Waterproofing controller
03-14-2019, 10:25 PM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Waterproofing controller
Hi!
I just wanted to check what others do to 'waterproof' their controllers or how water resistant they find that their controllers are?
We have a Futaba T6k V2 controller and after taking it apart a few times to make adjustments I can see that there is no water resistance at all. How water resistant can we rely on the controller being? What ways to protect the controller from rain do you all use? I'm afraid of a situation where we are out using our boat and it starts to rain, the controller dies and we then have a boat sitting out in the water with no way to get it home.
Many thanks for any and all input!
I just wanted to check what others do to 'waterproof' their controllers or how water resistant they find that their controllers are?
We have a Futaba T6k V2 controller and after taking it apart a few times to make adjustments I can see that there is no water resistance at all. How water resistant can we rely on the controller being? What ways to protect the controller from rain do you all use? I'm afraid of a situation where we are out using our boat and it starts to rain, the controller dies and we then have a boat sitting out in the water with no way to get it home.
Many thanks for any and all input!
03-15-2019, 02:27 AM
#2
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blackpool Lancs, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 32 Likes
on
32 Posts
Google for "radio control transmitter glove". Cunningly arranged so that the transmitter sits inside with the aerial snugly fitting through the hole at the top, but with a hole for each hand to work the transmitter which is visible through the clear panel. Also keeps your hands warm.
If desperate, you can always put the transmitter (for goodness' sake NOT a "controller") inside your jacket.
If desperate, you can always put the transmitter (for goodness' sake NOT a "controller") inside your jacket.
03-18-2019, 01:27 AM
#3
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Google for "radio control transmitter glove". Cunningly arranged so that the transmitter sits inside with the aerial snugly fitting through the hole at the top, but with a hole for each hand to work the transmitter which is visible through the clear panel. Also keeps your hands warm.
If desperate, you can always put the transmitter (for goodness' sake NOT a "controller") inside your jacket.
If desperate, you can always put the transmitter (for goodness' sake NOT a "controller") inside your jacket.
Sorry for the rookyness of my post. A transmitter it is!
03-18-2019, 08:47 AM
#4
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blackpool Lancs, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 32 Likes
on
32 Posts
Maybe being pedantic, but the first thing that springs to mind when "controller" gets a mention is an electronic speed controller. Drifting away from normal usage tends to gather answers that are based on a different subject.
The other advantage of a trsnsmitter mitten is that when you drop it, the transmitter is padded, and still works when you pick it up.
The other advantage of a trsnsmitter mitten is that when you drop it, the transmitter is padded, and still works when you pick it up.
03-18-2019, 10:16 AM
#5
We've had to do that when it unexpectedly rains during a race. We've used plastic grocery bags and poked a hole in them for the antennas.
At a race, one of the racers knocked his transmitter off the drivers stand into the water. It was submerged for maybe 20 minutes until it was found. He did nothing, let the water drain out and it still worked! I don't advise trying that stunt though.
At a race, one of the racers knocked his transmitter off the drivers stand into the water. It was submerged for maybe 20 minutes until it was found. He did nothing, let the water drain out and it still worked! I don't advise trying that stunt though.
03-18-2019, 09:55 PM
#6
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe being pedantic, but the first thing that springs to mind when "controller" gets a mention is an electronic speed controller. Drifting away from normal usage tends to gather answers that are based on a different subject.
The other advantage of a trsnsmitter mitten is that when you drop it, the transmitter is padded, and still works when you pick it up.
The other advantage of a trsnsmitter mitten is that when you drop it, the transmitter is padded, and still works when you pick it up.
03-19-2019, 01:47 AM
#7
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blackpool Lancs, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 32 Likes
on
32 Posts
It needs to be one that will work with your receiver.
In the days of AM and FM sets, this was fairly simple, but modern 2G4 sets tend to run on software protocols that are unique to their own company at the low cost end. At the pricier end, there are multi protocol sets. Swapping a transmitter might well involve a receiver swap as well.
