[RCSE] 2.4, Attention Everyone, Including Gordy and Martin Usher
Martin, Take a look at the following link and the 3-4 subsequent pages. Are the fellows in the orange clothing the same ones that you saw at the SC-2 contest? They seem to be a real pair to draw to! http://www.sc-2.org/web/news/SC2-Web/SC2Frames.htm --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I remember seeing the guys with the orange shirts at our (SC)2 contest (the ones covered with Futaba and FASST and the like). Worth a picture...they were quite obviously flying on 72MHz. Martin Usher PS. I fly with a Futaba radio. Works fine for me [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill and Darwin, You know I love both you guys even though you wear those Orange shirts, and I have to concede that it is possible to do more with 14 than 12. I want to point out that the discussion was 2.4 and sailplanes, and I still feel IMHO that JR offers more flexibility and better RX's for our competition sailplanes and large scale models with multiple servos and high power requirements. I also don't often venture in to the large aerobatic arena so it would be unfair for me to comment on that phase of the hobby. I do know something about Helicopters, and have always found that JR has had the best flexibility and options for programming. Even with all the limitations of the 12X over the 14, that guy Quique somehow manages to get the 12X to do enough that he is not embarrassed to show up at a contest. Enough said I hope the Futaba is always good to you. Larry
[RCSE] 2.4, Gay Cabelleros, AC/DC, Gordy's Friends?
Martin, Whass happening to our business? I too, have seen some fellows in orange suits. Check out the fotos of these guys holding hands. Are they the same ones you seen? Ain't they cute! http://www.sc-2.org/web/news/SC2-June06/Page16.htm Re: [RCSE] 2.4 I remember seeing the guys with the orange shirts at our (SC)2 contest (the ones covered with Futaba and FASST and the like). Worth a picture...they were quite obviously flying on 72MHz. Martin Usher PS. I fly with a Futaba radio. Works fine for me
Re: [RCSE] 2.4, Gay Cabelleros, AC/DC, Gordy's Friends?
One has to be careful jumping to conclusions, as things are not always as they seem. If that photo was taken for instance in Phoenix, you could assume that it was a couple of Nancy's out for a lark. But those guys are from SoCal, and they are actually the local Shaman from SWSA, who have joined forces to ward off the bad Juju so that their FASST Systems will work. Sorry Darwin.. Better have a talk with your team mates :-) LJ Martin, Whass happening to our business? I too, have seen some fellows in orange suits. Check out the fotos of these guys holding hands. Are they the same ones you seen? Ain't they cute! _http://www.sc-2.org/web/news/SC2-June06/Page16.htm_ (http://www.sc-2.org/web/news/SC2-June06/Page16.htm) Re: [RCSE] 2.4 I remember seeing the guys with the orange shirts at our (SC)2 contest (the ones covered with Futaba and FASST and the like). Worth a picture...they were quite obviously flying on 72MHz. Martin Usher PS. I fly with a Futaba radio. Works fine for me **Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch Cooking with Tyler Florence on AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?NCID=aolfod000302)
[RCSE] 2.4
I thought 2.4 was all the rage. People abandoning 72 and ham band en masse to use 2.4 and selling everything off. So, why are we not seeing it as much in the sailplane world? At the SW Classic there were not nearly as many as I expected. I did not get the count but it was far less than we thought we'd get. Now, I was reviewing the pilot list for the IHLGF and see that there are only 4 pilots using 2.4, myself included (53 total entries). I am using the Futaba Fasst System. I have the 9C Super transmitter with the 2.4 Fasst Module and the 607 Fasst receivers in my Blaster, Blaster 2 and Vandal. These small receivers fit nicely and the two whisker antennas are easily exited from the fuselage. So far they are working great with no range issues. Admittedly, I have not used the system in a crowded environment, but I have no doubt it will work fine. Darwin N. Barrie Chandler AZ RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] 2.4
Darwin, I'm flying the Lightspeed and the Vandal on the FASST system. I have my Taboo on a 72 mhz channel, hence my name on the roster that way. My 2.4 receivers have been flawless to date. The Futaba is an easier install than the competitors; you don't have a satellite receiver with all it's associated wiring. All you need to do is find a good resting spot for the ends of the antennae. On both pods there are bands of carbon and Kevlar. I glue a little soda straw on the Kevlar portion and that in turn receives the antennae end. I also try to orient the other antennae at 90º of the first, in a balsa fairing on the Lightspeed and on the little deck under the canopy on the Vandal. Why aren't there more? Because we're a cheap group! We have receivers that work, so why jump across? I see it as a gradual change. 10 years from now they will be universally used. JE -- Erickson Architects John R. Erickson, AIA From: Darwin Barrie [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 07:14:07 -0700 To: Soaring@airage.com Subject: [RCSE] 2.4 I thought 2.4 was all the rage. People abandoning 72 and ham band en masse to use 2.4 and selling everything off. So, why are we not seeing it as much in the sailplane world? At the SW Classic there were not nearly as many as I expected. I did not get the count but it was far less than we thought we'd get. Now, I was reviewing the pilot list for the IHLGF and see that there are only 4 pilots using 2.4, myself included (53 total entries). I am using the Futaba Fasst System. I have the 9C Super transmitter with the 2.4 Fasst Module and the 607 Fasst receivers in my Blaster, Blaster 2 and Vandal. These small receivers fit nicely and the two whisker antennas are easily exited from the fuselage. So far they are working great with no range issues. Admittedly, I have not used the system in a crowded environment, but I have no doubt it will work fine. Darwin N. Barrie Chandler AZ RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] 2.4
Darwin, I think your answer lies in the unique qualities and general low numbers of the soaring communities. INMHO I think the lack of Soaring adoption into 2.4 occurs for a few reasons that follow but are not limited to: The standard TX for many soaring enthusiasts is the Sanwa / Airtronics Stylus and many are waiting for a 2.4 GHZ module due out before next season. The JR and Futaba systems offer most of the Stylus functionality and in some cases a few features I would like to see on a stylus but many pilots are loath to give up their Stylus yet. If Sanwa fails ot get thier module out I May have to fly JR myself. People don't want to poke holes in their nose cone or fuse to allow the two whiskers to exit. 2.4 friendly noses are becomeing main stream and this may also push adoption up. The FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt) factor is still high. I just attended an f3J contest and someone on my flight line had to get a backup model because thier primary failed to bind up. Many see 2.4 technology as still teething and would like to see it get to a more critical mass before putting it into something as unforgiving as an unpowered aircraft. Fail safe in a glider is a crap shoot at best so trying out a new technology that could leave you free flying is just plain scary. The real pressure to move to 2.4 is to attain a frequency-less situation that avoids conflicts. Glider pilots are the geeks of the R/C crowd and at the fields I fly, on a sunny Saturday or Sunday morning I have a hard time finding another pilot to talk to let alone conflict with. I have to make a call and organize to get someone to show up there when I am flying! Contest pilots are the ones who are moving fairly fast towards 2.4 which is a very small number of a select small crowd. I will be there next season myself. My secondary field is very close to a private power field so the prospect of removing conflicts is my main advantage. My main concern is that 2.4 is unregulated. I wonder how long will it be before we are competing for space along with channel hopping WIFI cards, SUPER long range household phones and other devises. Unregulated spectrum rarely creates good communication between industries. I am sure that given any pressure that manufactureres will inovate and overcome so I will see you in 09 with a 2.4 glider :) Just my two cents. On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Darwin Barrie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought 2.4 was all the rage. People abandoning 72 and ham band en masse to use 2.4 and selling everything off. So, why are we not seeing it as much in the sailplane world? At the SW Classic there were not nearly as many as I expected. I did not get the count but it was far less than we thought we'd get. Now, I was reviewing the pilot list for the IHLGF and see that there are only 4 pilots using 2.4, myself included (53 total entries). I am using the Futaba Fasst System. I have the 9C Super transmitter with the 2.4 Fasst Module and the 607 Fasst receivers in my Blaster, Blaster 2 and Vandal. These small receivers fit nicely and the two whisker antennas are easily exited from the fuselage. So far they are working great with no range issues. Admittedly, I have not used the system in a crowded environment, but I have no doubt it will work fine. Darwin N. Barrie Chandler AZ RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
RE: [RCSE] 2.4
Darwin, While I am listed on Ch 17, I had Ron switch me to 2.4. I will be flying it in my old Encore variant, and my New Spider DLG. My Original Fuselages are all Kevlar. Chris Adams Original Message Subject: Re: [RCSE] 2.4 From: John Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, May 29, 2008 8:33 am To: Darwin Barrie [EMAIL PROTECTED], Soaring List Soaring@airage.com Darwin, I'm flying the Lightspeed and the Vandal on the FASST system. I have my Taboo on a 72 mhz channel, hence my name on the roster that way. My 2.4 receivers have been flawless to date. The Futaba is an easier install than the competitors; you don't have a satellite receiver with all it's associated wiring. All you need to do is find a good resting spot for the ends of the antennae. On both pods there are bands of carbon and Kevlar. I glue a little soda straw on the Kevlar portion and that in turn receives the antennae end. I also try to orient the other antennae at 90º of the first, in a balsa fairing on the Lightspeed and on the little deck under the canopy on the Vandal. Why aren't there more? Because we're a cheap group! We have receivers that work, so why jump across? I see it as a gradual change. 10 years from now they will be universally used. JE -- Erickson Architects John R. Erickson, AIA From: Darwin Barrie [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 07:14:07 -0700 To: Soaring@airage.com Subject: [RCSE] 2.4 I thought 2.4 was all the rage. People abandoning 72 and ham band en masse to use 2.4 and selling everything off. So, why are we not seeing it as much in the sailplane world? At the SW Classic there were not nearly as many as I expected. I did not get the count but it was far less than we thought we'd get. Now, I was reviewing the pilot list for the IHLGF and see that there are only 4 pilots using 2.4, myself included (53 total entries). I am using the Futaba Fasst System. I have the 9C Super transmitter with the 2.4 Fasst Module and the 607 Fasst receivers in my Blaster, Blaster 2 and Vandal. These small receivers fit nicely and the two whisker antennas are easily exited from the fuselage. So far they are working great with no range issues. Admittedly, I have not used the system in a crowded environment, but I have no doubt it will work fine. Darwin N. Barrie Chandler AZ RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] 2.4
Darwin, Do you have problem with the heat in AZ? The Futaba rxs have problem with temp above 150°F. The rx shuts down. There had been crashes in major events link to rx temperature problems. http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=861949 There are talks on the 14mz.com Futaba support forum too. Brian At 7:14 AM -0700 5/29/08, Darwin Barrie wrote: I am using the Futaba Fasst System. I have the 9C Super transmitter with the 2.4 Fasst Module and the 607 Fasst receivers in my Blaster, Blaster 2 and Vandal. These small receivers fit nicely and the two whisker antennas are easily exited from the fuselage. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 - complete conversion
In a message dated 5/29/2008 7:14:31 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Admittedly, I have not used the system in a crowded environment, but I have no doubt it will work fine. Darwin, I have converted all my current models to 2.4. Most to the JR/Spektrum system, but some to the Xtreme Power Systems for the Stylus and Vision. The Spektrum system has worked flawlessly in the Blaster II and XP 5.0. At the recent Mid-south contest in Atlanta, both worked perfectly in the crowd. The Supras are also on the Spektrum system and had no problems except when I put the antenna behind my head and it went into fail safe mode for a few seconds. I now have 13 models flying the Spektrum system and one electric sport model flying the Xtreme system. All work perfectly. Granted there are some challenges avoiding the carbon fiber in many models, but the results are worth the effort. In the year I have been using the systems, I have never heard anyone yelling 2.4 in a crowded flying site. At the recent SEFF meet, a world record 100 models were airborne simultaneously with 52 or so on 2.4. Now that's a crowd! Don Richmond San Diego, CA (Pensacola, FL for a few weeks) [EMAIL PROTECTED] _www.hilaunch.com_ (http://www.hilaunch.com/) **Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch Cooking with Tyler Florence on AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?NCID=aolfod000302)
