my RC Pro controller because I have not needed it at all.

Unless you already own the Allientech it's ok then just like me but you will don't feel a great improvement like what you feel from OccuSync 2 to OccuSync 3.

I see you live in Florida so your RC Pro will be in FCC mode which is 1995mw output ( just under 2w as standard ), but over here my RC Pro in Uk (CE) the exact same hardware is only 100mw (0.1w) output so a big difference, I already own the Alientech Duo II & it is currently used on my Mavic 2 Pro with Smart Controller, but as already mentioned, I don't want to risk any damage to a controller that has cost £879, I could barely manage to risk doing the mod to the SC but cannot justify risking the RC Pro.

 

[BigAl07]

.......

Regarding VLOS, having spotters in cars communicating with the pilot electronically isn't approved by the FAA. You have to have unaided communications. I know, it makes no sense. Ask yourself, How does a control tower communicate with an airplane pilot?. They use electronic communications. Why drone pilots and spotters aren't allowed to do the same doesn't make sense. I personally think flying drones with spotters using electronic equipment as phones or walkies would be a safer system than using spotters that need to stand close enough to the pilot to physically verbalize that they see the drone. The logic doesn't make sense.
.......

Absolute bologna! You're comparing apples to mudholes.

ATC is giving guidance to pilots but if something goes amiss with the Comms the pilot is still able to SAFELY maneuver the aircraft. Also with manned aviation we have several layers of redundancy (multiple Comms etc) that you won't find in consumer UAS. Not an accurate comparison in the least.

What happens if you're flying your drone and relying on the spotter to guide you into/out of a tricky/dangerous area that you can't navigate w/o the spotter and you LOSE your coms. How do you continue the fly ensuring SAFETY?

 

[zeusfl]

I see you live in Florida so your RC Pro will be in FCC mode which is 1995mw output ( just under 2w as standard ), but over here my RC Pro in Uk (CE) the exact same hardware is only 100mw (0.1w) output so a big difference, I already own the Alientech Duo II & it is currently used on my Mavic 2 Pro with Smart Controller, but as already mentioned, I don't want to risk any damage to a controller that has cost £879, I could barely manage to risk doing the mod to the SC but cannot justify risking the RC Pro.

I understand. In your case make sense.

 

[Chrislaf]

I'm not one to obey VLOS as an absolute, every second of every flight, so you BVLOS haters need not comment.

So don't post about an illegal, reckless flight that could have endangered manned aircraft in a public forum and expect no one to comment about it.

Chris

 

[cgmaxed]

So don't post about an illegal, reckless flight that could have endangered manned aircraft in a public forum and expect no one to comment about it.

Chris

Comment unnecessary.

 

[cgmaxed]

Absolute bologna! You're comparing apples to mudholes.

ATC is giving guidance to pilots but if something goes amiss with the Comms the pilot is still able to SAFELY maneuver the aircraft. Also with manned aviation we have several layers of redundancy (multiple Comms etc) that you won't find in consumer UAS. Not an accurate comparison in the least.

What happens if you're flying your drone and relying on the spotter to guide you into/out of a tricky/dangerous area that you can't navigate w/o the spotter and you LOSE your coms. How do you continue the fly ensuring SAFETY?

My imaginary safety list: Re: BVLOS
1) A secondary Remote the spotter could use to override the BVLOS pilot in case of lost coms during unsafe situations.
2) Cell phone contact at all times.
3) Analog and or Digital Walkie contact with cell phone contact at all times.

In my opinion this Triad of electronic safety is greater than the safety of "non-electronic" equipped spotters could provide.

We fly electronically with little or no redundancy. Using spotters with electronic redundancy would improve safety in my opinion.

Question, spotters can use electronics to communicate with the pilot in command, but still need to be able to communicate without them. I think the FAA should require both electronic and non-electronic communications to be used, not just one. Why not require electronic communication as well? Simple verbal communication can easily be disabled if a manned aircraft, another drone or a loud car passes in the vicinity of a spotter and or drone pilot.

Just my thoughts, not a challenge of any sort. Your input is always greatly appreciated.

 

[Ty Pilot]

My imaginary safety list: Re: BVLOS
1) A secondary Remote the spotter could use to override the BVLOS pilot in case of lost coms during unsafe situations.
2) Cell phone contact at all times.
3) Analog and or Digital Walkie contact with cell phone contact at all times.

In my opinion this Triad of electronic safety is greater than the safety of "non-electronic" equipped spotters could provide.