I don't think anybody makes a waterproof transmitter. They tend to need too many mechanical devices poking through the case, (sticks, switches) and things like access hatches for the batteries. Prevention is the answer - a cover, either a shop-bought padded glove or the emergency plastic bag or a jacket with enough room for both you and the transmitter, and a neck strap.
Ron's experience with the immersed transmitter was probably in fresh water, it would probably not have survived even a brief dunk in the salt water lake that I sail without very fast recovery and attention.
In the days of AM and FM sets, this was fairly simple, but modern 2G4 sets tend to run on software protocols that are unique to their own company at the low cost end. At the pricier end, there are multi protocol sets. Swapping a transmitter might well involve a receiver swap as well.
I don't think anybody makes a waterproof transmitter. They tend to need too many mechanical devices poking through the case, (sticks, switches) and things like access hatches for the batteries. Prevention is the answer - a cover, either a shop-bought padded glove or the emergency plastic bag or a jacket with enough room for both you and the transmitter, and a neck strap.
Ron's experience with the immersed transmitter was probably in fresh water, it would probably not have survived even a brief dunk in the salt water lake that I sail without very fast recovery and attention.
03-19-2019, 10:38 PM
#8
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It needs to be one that will work with your receiver.
In the days of AM and FM sets, this was fairly simple, but modern 2G4 sets tend to run on software protocols that are unique to their own company at the low cost end. At the pricier end, there are multi protocol sets. Swapping a transmitter might well involve a receiver swap as well.
I don't think anybody makes a waterproof transmitter. They tend to need too many mechanical devices poking through the case, (sticks, switches) and things like access hatches for the batteries. Prevention is the answer - a cover, either a shop-bought padded glove or the emergency plastic bag or a jacket with enough room for both you and the transmitter, and a neck strap.
Ron's experience with the immersed transmitter was probably in fresh water, it would probably not have survived even a brief dunk in the salt water lake that I sail without very fast recovery and attention.
In the days of AM and FM sets, this was fairly simple, but modern 2G4 sets tend to run on software protocols that are unique to their own company at the low cost end. At the pricier end, there are multi protocol sets. Swapping a transmitter might well involve a receiver swap as well.
I don't think anybody makes a waterproof transmitter. They tend to need too many mechanical devices poking through the case, (sticks, switches) and things like access hatches for the batteries. Prevention is the answer - a cover, either a shop-bought padded glove or the emergency plastic bag or a jacket with enough room for both you and the transmitter, and a neck strap.
Ron's experience with the immersed transmitter was probably in fresh water, it would probably not have survived even a brief dunk in the salt water lake that I sail without very fast recovery and attention.
03-20-2019, 04:01 AM
#9
Okay, let me throw a little icewater on that salesman's pitch. There is really no difference, other than having a slightly different programming protocol, between FASST and FHSS systems. Granted, there are a few whistles to make it seem better but all the guy is after is to sell a higher dollar unit. If you talk to Mike "Grimracer" Zaborowski, someone that has worked for Hobbico/Horizon, he runs all FHSS systems in his boats. He would tell you to run an Futaba FHSS receiver that has "Diversity" on the front of it. Trust me, I've butted heads with many R/C boaters and those that run FASST systems usually only run them because they have the money to spend or want the latest and greatest. I could be running a 7PX with FASST receivers but don't since my 4PLS will do the same thing for less than a third the price. The 7PX is a $700 radio while my 4PLS costs only $190, both of which are available on the Futaba website.
03-20-2019, 11:18 PM
#11
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, let me throw a little icewater on that salesman's pitch. There is really no difference, other than having a slightly different programming protocol, between FASST and FHSS systems. Granted, there are a few whistles to make it seem better but all the guy is after is to sell a higher dollar unit. If you talk to Mike "Grimracer" Zaborowski, someone that has worked for Hobbico/Horizon, he runs all FHSS systems in his boats. He would tell you to run an Futaba FHSS receiver that has "Diversity" on the front of it. Trust me, I've butted heads with many R/C boaters and those that run FASST systems usually only run them because they have the money to spend or want the latest and greatest. I could be running a 7PX with FASST receivers but don't since my 4PLS will do the same thing for less than a third the price. The 7PX is a $700 radio while my 4PLS costs only $190, both of which are available on the Futaba website.