Re: [RCSE] 2.4
Comments inserted. On May 29, 2008, at 8:55 AM, David Webb wrote: Darwin, I think your answer lies in the unique qualities and general low numbers of the soaring communities. The standard TX for many soaring enthusiasts is the Sanwa / Airtronics Stylus and many are waiting for a 2.4 GHZ module due out before next season. The JR and Futaba systems offer most of the Stylus functionality and in some cases a few features I would like to see on a stylus but many pilots are loath to give up their Stylus yet. The Stylus is still an excellent transmitter but is no longer made. To me the ultimate system for any discipline of RC is the Futaba 14MZ. It has far more capability than the Stylus and will drive the other brands of receivers, negative or positive shift and is very easy to program. Yeah it is expensive but you only need to buy once and fly everything you own. There is no comparison. It is capable of both 72, (all synthesized) and 2.4 with the FASST module. People don't want to poke holes in their nose cone or fuse to allow the two whiskers to exit. 2.4 friendly noses are becomeing main stream and this may also push adoption up. Never seen this be an issue with anyone. The Futaba antennas can be exited with a 1/32 hole for each. No extra antenna modules etc No big obtrusive holes The FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt) factor is still high. I just attended an f3J contest and someone on my flight line had to get a backup model because thier primary failed to bind up. Many see 2.4 technology as still teething and would like to see it get to a more critical mass before putting it into something as unforgiving as an unpowered aircraft. Fail safe in a glider is a crap shoot at best so trying out a new technology that could leave you free flying is just plain scary. The initial intoxication with the 2.4 has died down. I agree that many have not wrapped their arms around this yet while others have sold all 72 gear. I'm just curious why more aren't using it in competition. The real pressure to move to 2.4 is to attain a frequency-less situation that avoids conflicts. Glider pilots are the geeks of the R/C crowd and at the fields I fly, on a sunny Saturday or Sunday morning I have a hard time finding another pilot to talk to let alone conflict with. I have to make a call and organize to get someone to show up there when I am flying! The moron factor is definitely reduced with 2.4. Contest pilots are the ones who are moving fairly fast towards 2.4 which is a very small number of a select small crowd. I will be there next season myself. My secondary field is very close to a private power field so the prospect of removing conflicts is my main advantage. I think many are overlooking great equipment when it comes to the Futaba stuff. The 14MZ is the ultimate. Nothing comes close. The new 12 is excellent and the new 10 Channel is a great do everything system that is easy to program with every function we need. I use my trusty 9C Super for HL and all of my electric stuff and the 14MZ my competition sailplanes and Giant Scale Aerobatic planes. The receivers are tiny and fit in all current HL's and there are many excellent digital and non digital servos available with some new ones coming out. I'm a little biased being on Team Futaba. Despite the brand loyalty, I've looked at all of them and find the Futaba 2.4 receivers the most practical for the soaring application. Darwin N. Barrie Chandler AZ On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Darwin Barrie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought 2.4 was all the rage. People abandoning 72 and ham band en masse to use 2.4 and selling everything off. So, why are we not seeing it as much in the sailplane world? At the SW Classic there were not nearly as many as I expected. I did not get the count but it was far less than we thought we'd get. Now, I was reviewing the pilot list for the IHLGF and see that there are only 4 pilots using 2.4, myself included (53 total entries). I am using the Futaba Fasst System. I have the 9C Super transmitter with the 2.4 Fasst Module and the 607 Fasst receivers in my Blaster, Blaster 2 and Vandal. These small receivers fit nicely and the two whisker antennas are easily exited from the fuselage. So far they are working great with no range issues. Admittedly, I have not used the system in a crowded environment, but I have no doubt it will work fine. Darwin N. Barrie Chandler AZ RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to soaring- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] 2.4
If Futaba's system is THE 2.4 system to have why isn't there support for the other brands? I think JR / Spektrum / Horizon have done a good job in nudging people to their equipment by offering other brand support. I can point you towards many happy former futaba fliers that converted to the 2.4 version of the 9303. Rob On 5/29/08, Darwin Barrie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comments inserted. On May 29, 2008, at 8:55 AM, David Webb wrote: Darwin, I think your answer lies in the unique qualities and general low numbers of the soaring communities. The standard TX for many soaring enthusiasts is the Sanwa / Airtronics Stylus and many are waiting for a 2.4 GHZ module due out before next season. The JR and Futaba systems offer most of the Stylus functionality and in some cases a few features I would like to see on a stylus but many pilots are loath to give up their Stylus yet. The Stylus is still an excellent transmitter but is no longer made. To me the ultimate system for any discipline of RC is the Futaba 14MZ. It has far more capability than the Stylus and will drive the other brands of receivers, negative or positive shift and is very easy to program. Yeah it is expensive but you only need to buy once and fly everything you own. There is no comparison. It is capable of both 72, (all synthesized) and 2.4 with the FASST module. People don't want to poke holes in their nose cone or fuse to allow the two whiskers to exit. 2.4 friendly noses are becomeing main stream and this may also push adoption up. Never seen this be an issue with anyone. The Futaba antennas can be exited with a 1/32 hole for each. No extra antenna modules etc No big obtrusive holes The FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt) factor is still high. I just attended an f3J contest and someone on my flight line had to get a backup model because thier primary failed to bind up. Many see 2.4 technology as still teething and would like to see it get to a more critical mass before putting it into something as unforgiving as an unpowered aircraft. Fail safe in a glider is a crap shoot at best so trying out a new technology that could leave you free flying is just plain scary. The initial intoxication with the 2.4 has died down. I agree that many have not wrapped their arms around this yet while others have sold all 72 gear. I'm just curious why more aren't using it in competition. The real pressure to move to 2.4 is to attain a frequency-less situation that avoids conflicts. Glider pilots are the geeks of the R/C crowd and at the fields I fly, on a sunny Saturday or Sunday morning I have a hard time finding another pilot to talk to let alone conflict with. I have to make a call and organize to get someone to show up there when I am flying! The moron factor is definitely reduced with 2.4. Contest pilots are the ones who are moving fairly fast towards 2.4 which is a very small number of a select small crowd. I will be there next season myself. My secondary field is very close to a private power field so the prospect of removing conflicts is my main advantage. I think many are overlooking great equipment when it comes to the Futaba stuff. The 14MZ is the ultimate. Nothing comes close. The new 12 is excellent and the new 10 Channel is a great do everything system that is easy to program with every function we need. I use my trusty 9C Super for HL and all of my electric stuff and the 14MZ my competition sailplanes and Giant Scale Aerobatic planes. The receivers are tiny and fit in all current HL's and there are many excellent digital and non digital servos available with some new ones coming out. I'm a little biased being on Team Futaba. Despite the brand loyalty, I've looked at all of them and find the Futaba 2.4 receivers the most practical for the soaring application. Darwin N. Barrie Chandler AZ On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Darwin Barrie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought 2.4 was all the rage. People abandoning 72 and ham band en masse to use 2.4 and selling everything off. So, why are we not seeing it as much in the sailplane world? At the SW Classic there were not nearly as many as I expected. I did not get the count but it was far less than we thought we'd get. Now, I was reviewing the pilot list for the IHLGF and see that there are only 4 pilots using 2.4, myself included (53 total entries). I am using the Futaba Fasst System. I have the 9C Super transmitter with the 2.4 Fasst Module and the 607 Fasst receivers in my Blaster, Blaster 2 and Vandal. These small receivers fit nicely and the two whisker antennas are easily exited from the fuselage. So far they are working great with no range issues. Admittedly, I have not used the system in a crowded environment, but I have no doubt it will work fine. Darwin N. Barrie Chandler AZ RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests
Re: [RCSE] 2.4
I'm a little biased being on Team Futaba. Despite the brand loyalty, I've looked at all of them and find the Futaba 2.4 receivers the most practical for the soaring application. Darwin, I can't fault you for being a little biased being a team flyer and all. But in all fairness it is obvious that the new JR 12X is the ultimate radio for all our applications. Granted I plan to keep my 9303's for my HLG's and Helicopters. But when it comes to the expensive big stuff there is just one choice, the 12X. By the way you might want to go over to the Horizon website and check out all the new Rx's made especially for the power usage's required in the IMAC models and large scale ships where a RX with real beef in the power department will keep you from getting those embarrassing expensive brownouts when you can least tolerate them. And for all of you guys running non DSM 2.4 systems and think you have the optimal RX installation, you are dreaming. Additional Auxiliary RX's are not a sign of a deficient system but a feature of a well thought out system that allows for fine tuning the RF paths in the model. I do fly quite a few 6 channel DSM RX's and have to fine tune the RX install because they small Rx's don't have data logger capability. I always check a new install with the 7 and 9 channel RX's with the data logger. It is quick and easy, and offers a serious peace of mind when you have you 2K moldy a mile and a half down wind. I believe that you will see 2.4 become the norm much quicker than predicted here, won't it be nice to run the SWC with NO TX impound?? Think about the cattle chute at Visalia disappearing? Oh Yea 2.4 is the ticket and the train has left the station. Larry Jolly Feeling the Difference **Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch Cooking with Tyler Florence on AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?NCID=aolfod000302)
Re: [RCSE] 2.4
Larry you make a lot of reasonable points as always. I am going to give Sanwa the time they requested to produce the first stage of the Stylus replacement (the 2.4 module) and having failed that will be looking at JR. I have no issues with Futaba but I have to state that data logging really appeals to me and I have yet to find an unhappy JR 2.4 customer. On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:20 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a little biased being on Team Futaba. Despite the brand loyalty, I've looked at all of them and find the Futaba 2.4 receivers the most practical for the soaring application. Darwin, I can't fault you for being a little biased being a team flyer and all. But in all fairness it is obvious that the new JR 12X is the ultimate radio for all our applications. Granted I plan to keep my 9303's for my HLG's and Helicopters. But when it comes to the expensive big stuff there is just one choice, the 12X. By the way you might want to go over to the Horizon website and check out all the new Rx's made especially for the power usage's required in the IMAC models and large scale ships where a RX with real beef in the power department will keep you from getting those embarrassing expensive brownouts when you can least tolerate them. And for all of you guys running non DSM 2.4 systems and think you have the optimal RX installation, you are dreaming. Additional Auxiliary RX's are not a sign of a deficient system but a feature of a well thought out system that allows for fine tuning the RF paths in the model. I do fly quite a few 6 channel DSM RX's and have to fine tune the RX install because they small Rx's don't have data logger capability. I always check a new install with the 7 and 9 channel RX's with the data logger. It is quick and easy, and offers a serious peace of mind when you have you 2K moldy a mile and a half down wind. I believe that you will see 2.4 become the norm much quicker than predicted here, won't it be nice to run the SWC with NO TX impound?? Think about the cattle chute at Visalia disappearing? Oh Yea 2.4 is the ticket and the train has left the station. Larry Jolly Feeling the Difference -- Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch Cooking with Tyler Florence on AOL Foodhttp://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?NCID=aolfod000302 .
