Long range 115200 bits/sec or faster wireless comm

Do you know any long range wireless communication gadget (radio modem etc.) that can be used for 115200 bits/sec continuous data transfer over 100 km ?
(Imagine you are on a boat/ship and you have a UAV. You want to fly your UAV to 100km away and you want continuous comm with the UAV. Because one end of the communication is an small airplane the smaller size and lighter weight for the gadget are peferred.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
pretty basic really, the question you need to ask is the device going to be beyond the radio horizion. if so then it gets tricky
<Giatto Cardiacci> wrote in message
: Do you know any long range wireless communication gadget (radio modem etc.) : that can be used for 115200 bits/sec continuous data transfer over 100 km ? : : (Imagine you are on a boat/ship and you have a UAV. You want to fly your : UAV to 100km away and you want continuous comm with the UAV. Because one end : of the communication is an small airplane the smaller size and lighter : weight for the gadget are peferred.) : :
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<Giatto Cardiacci> wrote:

62 mile radius? Over 12 thousand square mile area? That's tricky, very tricky, 115kbs sort of fast, but maybe not unmanagably fast. What are weight requirements? What are budget constraints? Can you maintain "line of sight?" Can you prepare the site, i.e. lay down repeaters? Will you be near cellphone towers? What about satalite internet?
If you don't mind me asking, what for? It sounds like you have a very specific application in mind, and to be honest, I can't think of any really legitimate use. Sure, you may be able to do it, but I can't see any hobby use, and if it were a corporate or military project you wouldn't be asking so publically. Maybe I'm paranoid, but a remote control plane with a 62 mile range could be a poor man's cruise missile.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Unfortunatelly most of us are programmed by the mass media to think pesimisticly. Yes you may be right that a UAV with 100km range would be dangerous on wrong hands. But was thinking differently. Application I had in mind was monitoring the very large disaster areas. As we all learned that, unfortunate tsunami and recent earthquake can and did change the region's maps. Boats ships could not use their pre-disaster maine maps to navigate around islands. Human operated helicopters and airplanes are used for both for monitoring and for aid delivery. I think it may be possible to use long range UAVs in such humanitarian applications.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:22:52 +1000, <Lee J.> wrote:

Agreed.
Check out the Aerosonde site (google it). I think they can stay in the air for at least 24 hours. Even if you're going to build your own, you may as well take a peek at what a successful commercial UAV looks like.
Cheers.
                    Marty
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:20:21 -0400, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"

I'm having trouble getting around their configuration. Wonder what they have at the apex of the simi-horizontal stabilizer , bent flat spring steel.
I still think there are a gazillion applications. Over water and around your boat... I could come up with a good 10 great ones without trouble.
How far is it to the horizon at 10 ft. on water ??? Just curious, I don't think I would ever like open sea travel. Tall buildings scare me , but planes don't phase me much at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Probably just some plywood joiners. I don't think the joint would require a lot of strength. They're not doing aerobatics. I do think the tubes that support the tail are high-tech--composite? They need something light and strong for that part of the plane.

Sure. All you need are folks who've got enough money to play with. They're around. Just not in my circle of friends. :o)

More than 3.51 nautical miles:
<http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/distance.htm

For me, it all depends on the size of the boat I'm in. I only have limited experience, but the one mid-size cruise ship I was on was pretty comfortable.
                Marty
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:54:24 -0400, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"

I would. That's ok I'll leave most of those for real planes. But , true. oooh to help. But then again ya give me bucks I'll charter or over see it NP. Still , hey ya gotta get known.

Got me, I can't wait to get down to it. Still can't find any weed trimmers. Like a conspiracy if ya ask me.

Yeah, looks bad , but I'm not too sure about that. Hell ya could pull out the toy when you want to find out what is going on around where you are. Just for play , ya could scout out the island your next to , but that net catch will cost some bucks or fish it out for recovery.

Thanks, that's not very far. Is that all? Hmmm 4 miles.
Love the beach and never really thought it could be that short. Yeah, yeah mirages.