What would be your suggestion if we wanted to receive greater range in this case? How far can one expect range wise when using a FHSS transmitter?
03-21-2019, 12:21 AM
#12
Range is limited by two things:
1) The height of the receiver antenna
2) The FCC
Obviously, if the receiver's antenna is higher up, it won't have as much issue with signal reflection, an issue with the early Spectrum 2.4 systems. This is also why, before we could bounce communications signals off satellites, ships had their radio antennas as high as possible, for longer range. They didn't know, back in those days, that the low frequency signals they were sending could reach beyond the horizon, unlike the high frequency signals we use today.
The FCC is the real limiting factor in radio ranges. The law, as presently written, only allows an R/C transmitter to broadcast using .5 watt. This effectively limits your range to around 750-1000 yards, at best. While aircraft systems can reach a bit further, it's only due to the fact that the transmitted signal isn't attenuated by the ground or water. I would consider it more likely to reach ranges of not much more than 500 yards, with reliable reception
1) The height of the receiver antenna
2) The FCC
Obviously, if the receiver's antenna is higher up, it won't have as much issue with signal reflection, an issue with the early Spectrum 2.4 systems. This is also why, before we could bounce communications signals off satellites, ships had their radio antennas as high as possible, for longer range. They didn't know, back in those days, that the low frequency signals they were sending could reach beyond the horizon, unlike the high frequency signals we use today.
The FCC is the real limiting factor in radio ranges. The law, as presently written, only allows an R/C transmitter to broadcast using .5 watt. This effectively limits your range to around 750-1000 yards, at best. While aircraft systems can reach a bit further, it's only due to the fact that the transmitted signal isn't attenuated by the ground or water. I would consider it more likely to reach ranges of not much more than 500 yards, with reliable reception
03-21-2019, 01:41 AM
#13
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Range is limited by two things:
1) The height of the receiver antenna
2) The FCC
Obviously, if the receiver's antenna is higher up, it won't have as much issue with signal reflection, an issue with the early Spectrum 2.4 systems. This is also why, before we could bounce communications signals off satellites, ships had their radio antennas as high as possible, for longer range. They didn't know, back in those days, that the low frequency signals they were sending could reach beyond the horizon, unlike the high frequency signals we use today.
The FCC is the real limiting factor in radio ranges. The law, as presently written, only allows an R/C transmitter to broadcast using .5 watt. This effectively limits your range to around 750-1000 yards, at best. While aircraft systems can reach a bit further, it's only due to the fact that the transmitted signal isn't attenuated by the ground or water. I would consider it more likely to reach ranges of not much more than 500 yards, with reliable reception
1) The height of the receiver antenna
2) The FCC
Obviously, if the receiver's antenna is higher up, it won't have as much issue with signal reflection, an issue with the early Spectrum 2.4 systems. This is also why, before we could bounce communications signals off satellites, ships had their radio antennas as high as possible, for longer range. They didn't know, back in those days, that the low frequency signals they were sending could reach beyond the horizon, unlike the high frequency signals we use today.
The FCC is the real limiting factor in radio ranges. The law, as presently written, only allows an R/C transmitter to broadcast using .5 watt. This effectively limits your range to around 750-1000 yards, at best. While aircraft systems can reach a bit further, it's only due to the fact that the transmitted signal isn't attenuated by the ground or water. I would consider it more likely to reach ranges of not much more than 500 yards, with reliable reception
Out boat is 1.6m long and about 70cm wide, just for reference.