Re: [RCSE] 2.4
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But when it comes to the expensive big stuff there is just one choice, the 12X. Larry, all due respect one Fan-Boy to another, when JR comes out with a radio that allows full flexibility in the assignment of functions, switches, mixes and conditions, then I might agree with you. For instance, on helis and power planes I assign the throttle trim to the upper left slider. It has proven for me to be the perfect location. It may not for you, and the beauty of the 14MZ, 12Z, 12FG is that if it isn't, you can do what works best for you. I cannot do that with JR. The same goes for autorotation switches, idle ups, mixing, dual rates, flight modes, etc. On large planes it is very easy to use all 14 channels. 12 is great, 14 is better. Even given two of those are simple digital on/of channels they work great for retracts, tow release, smoke, engine kill, etc. When it comes to mixing and conditions I think the 14MZ is the clear winner there as well. The flexibility and power offered by the Futaba radio is unparalleled. Any given pilot may or may not need to use all the power, but it is there for those that want it or need it. As far as flight modes go the 12X offers 5 per model the Futaba radios have 8. Plus they can be activated by a wider variety of methods, including logical switches, if that is your desire. When it comes to mixing the 12X has 3 programmed and 5 multi-point. The Futaba has 10 total all of which can be any type desired. Greater choice and flexibility for the pilot. Not to mention the ability for the Futaba radios to do firmware updates via the Internet. So while the 12X is perhaps the most capable JR radio to date, and is indeed a very powerful radio in its own right, it is hard to see how it can be claimed to be the best choice out there. The Futaba has greater functionality and superior flexibility. But keep in mind I get free team shirts so I might be full of crap here. Bill RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] 2.4
Bill and Darwin, You know I love both you guys even though you wear those Orange shirts, and I have to concede that it is possible to do more with 14 than 12. I want to point out that the discussion was 2.4 and sailplanes, and I still feel IMHO that JR offers more flexibility and better RX's for our competition sailplanes and large scale models with multiple servos and high power requirements. I also don't often venture in to the large aerobatic arena so it would be unfair for me to comment on that phase of the hobby. I do know something about Helicopters, and have always found that JR has had the best flexibility and options for programming. Even with all the limitations of the 12X over the 14, that guy Quique somehow manages to get the 12X to do enough that he is not embarrassed to show up at a contest. Enough said I hope the Futaba is always good to you. Larry **Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch Cooking with Tyler Florence on AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?NCID=aolfod000302)
Re: [RCSE] 2.4
I remember seeing the guys with the orange shirts at our (SC)2 contest (the ones covered with Futaba and FASST and the like). Worth a picture...they were quite obviously flying on 72MHz. Martin Usher PS. I fly with a Futaba radio. Works fine for me [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill and Darwin, You know I love both you guys even though you wear those Orange shirts, and I have to concede that it is possible to do more with 14 than 12. I want to point out that the discussion was 2.4 and sailplanes, and I still feel IMHO that JR offers more flexibility and better RX's for our competition sailplanes and large scale models with multiple servos and high power requirements. I also don't often venture in to the large aerobatic arena so it would be unfair for me to comment on that phase of the hobby. I do know something about Helicopters, and have always found that JR has had the best flexibility and options for programming. Even with all the limitations of the 12X over the 14, that guy Quique somehow manages to get the 12X to do enough that he is not embarrassed to show up at a contest. Enough said I hope the Futaba is always good to you. Larry Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch Cooking with Tyler Florence on AOL Food http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?NCID=aolfod000302. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 reasons ;-)
Good question. Lots of answers. I'm flying the same sailplane I've been flying for the last 10 years. (Usually followed by good, go to 2.4. Less chance of a conflict for me). I have 25 sailplanes. How many RX do I need to replace? I'm waiting for them to work out all the problems. (Windows 95 user) I like that big antenna sticking up there. (don't go there) Those transmitters have digital trims (user of the cheapest servos out there that never center anyway) There is nothing better than my Ace I love my stylus (he probably needs the extra excersize from the heavy TX anyway) I just bought a 9303. (and I need to scrape together all the $ I can for a new sailplane cause this one isn't going to last that long) I like fishing my antenna down the carbon fuse and adding a tail out the end. Guy with red shirt , oh, he was flying 2.4 all of last year at every event. They don't count. Guy with orange on his shirt, that is mostly grey. Oh, that's the red shirt guy... Didn't the red shirt guy ask this question last year. Check the archives... ;-) He can't be all that bad, after all he flies sailplanes. Practice is more important than playing with some new electronics toys. See you in the landing circle. I can't stand hearing gordy calling it gigglehurts. (Hey, where is his reply) Darwin Barrie wrote: I thought 2.4 was all the rage. People abandoning 72 and ham band en masse to use 2.4 and selling everything off. So, why are we not seeing it as much in the sailplane world? RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
[RCSE] 2.4 and everything else
Futaba ROCKS! Lets see... I have spent how many hours trying to figure out how to program my Futaba H.. None!!! Its that intuitive... I'd rather spend my time with my 24 year old girlfriend who is half my age :-) I have my priorities and you JR and Airtronics guys apparently have yours :-) LoL Craig
[RCSE] 2.4 GHz in an Electric Graphite with a carbon/kevlar Fuselage
I posted a message several weeks ago about a 2.4 GHz installation in a carbon Pike Perfect. I am continuing my conversions and now have a molded Graphite Electric flying with a JR 9 channel receiver/X9303 combination. The fuselage on the electric is like the pure sailplane version and is made of a carbon/kevlar weave. The main receiver is mounted behind the wing. I added 31 mm (shrink wrapped) to the antenna that is parallel to the long dimension on the receiver and ran it out the bottom of the fuselage (there is a photo in this thread http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=837867). The other antenna exits through the top. I started with 1 remote receiver just inboard of one of the flap servos with the antennas at about 45 degrees to the wing leading edge. With this setup I got 8 frame loses on a 5 minute flight and 90 on a 10 minute flight that was much higher and farther away. There were no holds on either. I was not comfortable with 90 frame losses so I added another remote receiver inboard of the other flap servo. The antennas on this remote were also at 45 degrees to the leading edge of the wing and perpendicular to the antennas on the original remote. In one 13 minute flight that was about as high and far away as the prior 10 minute flight I only had one frame loss. This setup seems very solid. Bruce T. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
[RCSE] 2.4 Question
-Isn't 2.4Ghz very much line of sight? -And poor at penetrating obsticles? Thus, isn't it reasonable to say that a home or structure or earth topology will block much of a 2.4 signal? Bill Swingle Janesville, CA RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
[RCSE] 2.4 Question --- line of sight answered
Pretty much a rhetorical question considering that 2.4 for RC has been operating in all disciplines for soaring and ground applications. On a comparison to 72mhz or some of the other Freqs like 900mhz, 2.4 has a bit less ability to reach around objects. Spektrum handled that 'bit' of lesser ability buy using the multiple RX system which sets up sort of a signal net or back stop to capture wayward or deflected signal information. Different than the single RX installs we became used to but easily manageable. Kind of like when you got your first foamy and the instructions said to apply packing tape, like the rest of us because it was a different form of construction from what we had been doing, it sat on the bench for a few days till we wrapped our heads around the system... The same as 72mhz systems, 2.4 doesn't work well without some help in carbon/kevlar compartments...so with 72mhz we extended antennas so that the TX had 'line of sight' with the antenna, so that the Rx could get the information sent. And then there is the obvious point to be made about the question of a home or structure or earth topology blocking the 'line of sight' of the TX to the RX... Unless you have my Zenni Optical $19 distance optimized prescription sun glasses, likely your own eyes won't have 'line of sight' to guide your thumbs anyway. 2.4 is kind of an old topic already ;-). But a good question in any case! Gordy Next stop Auburn Alabama...to check on my competition horse..and oh yeah my daughter in Vet school down there ;-). In a message dated 3/21/2008 1:37:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -Isn't 2.4Ghz very much line of sight? -And poor at penetrating obsticles? Thus, isn't it reasonable to say that will block much of a 2.4 signal? Bill Swingle Janesville, CA RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format **Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom000301)
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 Question
Bill, Yes, line of sight but, if your behind a home or structure or earth topology you have larger problems going on even with 72mhz. sj - Original Message - From: Bill Swinglemailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Soaring@airage.commailto:Soaring@airage.com Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 9:37 AM Subject: [RCSE] 2.4 Question -Isn't 2.4Ghz very much line of sight? -And poor at penetrating obsticles? Thus, isn't it reasonable to say that a home or structure or earth topology will block much of a 2.4 signal? Bill Swingle Janesville, CA RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]. Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 Question --- line of sight answered
Good answer. I always wondered about the line of site trees question. If your plane is out of your site you have other problems to solve. On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 2:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pretty much a rhetorical question considering that 2.4 for RC has been operating in all disciplines for soaring and ground applications. On a comparison to 72mhz or some of the other Freqs like 900mhz, 2.4 has a bit less ability to reach around objects. Spektrum handled that 'bit' of lesser ability buy using the multiple RX system which sets up sort of a signal net or back stop to capture wayward or deflected signal information. Different than the single RX installs we became used to but easily manageable. Kind of like when you got your first foamy and the instructions said to apply packing tape, like the rest of us because it was a different form of construction from what we had been doing, it sat on the bench for a few days till we wrapped our heads around the system... The same as 72mhz systems, 2.4 doesn't work well without some help in carbon/kevlar compartments...so with 72mhz we extended antennas so that the TX had 'line of sight' with the antenna, so that the Rx could get the information sent. And then there is the obvious point to be made about the question of *a home or structure or earth topology *blocking the 'line of sight' of the TX to the RX... Unless you have my Zenni Optical $19 distance optimized prescription sun glasses, likely your own eyes won't have 'line of sight' to guide your thumbs anyway. 2.4 is kind of an old topic already ;-). But a good question in any case! Gordy Next stop Auburn Alabama...to check on my competition horse..and oh yeah my daughter in Vet school down there ;-). In a message dated 3/21/2008 1:37:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -Isn't 2.4Ghz very much line of sight? -And poor at penetrating obsticles? Thus, isn't it reasonable to say that will block much of a 2.4 signal? Bill Swingle Janesville, CA RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format -- Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Homehttp://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom000301 .
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 Question - personal experience.
In a message dated 3/21/08 9:37:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Isn't 2.4Ghz very much line of sight? -And poor at penetrating obsticles? Thus, isn't it reasonable to say that a home or structure or earth topology will block much of a 2.4 signal? Bill 2.4 Ghz IS line of sight, just like 72 Mhz. However the shorter wavelength of 2.4 does not penetrate as well as the longer wave lengh of 72. Also there is less chance for blocking the 72 Mhz signal because the transmitter antenna is long and some portion is always looking at the model. Having said that, the 2.4 system will work at the limits of visibility (even DP's) as long as it has a clear shot. I tested my DX7/AR7000 (one satellite) in my house on the theory that it would work wherever the 2.4 router signal worked. I was basically correct although I had only a rudimentary method of testing the router. The signal easily penetrated through three stories of house and down the street about 500 feet with only a few fades, no packet drops and no holds. However, on a range test at 100 feet with the test button depressed, signal will be lost if you turn your back (place your body between the transmitter and model). You will also probably loose signal in flight if another person stands between you and your model. You will certainly loose signal if there is any metal object between you and your model. Looking again at the 2.4 router example, the router signal will not penetrate filing cabinets or other metal objects. The Supra installation in the 2.4 friendly pod is perfect. Hundreds of flights with no problems and now with the data capable AR7000, I can collect real numbers not just my impressions. In the several flights since data collection began, the most fades on any antenna has been 250 (10 minute flight), no lost packets and no holds. I lost a Twin Star today when the system locked out and did not reboot (reacquire) before the altitude was gone. It was using a single AR6100 and had flown for several hours on previous occasions. The model was 700 feet upwind at about 200 feet when the incident occurred. Following impact, the system worked fine as it had time to reboot. The 6100 will be replaced with an AR6200 and a satellite receiver. Bottom line - 2.4 Ghz works but requires some thought about receiver installation and transmitter location during flight. It is not as forgiving as 72Mhz, but for me, provides much more security in the crowded, uncontrolled flying sites that I frequently visit. Now can I feel the difference? I have only been using the system about a year, so maybe next year I can answer the question. Don Richmond San Diego, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.hilaunch.com **Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom000301)
[RCSE] 2.4 drop out
This is in regard to Don Richmond's loss of plane due to the 2.4 receiver taking too long to reboot. Horizon will upgrade any DSM2 receiver (including the AR6100) to what they call Quick Connect. They do something to the firmware whatever that is so that if the signal is lost it does not go through a 2-5 second re-boot. It just reconnects in an instant. And they do this at no charge. Also they replaced the antennas with a wire that had more flexible insulation. And replaced the harness that connects the main receiver with the remote receiver as the grey wire had the same brittle insulation as the antennas. All for the same price. Robert Samuels ... St. Louis _ Windows Live Hotmail is giving away Zunes. http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/ZuneADay/?locale=en-USocid=TXT_TAGLM_Mobile_Zune_V3
[RCSE] 2.4 Questiion - Antenna Radiation Pattern
What kind of a pattern does the 2.4 tx antenna have? Is it sensitive to orientation like a 72 Mhz tx? In other words, do you have to point the antenna at the plane or hold it broadside to the plane? Dee Smith Round Rock, TX RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 Question - personal experience.
