Sadly, not so much...
A little bench testing with four routers yields the following (I believe these numbers are full-duplex, so x2 accordingly for what you would expect the numbers to be...)
- setup 1: Single-hop cabled , 24.3 Mbps

- setup 2: Multi-hop cabled, 24.2 Mbps

- setup 3: Single-hop wireless, (ch11) 11.4 Mbps

- setup 4: Multi-hop Radio-cable-radio (close quarters, directed, ch 1., 11) 5.82 Mbps

- setup 4b: Multi-hop Radio-cable-radio (close quarters, ch 1., 11) 5.81 Mbps

- setup 5: Multi-hop Radio-cable. (ch 11) 11.5 Mbps

- setup 6: multi-hop Radio-cable-radio (30', ch 1, 11) 10.8 Mbps
(same physical setup as above, but with different channel selections)- setup 6b: multi-hop Radio-cable-radio (30', ch 1, 6) 15.4 Mbps
- setup 6c: multi-hop Radio-cable-radio (30', ch 1, 5) 12.2 Mbps
- setup 6d: multi-hop Radio-cable-radio (30', ch 13, 9) 11.2 Mbps
- setup 6e: multi-hop Radio-cable-radio (30', ch 1, 4) 6.54 Mbps
- setup 6f: multi-hop Radio-cable-radio (30', ch 1, 3) 5.39 Mbps
- setup 6g: multi-hop Radio-cable-radio (30', ch 1, 2) 6.98 Mbps
Background, for reference:
From the above, it is clear that a multi-radio 2.4GHz device is unlikely to have the desired effect of radio-radio hopping without bandwidth degradation unless the physical radios are fairly far apart. It is, however feasible to achieve bandwidth preserving multi-hop routing over the radio with two wireless devices separated over a wired LAN, suggesting that there might be a benefit to modifying the OLSR protocol and channel selection algorithms to take advantage of this situation when it arises in the wild.As an aside, the above also suggests that in a crowded RF environment, spreading devices across all 13 wifi channels, using ch 1, 5, 9, and 13 is nearly as bandwidth-preserving than the traditional 1, 6, 11 configuration. Channels closer than four apart interfere with each other almost completely, even at a modest distance from each other.