We fly electronically with little or no redundancy. Using spotters with electronic redundancy would improve safety in my opinion.

Question, spotters can use electronics to communicate with the pilot in command, but still need to be able to communicate without them. I think the FAA should require both electronic and non-electronic communications to be used, not just one. Why not require electronic communication as well? Simple verbal communication can easily be disabled if a manned aircraft, another drone or a loud car passes in the vicinity of a spotter and or drone pilot.

Just my thoughts, not a challenge of any sort. Your input is always greatly appreciated.

The first item on your list - a remote that can instantly over-ride the initial remote - does not, and will not ever exist in the consumer drone world. But lets say it did. In your initial post, you say you flew 7 miles?

So spacing spotters (each with a remote that can over-ride the previous), would be spaced at intervals according to how far one can see a drone the size of (for instance) a Mavic. Lets say we can see (on average) a Mavic about out to 1,500 feet, so a spotter (with magic remote), and a cell phone, and a walkie: would need to be spaced at around 3000 feet apart, across the entire flight path, correct?

So seven miles is 36,960 feet - with a spotter every 3,000 feet of the journey you would need 12.32 spotters (who are pilots themselves) - each with a remote, each has a cell phone and all of them are on a group call to each other and the PIC and; they have walkies at the ready and; at any given point any one of the spotters can take over control the mission?

12 additional pilots, with 36 additional devices seems a bit much. Even if you wanted to fly just a fraction of that distance, the logistics of linking spotters electronically with a pilot alone make it a difficult task, but if we then suggest a method to daisy chain the actual flight control of the aircraft at any point along a flight path. . . . I just don't see that as being in any way, possible or safer than what we have now. But that is just me.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Never understood why hardware mods is not part of the same rules that software mods adhere to. If people want to see\read about the mods they get permission to join that section just like software mods. It would stop all the negative comments from those who do not want to see this stuff.
Maybe needs to be considered as a hidden section.

 

[cgmaxed]

The first item on your list - a remote that can instantly over-ride the initial remote - does not, and will not ever exist in the consumer drone world. But lets say it did. In your initial post, you say you flew 7 miles?

So spacing spotters (each with a remote that can over-ride the previous), would be spaced at intervals according to how far one can see a drone the size of (for instance) a Mavic. Lets say we can see (on average) a Mavic about out to 1,500 feet, so a spotter (with magic remote), and a cell phone, and a walkie: would need to be spaced at around 3000 feet apart, across the entire flight path, correct?

So seven miles is 36,960 feet - with a spotter every 3,000 feet of the journey you would need 12.32 spotters (who are pilots themselves) - each with a remote, each has a cell phone and all of them are on a group call to each other and the PIC and; they have walkies at the ready and; at any given point any one of the spotters can take over control the mission?

12 additional pilots, with 36 additional devices seems a bit much. Even if you wanted to fly just a fraction of that distance, the logistics of linking spotters electronically with a pilot alone make it a difficult task, but if we then suggest a method to daisy chain the actual flight control of the aircraft at any point along a flight path. . . . I just don't see that as being in any way, possible or safer than what we have now. But that is just me.

In my imaginary scenario, the spotter would be a car with 2 people and one remote to override the drone as they follow it, if deemed necessary. My idea wasn't to use multiple spotters with multiple remotes. 2 people in a car would do fine. I was also thinking suburban environments with roads. Not deserted type areas.

While communicating with the in car chaser team, I would have them communicating to me how close the drone is to the road they are on, so we don't lose each other.

Your right thought, the scenario you dreamed up, is definitely impossible.

Me, and a chaser car with a driver and a spotter with one override remote is all I had in mind.

 

[cgmaxed]

Never understood why hardware mods is not part of the same rules that software mods adhere to. If people want to see\read about the mods they get permission to join that section just like software mods. It would stop all the negative comments from those who do not want to see this stuff.
Maybe needs to be considered as a hidden section.

This may have been a BVLOS range test, but "Range Test" can also be referred to as a "Signal Strength Test". These range tests can help those who have problems with signal strength at VLOS, or in areas where they are in VLOS, but with lots of obstructions and signal interference. BVLOS range tests can provide info on hardware mods that may be usable in such conditions.

 

[Lasidora]

Regardless of all the negative vibes sent in this thread mate, I for one appreciate the info on the hardware mod you have done, always fascinated on pushing the limits on current hardware, not seen anyone else do it yet, so cheers.

 

[dirkclod]

Ok guys that’s it.