Don, which version of the 6100 were you using. ver 1.6 will reboot much faster you can send it in to horizon and they will reflash it for free... Jay On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/21/08 9:37:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Isn't 2.4Ghz very much line of sight? -And poor at penetrating obsticles? Thus, isn't it reasonable to say that a home or structure or earth topology will block much of a 2.4 signal? Bill 2.4 Ghz IS line of sight, just like 72 Mhz. However the shorter wavelength of 2.4 does not penetrate as well as the longer wave lengh of 72. Also there is less chance for blocking the 72 Mhz signal because the transmitter antenna is long and some portion is always looking at the model. Having said that, the 2.4 system will work at the limits of visibility (even DP's) as long as it has a clear shot. I tested my DX7/AR7000 (one satellite) in my house on the theory that it would work wherever the 2.4 router signal worked. I was basically correct although I had only a rudimentary method of testing the router. The signal easily penetrated through three stories of house and down the street about 500 feet with only a few fades, no packet drops and no holds. However, on a range test at 100 feet with the test button depressed, signal will be lost if you turn your back (place your body between the transmitter and model). You will also probably loose signal in flight if another person stands between you and your model. You will certainly loose signal if there is any metal object between you and your model. Looking again at the 2.4 router example, the router signal will not penetrate filing cabinets or other metal objects. The Supra installation in the 2.4 friendly pod is perfect. Hundreds of flights with no problems and now with the data capable AR7000, I can collect real numbers not just my impressions. In the several flights since data collection began, the most fades on any antenna has been 250 (10 minute flight), no lost packets and no holds. I lost a Twin Star today when the system locked out and did not reboot (reacquire) before the altitude was gone. It was using a single AR6100 and had flown for several hours on previous occasions. The model was 700 feet upwind at about 200 feet when the incident occurred. Following impact, the system worked fine as it had time to reboot. The 6100 will be replaced with an AR6200 and a satellite receiver. Bottom line - 2.4 Ghz works but requires some thought about receiver installation and transmitter location during flight. It is not as forgiving as 72Mhz, but for me, provides much more security in the crowded, uncontrolled flying sites that I frequently visit. Now can I feel the difference? I have only been using the system about a year, so maybe next year I can answer the question. Don Richmond San Diego, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.hilaunch.com -- Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Homehttp://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom000301 .
RE: [RCSE] 2.4 Query
Does anyone know if there is any plans for 2.4 and the MPX 4000, commonly known as the Pizza Box... seg !! -- Jack Strother Granger, IN LSF 2948 LSF Level V #117 LSF Official 1996 - 2004 CSS Gold -- Original message -- From: Daryl Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] For those of you selling off your Stylus, or Styli (pl) due to 2.4, Airtronics will have a 2.4 module and receiver very soon. I can't nail them down to a date, as they're also working hard on our new 10 channel. XPS also sells a module for the Stylus, and I have been using it in my BumbleBee Supra with very good results. Airtronics guys, sit tight the best is getting even better. Sh don't tell anyone. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
RE: [RCSE] 2.4 Query
Jack, check with Jack Iafret as I think he has been keeping up to date with Profi 4K (2.4) things. Regards, Dave Corven. -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Strother) Does anyone know if there is any plans for 2.4 and the MPX 4000, commonly known as the Pizza Box... seg !! -- Jack Strother Granger, IN LSF 2948 LSF Level V #117 LSF Official 1996 - 2004 CSS Gold -- Original message -- From: Daryl Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] For those of you selling off your Stylus, or Styli (pl) due to 2.4, Airtronics will have a 2.4 module and receiver very soon. I can't nail them down to a date, as they're also working hard on our new 10 channel. XPS also sells a module for the Stylus, and I have been using it in my BumbleBee Supra with very good results. Airtronics guys, sit tight the best is getting even better. Sh don't tell anyone. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 install how to?
For what it is worth, In the latest Model Airplane News (May), page84, the President of Sanwa states Stylus users will be rewarded for their loyalty with a 2.4GHz module receiver option Clarence Albert E. Wedworth wrote: Hi guys I find it kinda silly that all of you converts using 2.4 need instructions to install a receiver in a plane Can't have Carbon/Kevlar in your fuse, drilling holes in a fuse so the silly little antennas wiskers stick out just to find it didn't work, data loggers. ( just pure silliness ) Also while all of you folks are wasting you cash on some radio that doesn't compare to the Stylus in any way shape or form or can't do the things that sailplanes need to do. I'm buying planes and flying! Not wondering where to put the silly little whisker antennas or if the install gona work in my TOY sailplane. The Best part is I won't have to worry about all you guys on my channel (; = ! I fly on 72 meg's and I don't need instructions. Also I WON'T be using 2.4 in the future either! I like my Airtronics Stylus radio and see no need to change EVER! Loving 72 meg on ch 51 Al In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -George Orwell-
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 install how to?
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The obvious good location would be in the fin since they are usually fiberglass above the stab. There is a limit to how long the aux reciever extension There was a thread in RCGroups recently that showed how sattellite receivers were mounted at fin and at the wingtips. It would be nice to have a plane with sattellite receivers preinstalled during manufacturing. Like in some high-end planes the wing servos are installed during the molding process. regards, Arne RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 install how to?
Hi guys I find it kinda silly that all of you converts using 2.4 need instructions to install a receiver in a plane Can't have Carbon/Kevlar in your fuse, drilling holes in a fuse so the silly little antennas wiskers stick out just to find it didn't work, data loggers. ( just pure silliness ) Also while all of you folks are wasting you cash on some radio that doesn't compare to the Stylus in any way shape or form or can't do the things that sailplanes need to do. I'm buying planes and flying! Not wondering where to put the silly little whisker antennas or if the install gona work in my TOY sailplane. The Best part is I won't have to worry about all you guys on my channel (; = ! I fly on 72 meg's and I don't need instructions. Also I WON'T be using 2.4 in the future either! I like my Airtronics Stylus radio and see no need to change EVER! Loving 72 meg on ch 51 Al In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -George Orwell-
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 install how to?
Quiet Al! Let them go! We'll be better off with out them. Well, that is until we join them. Bill Swingle Janesville, CA RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 install how to?
Wow that's a silly post and I fly with a stylus as well. Besides the cool feature of anyone on channel 51 being able to take you out nice and quick what features are you thinking you get that someone on a JR or Futaba 2.4 does not? I flew a friends 9303 last year. He had everything I needed. Laucnh, reflex, camber, delay, full mixingall this and his radio did not weight 14 pounds like my stylus...Not an issue unless yo also fly DLG's like I do as well. I like the right and left sliders for camber and reflex on my stylus thats unique... no wait i think i see a tab on the back of the Futaba faast system...what am I missing? On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Bill Swingle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quiet Al! Let them go! We'll be better off with out them. Well, that is until we join them. Bill Swingle Janesville, CA RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 install how to?
Al, You had me right up tell you said Stylus I thought your parents raised you better Al :-) Now if you had said Futaba 9C... One. I would of made $1 and two, you would of shown how smart you are :- A Stylus up against a Futaba is kind of like Dos up against Mac Very Ugly :- Craig. Long Live 72 :-) 42 years of using it and no problems yet The financial crisis is kind of like people swimming nude in the ocean... You don't know how ugly it is tell the tides gone out... And then its very very ugly... Warren Buffet Albert E. Wedworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys I find it kinda silly that all of you converts using 2.4 need instructions to install a receiver in a plane Can't have Carbon/Kevlar in your fuse, drilling holes in a fuse so the silly little antennas wiskers stick out just to find it didn't work, data loggers. ( just pure silliness ) Also while all of you folks are wasting you cash on some radio that doesn't compare to the Stylus in any way shape or form or can't do the things that sailplanes need to do. I'm buying planes and flying! Not wondering where to put the silly little whisker antennas or if the install gona work in my TOY sailplane. The Best part is I won't have to worry about all you guys on my channel (; = ! I fly on 72 meg's and I don't need instructions. Also I WON'T be using 2.4 in the future either! I like my Airtronics Stylus radio and see no need to change EVER! Loving 72 meg on ch 51 Al In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -George Orwell-
[RCSE] 2.4 install how to?
Ben Clerx and others have gone all 2.4. I'd certainly appreciate it if he (they) would share the specifics of their installations. For me, particularly, in the Organic and in a TabooGt, if possible. Larry Jolly showed me his installation in a Blaster2. Anyone else out there with successful real life installations who will share the information? Robert Samuels . St. Louis _ Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! http://biggestloser.msn.com/
[RCSE] 2.4 install how to?
Hi Robert, Installation is pretty simple, but ground range testing is important. Follow the instructions. My tips below are for JR systems with aux receivers (satelite receivers). In a DLG with a CF fuselage, simply poke the antenna through the sides of the fuselage. You mentioned Larry Jolly described his Blaster installation. I'm assuming he did something similar. For sailplanes with slip-on nose cones: Most, if not all nose cones are fiberglass (as is the fuselage forward of the aft edge of the nose cone). Put your receiver and aux receiver in the nose. Range check while walking a complete circle around the plane, looking for loss of signal. A logger is useful. For CF fuselages: Poke the main receiver antenna through the sides. Even if only half of each antenna protrudes, that should be fine. If you have a CF D-tube wing, you can place the aux receiver near the flap servo. I did this install with Joe Rodriguez's plane and it worked great (with good logger numbers). With a full CF wing: You can put the aux receiver in the nose and poke the antenna out. You can also mount it to the underside of the canopy and poke the antenna outside. I've heard you might still be able to place the aux receiver in the flap servo pocket since the CF is pretty thin, but I've never done this and don't have any info to back up this claim. Likewise, you might be able to mount the aux receiver in the fuselage, behind the tow hook, if the fuselage is a CF/kevlar weave (lots of RF holes). But again, I haven't tried this or taken any measurements or data points. In both these cases, the main receiver should still have its antenna poked out the sides of the fuselage. Keep in mind that the aux receiver usually does 75% of the work since the main receiver is often blocked in between the battery and servos. This becomes more of a factor for a fiberglass nose since the antenna will tend to be enclosed in the fuselage. A CF nose would have the antenna poked outside and be more visible to the transmitter from a nose-on or tail-on postion. I crammed everything into the nose on my Zenith and Eraser (both have FG nose cones and CF aft of the nose), and have had no problems. Small changes in antenna position can make a big difference in reception. Thats why it's important to do a good initial ground range check. Having a logger in place for the first few flights is helpful to confirm your range checks. Larry moved an aux receiver in his Danny by about an inch (it was in an obviously poor, but convenient, location) and that small move improved reception dramatically. The obvious good location would be in the fin since they are usually fiberglass above the stab. There is a limit to how long the aux reciever extension lead can be (I think its around 36 inches) which might preclude placing it in the fin. I believe the limit is due to voltage drop considerations. I might try a longer than recommended lead and see if there are any problems associated with that. Its not magic---just a little common sense and range checking. Hope this helps. Ben Clerx ** It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money amp; Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf000301)
RE: [RCSE] 2.4 install how to?