03-21-2019, 01:48 AM
#14
You can order longer antennas but I don't know how long you can get. That would be my choice, either that or add some sort of water tight box higher up and install the receiver and at least one battery pack there
03-21-2019, 01:52 AM
#15
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So longer antennas can be attached or do I have to buy a new Futaba FHSS receiver?
03-21-2019, 01:27 PM
#16
You probably wouldn't need a new receiver, just contact Futaba through their website and ask them directly The contact info you will need is listed on this page:
https://futabausa.com/repairs/
https://futabausa.com/repairs/
03-22-2019, 08:14 AM
#17
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blackpool Lancs, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 32 Likes
on
32 Posts
Range is limited by two things:
1) The height of the receiver antenna
2) The FCC
1) The height of the receiver antenna
2) The FCC
Generally, the higher the transmitter above the water, the better. Surface interference is reduced.
You are still stuck with line of sight.
While the power of the transmiter is limited legally in most parts of the world, range can be improved by introducing the right kind of second receiver to improve sensitivity without compromising selectivity. Does that count as 4 things?. Just something I read about, but the extension receiver cuts the error rate at low power (i.e. long range). Liked by the flyboys. As range increases, the received power reduces and drops down into the background noise level, the extra receiver gathers more signal and between them they sort out a valid signal at greater range. Since this is high-end magic, I expect it will be in Futaba's book.
My bottom end radios work very well at ranges beyond where I can easily see what if happening ith the boat - 250 yards plus - so extreme range is not a problem for me.
Last edited by mfr02; 03-22-2019 at 08:17 AM.
03-25-2019, 06:57 AM
#18
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 things - the height of the transmitter.
Generally, the higher the transmitter above the water, the better. Surface interference is reduced.
You are still stuck with line of sight.
While the power of the transmiter is limited legally in most parts of the world, range can be improved by introducing the right kind of second receiver to improve sensitivity without compromising selectivity. Does that count as 4 things?. Just something I read about, but the extension receiver cuts the error rate at low power (i.e. long range). Liked by the flyboys. As range increases, the received power reduces and drops down into the background noise level, the extra receiver gathers more signal and between them they sort out a valid signal at greater range. Since this is high-end magic, I expect it will be in Futaba's book.
My bottom end radios work very well at ranges beyond where I can easily see what if happening ith the boat - 250 yards plus - so extreme range is not a problem for me.
Generally, the higher the transmitter above the water, the better. Surface interference is reduced.
You are still stuck with line of sight.
While the power of the transmiter is limited legally in most parts of the world, range can be improved by introducing the right kind of second receiver to improve sensitivity without compromising selectivity. Does that count as 4 things?. Just something I read about, but the extension receiver cuts the error rate at low power (i.e. long range). Liked by the flyboys. As range increases, the received power reduces and drops down into the background noise level, the extra receiver gathers more signal and between them they sort out a valid signal at greater range. Since this is high-end magic, I expect it will be in Futaba's book.
My bottom end radios work very well at ranges beyond where I can easily see what if happening ith the boat - 250 yards plus - so extreme range is not a problem for me.
So I should be able to add a second receiver that works together with the primary? In which case I could leave the original receiver installed where it is and install a second higher up outside the boat so that it has free line of sight to the transmitter. Am I thinking right?
03-26-2019, 02:36 AM
#19
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blackpool Lancs, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 32 Likes
on
32 Posts
Great. Thanks Hydro Junkie and mfr02. I've now sent an e-mail to Futaba to ask what parts I need. We arent looking for anything extreme but would like to still have a strong signal up to 1km if possible.
So I should be able to add a second receiver that works together with the primary? In which case I could leave the original receiver installed where it is and install a second higher up outside the boat so that it has free line of sight to the transmitter. Am I thinking right?
So I should be able to add a second receiver that works together with the primary? In which case I could leave the original receiver installed where it is and install a second higher up outside the boat so that it has free line of sight to the transmitter. Am I thinking right?
