Linear antenna on the quad - what's the best antenna on your goggles ?

Little linear dipole antennas are all the rage - especially on micros. So what antenna on your goggles will give you the best image. Let's do a head-to-head comparison to try and find out.

Perhaps one thing to take away from this is that the amount of range / quality of signal you have isn't dictated by the amount of mw in your VTX, but a combination of factors including noise floor, having a clean signal and the environment you fly in. In that field on my own 25mw will take me far far away :)

Update: So why is linear to linear worse than linear to skew ?

-------
"Because of polarization loss.

Linear to linear is perfectly polarized, until either end is not perfectly vertical, then db losses are incurred degrading the signal by up to -26dBi.

With linear to circular polarization, a -3dBi loss is already incurred but because the circular antenna is circular the movement in the linear polarisation incurs no more thereafter."
-------

So there you go, keep using circular polarized antennas on your goggles with linears on the quad, and add on a patch to your diversity module if you want more range/tree penetration

I'm maintaining a coupons/deals page on my blog, so if you are about to buy something, check it out in case there's a coupon you can use !

[jasondonavich]

I used a dipole on my quad for a while with Omni and patch on the goggles and the reception was brilliant. A lot better than I expected!

[Idontdohandles]

Thanks for settling this in my mind I've been testing same on micro cinewhoops last few days Mobula6, Moblite6 and 7. Found despite their linear VTX antenna I get noticeably better reception with iFlught RCHP circular antenna! Thought I was losing my mind in thinking same that linear only worked with linear, clearly is not the case. From my reasoning the only reason not to carry the circular antenna onboard of drone is really just a size/weight consideration. But seems def want to have circular on goggles and a directional too if have diversity!

[sailorjohn]

I never here the term ground plane when testing antennas, when I was active in CB it made tremendous difference.

[propcutfpv]

linear to linear doesn't work as good because you lose a lot of signal when the antennas are not parallel to each other(cross polarisation?).When you use a circular polarised antenna such as a skew planar with a linear antenna on the quad, you lose a couple db of signal (3db maybe?) from beginning but the loss is always the same regardless of the polarisation.Also, as far as i know, you don't get multipathing rejection when you use linear and circular together.

i might be wrong

[HeathNielsen]

Thanks for the great video. Please do follow up that test the goggle antena to use with the linear on my quad. Your video is thonly one I was able to find that says its better to use an polarised anntenna then another linear on my goggles which was a big help.
Thanks again.

[JohnFHendry]

Good information... found it doing research on people's experience using dipoles because thanks to Hugo Lumenier has a new 1 gram Micro Dipole 5.8GHz Antenna with an MMCX connector so soldered it's even lighter. It's the only thing that has me thinking about using a dipole again as a preference. It's said to have a max gain of 2.5dBic and better range and penetration with a really wide bandwidth because it's using a new PCB design claimed to prevent the antenna cable from interacting with the antenna and be less susceptible to object proximity interference. But again polarization shows why two 90 degree apart as Connex is doing is best.

So coming full circle the performance solution here IMO seems obvious... stick with circular polarized as the advantages reward you with a much better picture overall. Wight wise an antenna still needs a coax and some metal used so a CP can be made almost as lightweight as a dipole like the clover used on the Eachine EF-02 (without the extra length of coax Eachine used)... but I am at a loss as to why someone has not come up a light weight more flexible clover style CP antenna that is not so easily damaged. The ONLY problem I have with the small CP on AIO cam/vtx's is the center connection is too delicate. You can only solder them back together so many times as the center wire in the coax disappears and that's when I replace them with a dipole and then the picture is never as nice where I fly. If the micro CP antennas didn't break in the center you can just bend the antenna back in shape after a tree attacks you.