Robert, Indeed, it is common sense and testing that makes a successful 2.4 GHz implementation. I converted my first plane into 2.4GHz last Saturday and flew it on Sunday without any problems. I installed a JR AR9000 and a remote receiver in the pod of my Arrow DLG. Although, the installation was simple since I had a fiberglass pod to work with, I still used the glitch counter after the initial setup and the first few flights to ensure all was well. After that I stopped worrying about it and flew for the rest of the day. After spending three hours flying pretty much non-stop to extreme altitudes and distances (really wanted to know if it worked!), I had a few fades, tons of fun and the confidence that I would not be taken down by someone on the same channel if I were on my standard 72MHz frequency. Try it - you just may like it! ;) Regards, Joe From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 6:33 PM To: soaring@airage.com Subject: [RCSE] 2.4 install how to? Hi Robert, Installation is pretty simple, but ground range testing is important. Follow the instructions. My tips below are for JR systems with aux receivers (satelite receivers). In a DLG with a CF fuselage, simply poke the antenna through the sides of the fuselage. You mentioned Larry Jolly described his Blaster installation. I'm assuming he did something similar. For sailplanes with slip-on nose cones: Most, if not all nose cones are fiberglass (as is the fuselage forward of the aft edge of the nose cone). Put your receiver and aux receiver in the nose. Range check while walking a complete circle around the plane, looking for loss of signal. A logger is useful. For CF fuselages: Poke the main receiver antenna through the sides. Even if only half of each antenna protrudes, that should be fine. If you have a CF D-tube wing, you can place the aux receiver near the flap servo. I did this install with Joe Rodriguez's plane and it worked great (with good logger numbers). With a full CF wing: You can put the aux receiver in the nose and poke the antenna out. You can also mount it to the underside of the canopy and poke the antenna outside. I've heard you might still be able to place the aux receiver in the flap servo pocket since the CF is pretty thin, but I've never done this and don't have any info to back up this claim. Likewise, you might be able to mount the aux receiver in the fuselage, behind the tow hook, if the fuselage is a CF/kevlar weave (lots of RF holes). But again, I haven't tried this or taken any measurements or data points. In both these cases, the main receiver should still have its antenna poked out the sides of the fuselage. Keep in mind that the aux receiver usually does 75% of the work since the main receiver is often blocked in between the battery and servos. This becomes more of a factor for a fiberglass nose since the antenna will tend to be enclosed in the fuselage. A CF nose would have the antenna poked outside and be more visible to the transmitter from a nose-on or tail-on postion. I crammed everything into the nose on my Zenith and Eraser (both have FG nose cones and CF aft of the nose), and have had no problems. Small changes in antenna position can make a big difference in reception. Thats why it's important to do a good initial ground range check. Having a logger in place for the first few flights is helpful to confirm your range checks. Larry moved an aux receiver in his Danny by about an inch (it was in an obviously poor, but convenient, location) and that small move improved reception dramatically. The obvious good location would be in the fin since they are usually fiberglass above the stab. There is a limit to how long the aux reciever extension lead can be (I think its around 36 inches) which might preclude placing it in the fin. I believe the limit is due to voltage drop considerations. I might try a longer than recommended lead and see if there are any problems associated with that. Its not magic---just a little common sense and range checking. Hope this helps. Ben Clerx ** It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf000301)
[RCSE] 2.4 and Soaring
Gordy, I am glad to see that you are now discovering 2.4 and the wonderful advantages it brings to us. I would like to comment on a couple of points that you brought forth in the article penned by Dale. Before I start I want you to know that I think it is great that there is more than one approach to the integration of 2.4 for RC. Kind of reminds me of VHS and Beta Max. Was one better than the other? From a technical point of view, Beta Max was probably better, but in the end the consumer made the choice and VHS won out. I started flying for Horizon Team JR last July. I tried 2.4 in August and have flown very few models on 72 since then. I was the one that requested that Samba and Lubos make glass nosed models for their competition models. I saw this as an easy way for the average modeler to get a clean, no hassle installation. I can remember when the Sailplane Manufacturers started making fuses with the Hybrid Carbon Kevlar fabrics. Some worked fine with 72mhz others defied explanation and required antenna extensions and careful antenna placement. I read Dales article and noted that his requirements for a better system are different from mine. The first point I would like to make is that from the reading I have done multiple Rx's for 2.4 in a system is an advantage. Because of the potential for blocking and orientation issues as the model is maneuvered around the sky, multiple Rx's allow for the system to maintain optimal signal quality. Using a Data Logger is not a crutch for a poorly designed system. It is a tool that is easily used by a modeler to optimize his Rx installation, and give him real data so he knows how good, good is. In the old days with 72, I installed the antenna extension, and test flew the model. I would test the installation by flying the model at various distances and then aiming the tip of the antenna and watch for the Airtronics right flap drop. I then started collapsing the TX antenna and checking aircraft response..not very scientific, but in the end I had a good idea how far away I could fly my model. So now with the Data Logger I know how well my Rx is working and if the install is optimized. I use and recommend the JR 9303 2.4 system with the 921 Rx. I have the system installed in My Pike Perfect SL and have had flawless performance from this combo. Note that it is a very clean and easy installation with all radio components in the nose and no antennas exposed from the vehicle. By the way JR does sell several Rx's on 2.4 that don't use a remote Rx. We fly these in Park flyers and other Aircraft that don't have the complication of Materials and Range requirements of our Sailplanes. For me the Spread Spektrum Systems offers excellent performance, and a complete line of systems and components to best fit my requirements. For those of you using the FASST system that doesn't have the Data Logger capability how do you know how well your system is working? Which is the Better System? Time will tell us but I know where I am putting my money. Best Regards Larry Jolly Team JR Air-Heli Pilot **Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/ 2050827?NCID=aolcmp0030002598)
[RCSE] 2.4 Spektrum System in a Pike Perfect
I just posted some actual data logger results for my Spektrum installation in a carbon Pike Perfect. I had 4 flights today (3 with the data logger) with no issues visible from the ground. It is not exactly where I want it yet but it is close. The thread talks about what I will do next. http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=825409 Bruce RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
[RCSE] 2.4 IRCHA
I see in MA that there were 712 flyers at the chopper event, and only 150 on 72, but I do not see any mention of how many flyers were allowed up at the same time. Any of y'all hear? Thanks Brian Smith PS I'm sure Gordy is wondering too. ;o)
RE: [RCSE] 2.4 IRCHA
Brian, All, There were 20 flight stations at IRCHA. The point about IRCHA is that you had 550+ transmitters in the pits and on the flight line and there were no issues reported regarding interference or linking up and no crashes due to radio hits on 2.4 - Spektrum, Futaba, XPS. The IRCHA organizers (not Spektrum or Futaba or XPS) are the ones saying that the reason for the record number of pilots was due to 2.4GHz. It's about safety where Spektrum is concerned. You will not be shot down by anyone turning on there transmitter using Spektrum DSM2. If you turn on and the magic number is already on (40 for DSM2) your system will not link up. No one who is already on is affected. And unlike hopping systems DSM2 will not slow down when the band is populated with transmitters. Finally - We have, and continue to do extensive testing internally and with the AMA. I believe that Futaba has as well. JR/Horizon and Futaba are working with the Japanese modeling authorities and 2.4 will be approved in Japan next year. Horizon and Spektrum have also been working with the UK governing bodies there as well. It's not marketing BS. Fact is 2.4 works and its there if you want to use it. It's safe and you can ask the guys that are using it if they can feel the difference on the sticks and in peace of mind. Thanks, JD From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 7:23 AM To: soaring@airage.com Subject: [RCSE] 2.4 IRCHA I see in MA that there were 712 flyers at the chopper event, and only 150 on 72, but I do not see any mention of how many flyers were allowed up at the same time. Any of y'all hear? Thanks Brian Smith PS I'm sure Gordy is wondering too. ;o) RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
[RCSE] 2.4
As is normal on RCSE if you say anything it will be taken out of context by someone. YUP.. I'm so happy with my DX7s and the X9303 that I'll probably start giggling soon. ;o) For me it was the best thing since the original red/white-green/white-yellow/white.. Remember that? I'll start worrying about 2.4 when I start hearing pilots going down screaming 2.4- 2.4 -2.4 instead of Ch 26 Ch 26 ch26.. All the rest of the WHAT IF's Don't bother me at all.. I have been on 2.4 for nearly a year and I feel like I already have my moneys worth of, I can't launch the wrong model and freedom of a shoot down as did nearly happen twice in the last couple months on 72 with my Giant Scale gas models. -BUT- no where, no how, did I ever criticize or condemn anyone for staying on 72. If your happy, I'm happy that your happy. HOWZAT? Grin -Smile.. I still love y'all!! Even Gordy. Brian Smith
[RCSE] 2.4 install problems
I bought a 2.4 9303 and installed an AR6200 in an Organic which has an all Kevlar nosecone. But it does not work. I put the main receiver in the nose with the antennas fore and aft and the remote receiver on the bottom of the fuse behind the tow hook with the antennas exiting the fuse through small holes so that the antennas were pointing left and right. The range is lousy. I put an AR6100 in the nose of a DLG TabooGt (all carbon fuse) with the antennas sticking out the sides so it looks like a little catfish. The range was poor. So I extended the antennas by laying a piece of insulated wire along side the original antennas held with heat shrink so that the new wire was 31 mm longer than the original antennas. This gave me decent range and I've flown it successfully. But I don't like all that wire sticking out in the airflow. I'd like a better arrangement but can not think of one. Does anyone know of any successful installations in these planes? Or have suggestions? Thank you Robert Samuels St. Louis _ i’m is proud to present Cause Effect, a series about real people making a difference. http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_Cause_Effect
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 install problems
When you range test are the planes on the ground or on a table? If they are on the ground put them on a table and then do the range check. The ground causes terrible range checks. Jay On Dec 13, 2007 5:16 PM, Robert Samuels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I bought a 2.4 9303 and installed an AR6200 in an Organic which has an all Kevlar nosecone. But it does not work. I put the main receiver in the nose with the antennas fore and aft and the remote receiver on the bottom of the fuse behind the tow hook with the antennas exiting the fuse through small holes so that the antennas were pointing left and right. The range is lousy. I put an AR6100 in the nose of a DLG TabooGt (all carbon fuse) with the antennas sticking out the sides so it looks like a little catfish. The range was poor. So I extended the antennas by laying a piece of insulated wire along side the original antennas held with heat shrink so that the new wire was 31 mm longer than the original antennas. This gave me decent range and I've flown it successfully. But I don't like all that wire sticking out in the airflow. I'd like a better arrangement but can not think of one. Does anyone know of any successful installations in these planes? Or have suggestions? Thank you Robert Samuels St. Louis -- -- i'm is proud to present Cause Effect, a series about real people making a difference. Learn morehttp://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_Cause_Effect
Fwd: [RCSE] 2.4 install problems
**See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) ---BeginMessage--- Robert, Neither of your installations are optimal. In the Organic you are still dealing with the Kevlar Carbon Weave of the main Fuselage. The 6200 is a great little Rx I have been flying the daylights out of them.In the Organic try getting the Main Rx away from the Battery and mount it down so the you have maximum exposure through the cutout on the bottom of the nose. Get a longer extension that will allow you to place the remote up in the wing. You can break the lead with a Deans 3 Pin Connector at the same place you have your wing harness connector. Put the Remote aft in the Oracover section of the wing. See if this helps out. With the Taboo the whiskers is the only way unless you put the RX in the wing in the Kevlar portion and run all you servos through a connector. Good Luck Larry Jolly **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) ---End Message---
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 GHz