03-26-2019, 07:51 AM
#20
Banned
Great. Thanks Hydro Junkie and mfr02. I've now sent an e-mail to Futaba to ask what parts I need. We arent looking for anything extreme but would like to still have a strong signal up to 1km if possible.
So I should be able to add a second receiver that works together with the primary? In which case I could leave the original receiver installed where it is and install a second higher up outside the boat so that it has free line of sight to the transmitter. Am I thinking right?
So I should be able to add a second receiver that works together with the primary? In which case I could leave the original receiver installed where it is and install a second higher up outside the boat so that it has free line of sight to the transmitter. Am I thinking right?
I do sailboats so my desire would be to put one as high up the mast as possible. But for best performance it would limit me to wood masts. Hence I'm hanging on to my
04-02-2019, 11:20 PM
#21
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was put Monday with our survey vessel and was able to get to around 300m before I started to lose signal/connection. Things went intermittent and I was luckily able to get back close enough that I regained control. We are now even more keen to have a longer range.
I have ave been in contact with Futaba who said they don’t have extension antennas for our receiver but later found some that work with the FASST system. Maybe those could be soldered?
We are also a bit worried what happens when we lose connection completely. We’ve heard about a RTH function used in Mission Planner but we are fairly unfamiliar with the Mission Planner software. Tips?
I have ave been in contact with Futaba who said they don’t have extension antennas for our receiver but later found some that work with the FASST system. Maybe those could be soldered?
We are also a bit worried what happens when we lose connection completely. We’ve heard about a RTH function used in Mission Planner but we are fairly unfamiliar with the Mission Planner software. Tips?
04-03-2019, 01:29 AM
#22
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blackpool Lancs, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 32 Likes
on
32 Posts
The problem with RTH is that so far, it isn't clever enough to cope with a return path that has obstructions. A drone "might" be clever enough to spot and climb over a tree or building, or fly at a pre-determined altitude to avoid such things, but that is not an option for a boat and I doubt that there is anything on the market at the moment that will steer it round a surface obstruction.
04-03-2019, 05:24 PM
#24
I have to agree with Ron. A surface radio, due to ground clutter for the most part, is only good for .25 to maybe .375 mile. You're looking at .62 mile, almost twice as far. You may need to see about getting an FCC exception and a signal booster to at least double the power to over a watt, not the .5 watt the FCC allows for R/C usage
09-05-2019, 09:16 PM
#25
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guys,
I'm back on a transmitter hunt.
At the moment we have a Futaba T6K-V2 transmitter which basically does what we want it to. Well, despite the range still not being amazing. We are looking to buy another transmitter and looking for tips. I would like both transmitters to be paired to the same boat, not to be able to control simutaniously but in the event that one is damaged when we are out working that we can pull up the other. Price is not an issue so please dont hold back. If you have any tips on something that is better that will work, I'm happy to use our current transmitter as a backup.
As for the range, we switched the antennas on the futaba receiver for a small wifi receiver that we found laying around and amazingly the range went from 300m to almost 800m. The only thing was that in town the other day when doing a survey I lost control when only 300m away. I'm going to take a wild guess that it was because of all the other signals in the area plus buildings, etc.
Cheers!
I'm back on a transmitter hunt.
At the moment we have a Futaba T6K-V2 transmitter which basically does what we want it to. Well, despite the range still not being amazing. We are looking to buy another transmitter and looking for tips. I would like both transmitters to be paired to the same boat, not to be able to control simutaniously but in the event that one is damaged when we are out working that we can pull up the other. Price is not an issue so please dont hold back. If you have any tips on something that is better that will work, I'm happy to use our current transmitter as a backup.
As for the range, we switched the antennas on the futaba receiver for a small wifi receiver that we found laying around and amazingly the range went from 300m to almost 800m. The only thing was that in town the other day when doing a survey I lost control when only 300m away. I'm going to take a wild guess that it was because of all the other signals in the area plus buildings, etc.
Cheers!