RFOXiA LogoRFOXiA Club
← Back to DevHub

MultiNav Pro+ BLE - does range drop significantly when data rate is lowered?

Sarah MooreJune 23, 2026
Been working on a wildlife tracking project where I've got a few remote sensor nodes deployed pretty far out, and I'm trying to figure out the best tradeoff between range and data rate on the BLE module. The spec says 50km range and 2Mbps, but those two numbers feel like they're probably not achieved at the same time, right? Like I'd assume the 50km figure is at a lower coded PHY setting (LE Coded / 125kbps or 500kbps) and the 2Mbps is more of a close-range thing. Just want to confirm before I commit to a protocol design.
💬 1 replies👍 0 likes👁 0 views

💬 Want to join this discussion?

Join the Community on RFOXiA Club →

Replies

AdamJune 23, 2026
@Sarah Moore yeah, you're thinking about this the right way — those two specs aren't typically achieved simultaneously on any BLE implementation, and the MultiNav Pro+ is no different. The 50km figure is the drone-to-drone line-of-sight number where both modules are airborne and ground reflections are eliminated, and that kind of extreme range is going to be at the most conservative PHY setting with the receiver sensitivity doing the heavy lifting. The 2Mbps is your peak throughput in favorable conditions, not your long-haul spec.
 
For a wildlife tracking deployment where your nodes are ground-based and spread out, you're probably looking at something closer to the 5km ground-to-ground range as a realistic ceiling, and if you're pushing toward the edge of that you'll want to lean on LE Coded PHY to maximize link budget — you'll give up throughput but for sensor telemetry that's almost never the bottleneck anyway. GNSS position plus a handful of environmental readings is tiny data, so 125kbps getting to you reliably beats 2Mbps dropping packets at distance every time.
 
My honest suggestion: design your protocol around LE Coded first, prove out your link at your furthest nodes, then dial up the PHY if you find you have headroom to spare. Much easier to relax constraints later than to redesign after you've already got nodes in the field.

💬 Want to join this discussion?

Join the Community on RFOXiA Club →