One thing I have noticed that no one mentions and is a huge downfall for the micro dipoles used is related to finding a small quad when they land upside down as even on flat ground using a dipole you can lose your video signal where as a CP generally always has a lobe exposed to transmit what it sees to find it even in soft dirt and brush where it doesn't sink in as easy but the dipole's signal is completely blocked. I have a lot of big RC models but most of what I fly now is hard to find quads under 40 grams to take advantage of scale turning my back yard and the neighborhood into a great training area hard to get bored with so weight is critical but I keep coming back to using circular polarized antennas for video even with their durability disadvantage and your post only confirms why more. But Hugo's new PCB design may solve the upside down loss of signal issue (final straw for me to stick with CP) and with a new PCB design at under a gram I'll have to try one. Thanks for sharing....

[Dailyartpallette]

Always an interesting subject the heart of the hobby!

[ChrisRileyD-Everything]

great video! i use linear on my vtx and a 8 dbi clover leaf on my goggles with good results to.

[HaveFaithInGod]

Let's try 2 patches and rotate your head a bit when needed? Lol Have you tested the "pagoda" type antenna? The triple feed patch is a part of the system. Inventor has odd (to me) maybe German name I can't recall at the moment. I use those on my goggles. I was surprised too re the linear antenna.

[nomisranger]

Would be interesting to see how the menace bandicoot would do in the test?

[rrgane]

Interesting, i was just wondering this myself the other day! i have a few AIOs with dipoles and was wondering exactly the same that the cloverleaf would not take to it as well as a rubber ducky.. must be something more at play.

[iknowaguy]

This bit that bit we bit I love you and this video was helpful

[smokinjoe]

linear for tx and rhcp for rx works just wonderful for me....but i got horrible results with a rhcp as tx and a linear as rx.
best is polarized both for sure

[J_Renwick]

Thanks for doing this. Most antenna comparisons are done for minis that have circular polarized. When I got my goggles I did get rid of my cheap axial antenna. Since I have been having signal issues with my micro equipped with a small linear I picked up a Bandicoot linear patch. Haven’t tried it yet. I was also planning to get another “rubber duckie” antenna to match linear to linear. Looks like I will stick with a linear patch
instead.
What power level do you normally run on you micros - 20 or 200mw? Thanks again!

[CoppertopFPV]

Try a demon rc v antenna. Much better than linear and has an ipex connector for light builds. Weighs less than 2g.

[jocasimoes]

it true linear antenna is good, tx. Biquad ist best rx .👍👍👍

[scoutworks]

I found this particularly interesting and the reason why is that my goggles (vr006) only have one working antenna as the advertised dual receiver system doesn’t work and never would have lol
Mainly as it’s not wired in from factory anyway I digress good video would like to see more with single antennas perhaps a bandicoot by itself ?? Highly rated reason I don’t get one is I’m worried about the spread and going out of the recieveing angle too quick to react great video chap Let there be more lol 👍👍👍👍

[Carfunmostly]

That prototype patch didn't impress me tbh. I have no experience at all in this field but I would have expected it to outperform the circular polarised and it did, but only just.

[alexglikman]

Radiation is not very much interested what is antenna shape is transmitted and what is antenna shape received.
Then more efficiency the antenna have, the better the signal will be.
The dipole has the worst efficiency.
Why should it still give a good signal?

[tglstn]

I've used several antennas and combos over last 30 years.
This go for any antennas in any frequency band, the quality of the antenna tuning are 80%, as a badly tuned antenna the losses are extreme(might even blow transmitter, like if run without any antennas! Never do this!), usually easy measured in swr on transmitters "feed back power" power that simply get returned to transmitter instead sent in air to target antenna (to put it simply, read up on swr on wiki for more)
As example a brand x cheap bg klover works poorly vs a regular dipole that came with quad, klover are badly tuned to vtx this then works poorly.(cheap/badly tuned antennas are crap no matter brand or seller)
A good dipole and a klover that came in box from bg, had no problems 1km, bad klover to bad klover 20 metres.
It's the tune, hand made dipole antenna made by professionals will beat other "so called mass-produced high gain antenna"
The +12dB in bad tune might be a -12dB in practical use. So test antennas, only way to tell if good or bad without any instruments.