I agree that the Evo is the best available transmitter for most sailplanes. Since Hitec, Futaba, and JR make transmitters that are capable of doing what I need, my choice is based on feel and balance as well as programming methods. I still remember the disgusting feel I had when I tried to get used to my first JR plastic porcupine transmitter. Awkward feel and balance with all the switches in the wrong places with no way to put them where they belong. My aluminum box transmitters had a much better feel and balance and I could put the switches where I needed rather than where someone else decided they should be. My first programmable transmitter was a Micropro and I understood the logic behind the programming. Never did understand the logic behind the random selections of buttons and the correct sequence to accomplish what I wanted to do in my Airtronics, Futaba, and Hitec transmitters and I always had to have the manual when I went to change anything. In 1933, I had a booth next Karlton at Visalia and he tried to sell me on his pizza box transmitters but I preferred my single stick Micropro. By 2001, Micropro was long out of business and I was using a Hitec transmitter when I had a radio problem at Visalia. After the first day, Karlton talked me into trying a Cockpit MM. Five minutes into the first flight the next day, Karlton sold me a radio. The Cockpit had absolutely the best feel and balance of any two stick transmitter I have ever used. I promptly sold all my Futaba and Hitec transmitters except for one that I kept for models that needed more that the Cockpit could provide. I ordered an Evo the day Karlton announced that he was accepting orders. It took over a year but I received one of the first Evos that were imported into the US and I promptly sold my last Hitec. The Evo has so much better ergonomics and programming than anything else available today that I can't see ever changing unless both my Evos quit working and new ones are longer available. My backup Evo has been converted to 2.4 with XPS and test flown in the old model I use for testing new and repaired radios. I am now waiting for end pin receivers to convert all my models to XPS. Chuck PS. I still feel the Cockpit MM has the best ergonomics of any transmitter I have ever flown. At 07:09 PM 12/4/2007, you wrote: I tried to respond to Jack Iafret's posting but got bounced by the system so I am posting this separately. I agree with Jack that the Profi has very powerful programming. However, I traded mine for 2 - 12 Ch Evos because, for me, the programming is even easier, although with a few less options (most of which I would never use), and because the Evo has a much better geometry/weight for hand launch. I have been flying the Evo for several years in TD, F5J, F5B, hand launch and a couple of electric sport planes and helicopters. XPS offers a great, easy to install 2.4 GHz module for the Evo (and Profi for that matter). I have been using the XPS 2.4 Ghz system in a F5J Graphite with a good bit of carbon in the fuselage. It seems to work great so far. XPS now has 8 and 10 Ch full range receivers. They are coming out with end pin versions of these as well as top and end pin 12 Ch receivers. For all the gliders the end pin receiver will be a very positive addition. I won't comment on the schedule for these new receivers because that is one of the more frustrating things about dealing with XPS. The 2.4 GHz components from XPS that I do have though work great and I get to keep the Evo programming. I will wait a little longer for end pin receivers before I switch to a 9303. Bruce T. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
RE: [RCSE] 2.4 GHz back in 1933
Two 3s instead of two 9s sure makes a difference. :) Chuck At 10:18 AM 12/5/2007, you wrote: Wow, in 1933 it must have just been you and Karlton out in the middle of no where. You guys were way ahead of the times. LOL Occasionally/often frustrated; ...never defeated... Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 07:40:02 -0600 To: soaring@airage.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [RCSE] 2.4 GHz I agree that the Evo is the best available transmitter for most sailplanes. Since Hitec, Futaba, and JR make transmitters that are capable of doing what I need, my choice is based on feel and balance as well as programming methods. I still remember the disgusting feel I had when I tried to get used to my first JR plastic porcupine transmitter. Awkward feel and balance with all the switches in the wrong places with no way to put them where they belong. My aluminum box transmitters had a much better feel and balance and I could put the switches where I needed rather than where someone else decided they should be. My first programmable transmitter was a Micropro and I understood the logic behind the programming. Never did understand the logic behind the random selections of buttons and the correct sequence to accomplish what I wanted to do in my Airtronics, Futaba, and Hitec transmitters and I always had to have the manual when I went to change anything. In 1933, I had a booth next Karlton at Visalia and he tried to sell me on his pizza box transmitters but I preferred my single stick Micropro. By 2001, Micropro was long out of business and I was using a Hitec transmitter when I had a radio problem at Visalia. After the first day, Karlton talked me into trying a Cockpit MM. Five minutes into the first flight the next day, Karlton sold me a radio. The Cockpit had absolutely the best feel and balance of any two stick transmitter I have ever used. I promptly sold all my Futaba and Hitec transmitters except for one that I kept for models that needed more that the Cockpit could provide. I ordered an Evo the day Karlton announced that he was accepting orders. It took over a year but I received one of the first Evos that were imported into the US and I promptly sold my last Hitec. The Evo has so much better ergonomics and programming than anything else available today that I can't see ever changing unless both my Evos quit working and new ones are longer available. My backup Evo has been converted to 2.4 with XPS and test flown in the old model I use for testing new and repaired radios. I am now waiting for end pin receivers to convert all my models to XPS. Chuck PS. I still feel the Cockpit MM has the best ergonomics of any transmitter I have ever flown. At 07:09 PM 12/4/2007, you wrote: I tried to respond to Jack Iafret's posting but got bounced by the system so I am posting this separately. I agree with Jack that the Profi has very powerful programming. However, I traded mine for 2 - 12 Ch Evos because, for me, the programming is even easier, although with a few less options (most of which I would never use), and because the Evo has a much better geometry/weight for hand launch. I have been flying the Evo for several years in TD, F5J, F5B, hand launch and a couple of electric sport planes and helicopters. XPS offers a great, easy to install 2.4 GHz module for the Evo (and Profi for that matter). I have been using the XPS 2.4 Ghz system in a F5J Graphite with a good bit of carbon in the fuselage. It seems to work great so far. XPS now has 8 and 10 Ch full range receivers. They are coming out with end pin versions of these as well as top and end pin 12 Ch receivers. For all the gliders the end pin receiver will be a very positive addition. I won't comment on the schedule for these new receivers because that is one of the more frustrating things about dealing with XPS. The 2.4 GHz components from XPS that I do have though work great and I get to keep the Evo programming. I will wait a little longer for end pin receivers before I switch to a 9303. Bruce T. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format -- Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live. http://www.windowslive.com?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_powerofwindows_112007Power up! RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED
RE: [RCSE] 2.4 GHz back in 1933
Wow, in 1933 it must have just been you and Karlton out in the middle of no where. You guys were way ahead of the times. LOLOccasionally/often frustrated;...never defeated... Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 07:40:02 -0600 To: soaring@airage.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [RCSE] 2.4 GHz I agree that the Evo is the best available transmitter for most sailplanes. Since Hitec, Futaba, and JR make transmitters that are capable of doing what I need, my choice is based on feel and balance as well as programming methods. I still remember the disgusting feel I had when I tried to get used to my first JR plastic porcupine transmitter. Awkward feel and balance with all the switches in the wrong places with no way to put them where they belong. My aluminum box transmitters had a much better feel and balance and I could put the switches where I needed rather than where someone else decided they should be. My first programmable transmitter was a Micropro and I understood the logic behind the programming. Never did understand the logic behind the random selections of buttons and the correct sequence to accomplish what I wanted to do in my Airtronics, Futaba, and Hitec transmitters and I always had to have the manual when I went to change anything. In 1933, I had a booth next Karlton at Visalia and he tried to sell me on his pizza box transmitters but I preferred my single stick Micropro. By 2001, Micropro was long out of business and I was using a Hitec transmitter when I had a radio problem at Visalia. After the first day, Karlton talked me into trying a Cockpit MM. Five minutes into the first flight the next day, Karlton sold me a radio. The Cockpit had absolutely the best feel and balance of any two stick transmitter I have ever used. I promptly sold all my Futaba and Hitec transmitters except for one that I kept for models that needed more that the Cockpit could provide. I ordered an Evo the day Karlton announced that he was accepting orders. It took over a year but I received one of the first Evos that were imported into the US and I promptly sold my last Hitec. The Evo has so much better ergonomics and programming than anything else available today that I can't see ever changing unless both my Evos quit working and new ones are longer available. My backup Evo has been converted to 2.4 with XPS and test flown in the old model I use for testing new and repaired radios. I am now waiting for end pin receivers to convert all my models to XPS. Chuck PS. I still feel the Cockpit MM has the best ergonomics of any transmitter I have ever flown. At 07:09 PM 12/4/2007, you wrote: I tried to respond to Jack Iafret's posting but got bounced by the system so I am posting this separately. I agree with Jack that the Profi has very powerful programming. However, I traded mine for 2 - 12 Ch Evos because, for me, the programming is even easier, although with a few less options (most of which I would never use), and because the Evo has a much better geometry/weight for hand launch. I have been flying the Evo for several years in TD, F5J, F5B, hand launch and a couple of electric sport planes and helicopters. XPS offers a great, easy to install 2.4 GHz module for the Evo (and Profi for that matter). I have been using the XPS 2.4 Ghz system in a F5J Graphite with a good bit of carbon in the fuselage. It seems to work great so far. XPS now has 8 and 10 Ch full range receivers. They are coming out with end pin versions of these as well as top and end pin 12 Ch receivers. For all the gliders the end pin receiver will be a very positive addition. I won't comment on the schedule for these new receivers because that is one of the more frustrating things about dealing with XPS. The 2.4 GHz components from XPS that I do have though work great and I get to keep the Evo programming. I will wait a little longer for end pin receivers before I switch to a 9303.Bruce T. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format _ Put your friends on the big screen with Windows Vista® + Windows Live™. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/shop/specialoffers.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_CPC_MediaCtr_bigscreen_102007
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 GHz
Chuck Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In 1933, I had a booth next Karlton at Visalia and he tried to sell me on his pizza box transmitters Dam Chuck.. Your old and those transmitters were way ahead of their time :-) hehe
[RCSE] 2.4 Gig JR v Futaba ???
I'm just curious as to why all the talk is about the JR 2.4 system? From everything I have read, the Futaba 2.4 is the only one to use true spread spectrum and is a much better system that the JR... Like I said I'm just curios. So flame away :-) Craig
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 Gig JR v Futaba ???
Now if Futaba would just provide the superior sailplane programming the JR 9303 has I would consider switching. JR was the first to bring SS to the market and Futaba has some catch up to do. -- Original message -- From: Craig Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm just curious as to why all the talk is about the JR 2.4 system? From everything I have read, the Futaba 2.4 is the only one to use true spread spectrum and is a much better system that the JR... Like I said I'm just curios. So flame away :-) Craig ---BeginMessage--- I'm just curious as to why all the talk is about the JR 2.4 system? From everything I have read, the Futaba 2.4 is the only one to use true spread spectrum and is a much better system that the JR...Like I said "I'm just curios." So flame away :-)Craig---End Message---
[RCSE] 2.4 Gig JR v Futaba ???
Craig, There are several factors why the JR 9303 2.4 is getting more press than the Futaba. 1) This is a soaring list serve and the 9303 has received much greater acceptance as a 6+ servo sailplane radio than any of the Futaba transmitters. 2) Futaba entered the 2.4 GHz market with a very limited function transmitter which was not of much interest to the 6+ servo sailplane market. They have also come to market much later and much more slowly than Spektrum/JR, so Futaba has a tiny installed base compared to the others. Many Futaba users, like myself, have purchased Spektrum modules for our Futaba Radios. That is the same technology that JR uses. 3) Spektrum/JR, XPS and Futaba all use Spread Spectrum of one form or another, but only Futaba uses continuous frequency hopping. I will let the wizards argue which is better, but they all seem to work, so to most users, the difference does not matter much. This is like PPM vs. PCM, both are 72 MHz FM. Which is better vs. which is most popular. They both work. 4) There is a lot more hands on experience in the user community with Spektrum/JR than with XPS or Futaba. 5) Spektrum/JR offers the widest range of receiver choices. For many people, this is very important. Here are a few other links that may be of interest: 2.4 GHz - A Broad Market Review - in the Radios forum of RC Groups. http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=715589goto=newpost 2.4 Satisfaction Poll http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=6240077 Ed Anderson Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:46:39 -0800 (PST) From: Craig Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm just curious as to why all the talk is about the JR 2.4 system? From everything I have read, the Futaba 2.4 is the only one to use true spread spectrum and is a much better system that the JR... Like I said I'm just curios. So flame away :-) Craig RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 Gig JR v Futaba ???