Farthest I've been away from the coast is ahhh maybe a mile. I like playing shark bait. I go so far out that it takes a number of swells to get a glimpse of yellow sand for a direction of which way to head back home to land. Its lots of fun to swim on your back at 30' down against the sand and watch the sunlight dance off the surface.
Never touched a surf board in the surf. Never drove a boat or been on one in salt water, but have rowed many. Somehow I've flown a dozen different kinds of planes.
Oh, yeah, stupid question time. How is the rubber run in RC? Like a ahhh an aircoupe? Naw, how is this done? Is that the other half of the throttle ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

People fly float planes and sea planes.
It would reduce payload, but it could be done.
Saltwater is hard on everything, of course: motor, electronics, covering materials, glues. Your scout plane might have a short life landing in the water. :o(

The standard setup that I'm familiar with is:
1. Right stick:
    A. Left/right is left/right aileron.
    B. Forward/back is down and up elevator.
So the right stick functions just like the stick in a Cub.
2. Left stick:
    A. Left/right is left/right rudder.
    B. Forward/back is up and down throttle.
With a computer radio, you can mix aileron to rudder or rudder to aileron to make the plane fly like the Ercoupe. But it's just as easy to do a coordinated turn by moving both sticks in the same direction as needed.
                Marty
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I don't know if you have found a radio for your application yet, if not I would check out www.freewave.com, they have a number of radios that are used in UAV applications, in some cases over 180+km. They have the baud rate you are looking for.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<Giatto Cardiacci> wrote in message

etc.)
?
Try asking the people who flew a model plane over the Atlantic!.... They had telemetry on it of some sort.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/mag/1103/president.htm
http://tam.plannet21.com /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SatCom! Just like the big boys do it!
<Giatto Cardiacci> wrote in message

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Giatto Cardiacci wrote:

If your budget is not so limited,or just to learn some more about what you are trying to do, go to http:\\ipmobilenetinc.com and then look into their VHF systems. They can't do your 115200, but you should see what all they can do with 19.2.
The biggest reason you can't get the speed out of the lower bands is that the FCC and other governing bodies will not let you use the bandwidth necessary.
To get any real speed out of a radio signal you have to move up into the microwave range and then use some very nasty tracking algorithms to keep your antennas aligned. In other words not happening.
IPMobileNET's diversity system is something you should look into implementing, since it allows them to run the radios at lower power and reception levels and to take advantage of signal bounce more effectively. That mostly helps inside large cityscapes.
For open ocean and at the distances you are referring to, you are probably going to have to drop back into the HF frequencies, or at least VHF, but at high wattages and some expensive antennas. I hope you have a large ship and UAV to work with.
The military uses satellites for its missile systems and or runs them antonymous.
You are asking for a lot out of an all digital system is what I'm trying to say.
I have to agree with the person who mentioned passing analog data instead of digital. Lower your baud rate and send smaller packets. Send your video back as an analog using a separate camera system from your vision system as it will give more detail than your vision cameras will anyway. Any other data I can think of you collecting will not take up any where near the packet space except the sonar data and only if you are trying to put together the composite picture on board the UAV itself. That could turn into a real processor hog and would be done better by ship board sonar mapping.
Just how much data are you trying to collect any way. Give us an idea and we could probably help you better. The company I work for built the Navy an ROV aircraft way back in the late 70's early 80's. I would like to see more about this idea. I think it could be useful if it hasn't already been done.
Eljin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<Giatto Cardiacci> wrote:
| Do you know any long range wireless communication gadget (radio modem etc.) | that can be used for 115200 bits/sec continuous data transfer over 100 km ?
Yes, radio modems do exist that can do 115 kbit/s. And radios do exist that can work across 60 miles, though that's generally more than line of sight unless you have a tall tower for an antenna, though if your plane has considerable altitude that'll help.
However, to get that sort of range, especially with it being that close to the maximum line of sight, you'll need either a reasonable amount of power, and/or good directional antennas. Both will be difficult to set up on a standard sized model plane.
Also, you'll either need some dedicated bandwidth, or a ham license. The former will be difficult for an individual to get. The latter is pretty easy to get, but it limits what you can do with the link.
You could use the 900, 2400 or 5800 mHz bands, which are available for use without a license, and cheap equipment exists that will give you much better than 115 kbit/s connections over that, but the power limits are so low that you won't even get a single mile of range without great effort.
Another option is a satellite link, which is what the TAM team did when they crossed the Atlantic -- though their plane was autonomous except for takeoff and landing, and I'm sure the data rate was MUCH less than 115 kbit/s. You could also use standard cell phones with data services if you're flying over areas with cell phone service. Might not work if your purpose really is emergency use, however -- emergencies tend to take out cell phone service.
| (Imagine you are on a boat/ship and you have a UAV. You want to fly | your UAV to 100km away and you want continuous comm with the | UAV. Because one end of the communication is an small airplane the | smaller size and lighter weight for the gadget are peferred.)
Lots of people have experimented with this sort of thing with various budgets and various degrees of success. Google will probably find you lots of stuff.
--
Doug McLaren, snipped-for-privacy@frenzy.com
"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:01:59 +1000, <Giatto Cardiacci> wrote:

You might want to have a look at this website detailing the engineering that went into the building and flying of a high altitude autonomous glider.
http://members.shaw.ca/sonde/index.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.