Ed Anderson wrote: Craig, There are several factors why the JR 9303 2.4 is getting more press than the Futaba. 1) This is a soaring list serve and the 9303 has received much greater acceptance as a 6+ servo sailplane radio than any of the Futaba transmitters. True enough. Unfortunately not enough of the 14MZ radios are being used in soaring (big in aerobatics and helis) to realize what an incredible radio it is for soaring. Assign any function to any stick, switch, slider, etc. Including mixes, trims, whatever. Whatever you can think of you can do. Same holds true for the less expensive 12Z and 12FG. Up to 9 flight conditions per model. Each condition allows you to change EVERYTHING except where the functions are assigned and the channel. Anything else can be changed. Throws, mixes, etc. The Futaba 12 to 14 series radios are truly powerful and flexible radios. Honestly I cannot imagine having to mess with anything less now. Kind of like once I got a microwave I could not imagine how I got along without one.!! 2) Futaba entered the 2.4 GHz market with a very limited function transmitter which was not of much interest to the 6+ servo sailplane market. They have also come to market much later and much more slowly than Spektrum/JR, so Futaba has a tiny installed base compared to the others. Many Futaba users, like myself, have purchased Spektrum modules for our Futaba Radios. That is the same technology that JR uses. True for airplanes. Futaba has been in the car/boat world for sometime and has pretty god market penetration there. 3) Spektrum/JR, XPS and Futaba all use Spread Spectrum of one form or another, but only Futaba uses continuous frequency hopping. I will let the wizards argue which is better, but they all seem to work, so to most users, the difference does not matter much. This is like PPM vs. PCM, both are 72 MHz FM. Which is better vs. which is most popular. They both work. In a sense I agree. It can become a very academic argument. Personally, I like the continuous hopping scheme over the other types of implementation. 4) There is a lot more hands on experience in the user community with Spektrum/JR than with XPS or Futaba. SS I agree. But radios in general not so much. At many large contest Airtronics still rules the roost with Futaba and JR splitting the remainder. Plus it can be very regional as well. 5) Spektrum/JR offers the widest range of receiver choices. For many people, this is very important. In SS this is true. However, given how tiny these things are I can't see that as an issue. At least for me. Even the 14 channel RX is smaller than most 4 channel 72 RXs!! RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 Gig JR v Futaba ???
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now if Futaba would just provide the superior sailplane programming the JR 9303 has I would consider switching. As a long time Futaba user but also a guy who keeps looking at the JR9303 and wondering; Should I switch? I'd be interested in hearing what you can do with the 9303 that you can't do with a Futaba 9Csuper transmitter. This is a serious question, not an attempt to start an argument. I think Futaba has gotten a reputation for limited programming ability due to the earlier versions of their transmitters which weren't as capable as the 9Csuper and also because hardly anybody knew how to use the capability that did exist. A list of 9303 capabilities that you think can't be done on a Futaba 9Csuper would be interesting. You may convince me that I need a 9303 and I may convince you that a Futaba 9Csuper is more capable than you think. I've never had any Futaba transmitter above the 9Csuper so maybe other can tell me what those high end Futaba transmitters can do that a 9Csuper can't. Phil RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 Gig JR v Futaba ???
The Profi 4000 has all of the 14MZ functions that count (sorry- no audio) plus' several more that most sailplane guys will never use but are there for the really technical applications. Not very popular because of the style but it is fantastic if you use a tray or strap. Programming is really logical and quite easy once you understand it and is is a lot less expensive than the 14. Too bad Hitec will not support them much longer but we all hope they will come out with a radio as complete to replace it someday. My two have been bullet proof for about six years. Jack On Dec 4, 2007 5:53 PM, Bill's Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ed Anderson wrote: Craig, There are several factors why the JR 9303 2.4 is getting more press than the Futaba. 1) This is a soaring list serve and the 9303 has received much greater acceptance as a 6+ servo sailplane radio than any of the Futaba transmitters. True enough. Unfortunately not enough of the 14MZ radios are being used in soaring (big in aerobatics and helis) to realize what an incredible radio it is for soaring. Assign any function to any stick, switch, slider, etc. Including mixes, trims, whatever. Whatever you can think of you can do. Same holds true for the less expensive 12Z and 12FG. Up to 9 flight conditions per model. Each condition allows you to change EVERYTHING except where the functions are assigned and the channel. Anything else can be changed. Throws, mixes, etc. The Futaba 12 to 14 series radios are truly powerful and flexible radios. Honestly I cannot imagine having to mess with anything less now. Kind of like once I got a microwave I could not imagine how I got along without one.!! 2) Futaba entered the 2.4 GHz market with a very limited function transmitter which was not of much interest to the 6+ servo sailplane market. They have also come to market much later and much more slowly than Spektrum/JR, so Futaba has a tiny installed base compared to the others. Many Futaba users, like myself, have purchased Spektrum modules for our Futaba Radios. That is the same technology that JR uses. True for airplanes. Futaba has been in the car/boat world for sometime and has pretty god market penetration there. 3) Spektrum/JR, XPS and Futaba all use Spread Spectrum of one form or another, but only Futaba uses continuous frequency hopping. I will let the wizards argue which is better, but they all seem to work, so to most users, the difference does not matter much. This is like PPM vs. PCM, both are 72 MHz FM. Which is better vs. which is most popular. They both work. In a sense I agree. It can become a very academic argument. Personally, I like the continuous hopping scheme over the other types of implementation. 4) There is a lot more hands on experience in the user community with Spektrum/JR than with XPS or Futaba. SS I agree. But radios in general not so much. At many large contest Airtronics still rules the roost with Futaba and JR splitting the remainder. Plus it can be very regional as well. 5) Spektrum/JR offers the widest range of receiver choices. For many people, this is very important. In SS this is true. However, given how tiny these things are I can't see that as an issue. At least for me. Even the 14 channel RX is smaller than most 4 channel 72 RXs!! RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format -- Jack Iafret Home and Hobbies
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 Gig JR v Futaba ???
Phil Barnes wrote: I've never had any Futaba transmitter above the 9Csuper so maybe other can tell me what those high end Futaba transmitters can do that a 9Csuper can't. These rcgroups threads might be useful. I have not read them. Differences in 9C and 9303? JR 9303 vs Futaba 9c Jon RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 Gig JR v Futaba ???
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've never had any Futaba transmitter above the 9Csuper so maybe other can tell me what those high end Futaba transmitters can do that a 9Csuper can't. Phil May be a little more progemas but you get more little holes in the receiver that you can plug more servos into! I got the 12FG for a scale gliders that has more function(channels) than the 9C can give me. Brian -- Brian Chan, An Electric Airplane Junkie @ San Mateo.Ca.USA RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 Gig JR v Futaba ???
The 14 is in a completely different league than the 4000. Off hand several features, sythesized, shift selectable. memory card, computer upgradeable, channel expanders, etc Sailplane capability are probably similar except the 14 is 2048 capable and will soon have the 2.4 module and receivers out. The biggest difference is the ease of programming. I had a 4000 and finally gave up. Plus I didn't like the tray deal. You can pretty much program a competition sailplane without the manual. There are only a couple of small items that fall into the head scratching category and they aren't bad. For those that finally make the step into the 12 or 14 and realize the power and ease of this system there is no looking back. Hell, even Bubba got one a dem. Darwin N. Barrie Chandler AZ - Original Message - From: Jack Iafret To: Bill's Email Cc: Soaring@airage.com Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 4:13 PM Subject: Re: [RCSE] 2.4 Gig JR v Futaba ??? The Profi 4000 has all of the 14MZ functions that count (sorry- no audio) plus' several more that most sailplane guys will never use but are there for the really technical applications. Not very popular because of the style but it is fantastic if you use a tray or strap. Programming is really logical and quite easy once you understand it and is is a lot less expensive than the 14. Too bad Hitec will not support them much longer but we all hope they will come out with a radio as complete to replace it someday. My two have been bullet proof for about six years. Jack On Dec 4, 2007 5:53 PM, Bill's Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ed Anderson wrote: Craig, There are several factors why the JR 9303 2.4 is getting more press than the Futaba. 1) This is a soaring list serve and the 9303 has received much greater acceptance as a 6+ servo sailplane radio than any of the Futaba transmitters. True enough. Unfortunately not enough of the 14MZ radios are being used in soaring (big in aerobatics and helis) to realize what an incredible radio it is for soaring. Assign any function to any stick, switch, slider, etc. Including mixes, trims, whatever. Whatever you can think of you can do. Same holds true for the less expensive 12Z and 12FG. Up to 9 flight conditions per model. Each condition allows you to change EVERYTHING except where the functions are assigned and the channel. Anything else can be changed. Throws, mixes, etc. The Futaba 12 to 14 series radios are truly powerful and flexible radios. Honestly I cannot imagine having to mess with anything less now. Kind of like once I got a microwave I could not imagine how I got along without one.!! 2) Futaba entered the 2.4 GHz market with a very limited function transmitter which was not of much interest to the 6+ servo sailplane market. They have also come to market much later and much more slowly than Spektrum/JR, so Futaba has a tiny installed base compared to the others. Many Futaba users, like myself, have purchased Spektrum modules for our Futaba Radios. That is the same technology that JR uses. True for airplanes. Futaba has been in the car/boat world for sometime and has pretty god market penetration there. 3) Spektrum/JR, XPS and Futaba all use Spread Spectrum of one form or another, but only Futaba uses continuous frequency hopping. I will let the wizards argue which is better, but they all seem to work, so to most users, the difference does not matter much. This is like PPM vs. PCM, both are 72 MHz FM. Which is better vs. which is most popular. They both work. In a sense I agree. It can become a very academic argument. Personally, I like the continuous hopping scheme over the other types of implementation. 4) There is a lot more hands on experience in the user community with Spektrum/JR than with XPS or Futaba. SS I agree. But radios in general not so much. At many large contest Airtronics still rules the roost with Futaba and JR splitting the remainder. Plus it can be very regional as well. 5) Spektrum/JR offers the widest range of receiver choices. For many people, this is very important. In SS this is true. However, given how tiny these things are I can't see that as an issue. At least for me. Even the 14 channel RX is smaller than most 4 channel 72 RXs!! RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format -- Jack Iafret Home and Hobbies
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 Gig JR v Futaba ???
The 14 is in a completely different league than the 4000. Off hand several features, sythesized, shift selectable. memory card, computer upgradeable, channel expanders, etc Sailplane capability are probably similar except the 14 is 2048 capable and will soon have the 2.4 module and receivers out. The biggest difference is the ease of programming. I had a 4000 and finally gave up. Plus I didn't like the tray deal. You can pretty much program a competition sailplane without the manual. There are only a couple of small items that fall into the head scratching category and they aren't bad. For those that finally make the step into the 12 or 14 and realize the power and ease of this system there is no looking back. Hell, even Bubba got one a dem. Darwin N. Barrie Chandler AZ - Original Message - From: Jack Iafret To: Bill's Email Cc: Soaring@airage.com Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 4:13 PM Subject: Re: [RCSE] 2.4 Gig JR v Futaba ??? The Profi 4000 has all of the 14MZ functions that count (sorry- no audio) plus' several more that most sailplane guys will never use but are there for the really technical applications. Not very popular because of the style but it is fantastic if you use a tray or strap. Programming is really logical and quite easy once you understand it and is is a lot less expensive than the 14. Too bad Hitec will not support them much longer but we all hope they will come out with a radio as complete to replace it someday. My two have been bullet proof for about six years. Jack On Dec 4, 2007 5:53 PM, Bill's Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ed Anderson wrote: Craig, There are several factors why the JR 9303 2.4 is getting more press than the Futaba. 1) This is a soaring list serve and the 9303 has received much greater acceptance as a 6+ servo sailplane radio than any of the Futaba transmitters. True enough. Unfortunately not enough of the 14MZ radios are being used in soaring (big in aerobatics and helis) to realize what an incredible radio it is for soaring. Assign any function to any stick, switch, slider, etc. Including mixes, trims, whatever. Whatever you can think of you can do. Same holds true for the less expensive 12Z and 12FG. Up to 9 flight conditions per model. Each condition allows you to change EVERYTHING except where the functions are assigned and the channel. Anything else can be changed. Throws, mixes, etc. The Futaba 12 to 14 series radios are truly powerful and flexible radios. Honestly I cannot imagine having to mess with anything less now. Kind of like once I got a microwave I could not imagine how I got along without one.!! 2) Futaba entered the 2.4 GHz market with a very limited function transmitter which was not of much interest to the 6+ servo sailplane market. They have also come to market much later and much more slowly than Spektrum/JR, so Futaba has a tiny installed base compared to the others. Many Futaba users, like myself, have purchased Spektrum modules for our Futaba Radios. That is the same technology that JR uses. True for airplanes. Futaba has been in the car/boat world for sometime and has pretty god market penetration there. 3) Spektrum/JR, XPS and Futaba all use Spread Spectrum of one form or another, but only Futaba uses continuous frequency hopping. I will let the wizards argue which is better, but they all seem to work, so to most users, the difference does not matter much. This is like PPM vs. PCM, both are 72 MHz FM. Which is better vs. which is most popular. They both work. In a sense I agree. It can become a very academic argument. Personally, I like the continuous hopping scheme over the other types of implementation. 4) There is a lot more hands on experience in the user community with Spektrum/JR than with XPS or Futaba. SS I agree. But radios in general not so much. At many large contest Airtronics still rules the roost with Futaba and JR splitting the remainder. Plus it can be very regional as well. 5) Spektrum/JR offers the widest range of receiver choices. For many people, this is very important. In SS this is true. However, given how tiny these things are I can't see that as an issue. At least for me. Even the 14 channel RX is smaller than most 4 channel 72 RXs!! RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format -- Jack Iafret Home and Hobbies
[RCSE] 2.4 GHz
I tried to respond to Jack Iafret's posting but got bounced by the system so I am posting this separately. I agree with Jack that the Profi has very powerful programming. However, I traded mine for 2 - 12 Ch Evos because, for me, the programming is even easier, although with a few less options (most of which I would never use), and because the Evo has a much better geometry/weight for hand launch. I have been flying the Evo for several years in TD, F5J, F5B, hand launch and a couple of electric sport planes and helicopters. XPS offers a great, easy to install 2.4 GHz module for the Evo (and Profi for that matter). I have been using the XPS 2.4 Ghz system in a F5J Graphite with a good bit of carbon in the fuselage. It seems to work great so far. XPS now has 8 and 10 Ch full range receivers. They are coming out with end pin versions of these as well as top and end pin 12 Ch receivers. For all the gliders the end pin receiver will be a very positive addition. I won't comment on the schedule for these new receivers because that is one of the more frustrating things about dealing with XPS. The 2.4 GHz components from XPS that I do have though work great and I get to keep the Evo programming. I will wait a little longer for end pin receivers before I switch to a 9303. Bruce T. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
[RCSE] 2.4 G Futaba v JR, ..... Thanks :-)
I just want to thank everyone for the very thoughtful and informative post. I was expecting a lot of flames :-) hehe Just a little background... I left Soaring in 1979 after moving to LA to work in the Film Industry. I took my trusty Kraft 4ch transmitter and my Super Esprit, White Trash and Todi to Pearce collage in the Valley and watched some guys ( Probably Joe, and a few other of U hot shots Launching their home made Carbon rockets to the moon... I asked Hay were can you buy one of those gliders They all laughed at me and said You can't, you have to make them .. Oh shit :-( I went home that day and put my planes in the closet never to fly again Oh ya... My cars engine froze up on the way home to Hollywood too.. So all in all it was a very bad day. In 1999 I was back in Sac town searching the web and somehow found DLG's. WOW I was hooked... More bang for your buck !!! U bet ya... Now I had to buy a new radio.. I went to the local hobby shop and bought a Airtronics Stylus Radio Could I program by myself ?? Hell No... Then after some time I traded that for a brand new JR 10x... Could I program it??? Hell No I still have it if anyone want to make me an offer? Never used once in 4 years.. Then I went and looked at a Futaba 9c... Within 5 min I could program it. It was so so simple, just like my Apple 2 and my very first Mackintosh. I think you will notice a lot of newcomer to the hobby chose Futaba for this reason as well. So I have been flying Futaba ever since Maybe I'm missing something that I don't know about.. But time after time I see people out at the local field with Radio issues, Programing issues, and it's never been a Futaba. So what ever I might be missing, I don't miss :-))) As far as Spread Spectrum systems. From purely an engineering point of view, the Futaba system is by far more reliable.. Sure the JR system might work just fine. Although we have already heard reports of problems with satellite receivers... But true Spread Spectrum is the only way to go and I would not buy any 2.4 system that doesn't have it Just my two cents :-) Craig
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 G Futaba v JR, ..... Thanks :-)
On Dec 4, 2007, at 11:07 PM, Kevin O'Dell wrote: As far as Spread Spectrum systems. From purely an engineering point of view, the Futaba system is by far more reliable.. Sure the JR system might work just fine. Although we have already heard reports of problems with satellite receivers... But true Spread Spectrum is the only way to go and I would not buy any 2.4 system that doesn't have it JR's Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum is true spread spectrum, as is frequency hopping that Futaba uses.the only reports I have seen are problems that can't be traced to the radio..in a very hostile RF environment (some major metro areas) Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS) can have latency issues..you won't loose any packets because the data is error correcting but, you might have a delay in the data packet getting there...this will slow the response time of the system, but not break itThe DSSS system can have an issue with signal fading depending on the number of and orientation of antennas in the aircraft.as well as the construction of the aircraft..all carbon birds might not present a great environment..but this also can happen in FHSS systems...under most circumstances, both systems provide a solid, interference free link. At this point, most SS applications outside the RC world have dropped the FHSS and gone with the DSSS...in IEEE 802.11 both FHSS and DSSS were standardized for 1 and 2 Mbit/s data rates.with 802.11b and beyond FHSS was left behind and DSSS was standardized for 5.5 Mbit/s and 11 Mbit/s data rates..so if the data rates increase, they may have to shift to DSSS. Kevin O'Dell N0IRW
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 G Futaba v JR, ..... Thanks :-)
If you bought a transmitter one year earlier you would have gotten the Futaba 8ua you would not be flying because you would not be able to program it. - Original Message - From: Craig Allen To: soaring@airage.com Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 6:45 PM Subject: [RCSE] 2.4 G Futaba v JR, . Thanks :-) I just want to thank everyone for the very thoughtful and informative post. I was expecting a lot of flames :-) hehe Just a little background... I left Soaring in 1979 after moving to LA to work in the Film Industry. I took my trusty Kraft 4ch transmitter and my Super Esprit, White Trash and Todi to Pearce collage in the Valley and watched some guys ( Probably Joe, and a few other of U hot shots Launching their home made Carbon rockets to the moon... I asked Hay were can you buy one of those gliders They all laughed at me and said You can't, you have to make them .. Oh shit :-( I went home that day and put my planes in the closet never to fly again Oh ya... My cars engine froze up on the way home to Hollywood too.. So all in all it was a very bad day. In 1999 I was back in Sac town searching the web and somehow found DLG's. WOW I was hooked... More bang for your buck !!! U bet ya... Now I had to buy a new radio.. I went to the local hobby shop and bought a Airtronics Stylus Radio Could I program by myself ?? Hell No... Then after some time I traded that for a brand new JR 10x... Could I program it??? Hell No I still have it if anyone want to make me an offer? Never used once in 4 years.. Then I went and looked at a Futaba 9c... Within 5 min I could program it. It was so so simple, just like my Apple 2 and my very first Mackintosh. I think you will notice a lot of newcomer to the hobby chose Futaba for this reason as well. So I have been flying Futaba ever since Maybe I'm missing something that I don't know about.. But time after time I see people out at the local field with Radio issues, Programing issues, and it's never been a Futaba. So what ever I might be missing, I don't miss :-))) As far as Spread Spectrum systems. From purely an engineering point of view, the Futaba system is by far more reliable.. Sure the JR system might work just fine. Although we have already heard reports of problems with satellite receivers... But true Spread Spectrum is the only way to go and I would not buy any 2.4 system that doesn't have it Just my two cents :-) Craig
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 G Futaba v JR, ..... Thanks :-)
Ha ha Ha :- Your right! As it was a brand new product when I bought it :-))) But then I would only have Woman as a hobby Hm :-) David Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you bought a transmitter one year earlier you would have gotten the Futaba 8ua you would not be flying because you would not be able to program it. - Original Message - From:Craig Allen To: soaring@airage.com Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 6:45PM Subject: [RCSE] 2.4 G Futaba v JR, .Thanks :-) I just want to thank everyonefor the very thoughtful and informative post. I was expecting a lot offlames :-) hehe Just a little background... I left Soaring in 1979after moving to LA to work in the Film Industry. I took my trustyKraft 4ch transmitter and my Super Esprit, White Trash and Todi to Pearcecollage in the Valley and watched some guys ( Probably Joe, and a few other ofU hot shots Launching their home made Carbon rockets to the moon... I asked Hay were can you buy one of those gliders They all laughed at me and said You can't, you have to make them .. Oh shit :-( I went home thatday and put my planes in the closet never to fly again Oh ya... My carsengine froze up on the way home to Hollywood too.. So all in all it was a verybad day. In 1999 I was back in Sac town searching the web and somehowfound DLG's. WOW I was hooked... More bang for your buck !!! U bet ya...Now I had to buy a new radio.. I went to the local hobby shop and bought aAirtronics Stylus Radio Could I program by myself ?? Hell No... Thenafter some time I traded that for a brand new JR 10x... Could I program it???Hell No I still have it if anyone want to make me an offer? Never usedonce in 4 years.. Then I went and looked at a Futaba 9c... Within 5 minI could program it. It was so so simple, just like my Apple 2 and my veryfirst Mackintosh. I think you will notice a lot of newcomer to the hobby choseFutaba for this reason as well. So I have been flying Futaba eversince Maybe I'm missing something that I don't know about.. But time aftertime I see people out at the local field with Radio issues, Programing issues,and it's never been a Futaba. So what ever I might be missing, I don't miss:-))) As far as Spread Spectrum systems. From purely anengineering point of view, the Futaba system is by far more reliable.. Surethe JR system might work just fine. Although we have already heard reports ofproblems with satellite receivers... But true Spread Spectrum is the only wayto go and I would not buy any 2.4 system that doesn't have it Justmy two cents :-) Craig
[RCSE] 2.4 receivers??
Is there anyone out there that is using the 2.4 in a Sharon or simular SMALL fuse - Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage.
[RCSE] 2.4 GHZ SPREAD SPECTRUM
Looks like the Wi Fli by Model Avionics that was put on hold a few months back has re-appeared - at Horizon Hobby Inc. http://www.spektrumrc.com/ RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 GHZ SPREAD SPECTRUM
I wouldn't use the word Avionics. It is designed for ground based Transmitters. Range is only 3000ft. Although it is interesting. At 07:28 AM 10/17/2004, Jimmy Andrews wrote: Looks like the Wi Fli by Model Avionics that was put on hold a few months back has re-appeared - at Horizon Hobby Inc. http://www.spektrumrc.com/ RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.
Re: [RCSE] 2.4 ghz Digital Spread Spectrum for RC may be Here...
So what if in certain circumstances a tree or something similar is in the line of sight ?? - Original Message - From: Ryan Flowers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 7:58 PM Subject: Re: [RCSE] 2.4 ghz Digital Spread Spectrum for RC may be Here... Well, 2.4ghz is VERY line-of-sight. If you can see it, you can get signal to it. I don't see sailplanes as a problem, as we never fly out of sight. Or any other R/C for that matter. Plus, its spread spectrum so if Joe Blow picks up his 2.4ghz portable phone and tries to get on your channel (not likely, they all scan these days anyway) then it'll switch automatically. Personally, I think that you'll find this to be superior in many ways. Think of the telemetry that we could do with 2 way communications from our planes. Instead of servos, plug in sensors too! :) Ryan Martin Usher wrote: Does anyone know if this works? http://www.modelavionics.com/WiFLi/default.asp There's absolutely no reason to believe it won't. I'm a bit skeptical about the claimed range. I'm quite sure that it will do its claimed couple of kilometers in a quiet environment but noise from other band users or other problems such as antenna placement will reduce the usable range (you won't get shoot-downs as such with this kit). I'd guess that the best use for this stuff is replacing 75MHz surface radios -- it will certainly work across a parking lot but I'd need some convincing to trust a sailplane with it. If they're planning to release this stuff in July then they should have already had units in the field for Beta testing and possibly evaluation by journalists or other industry pros. Martin Usher RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.
Re: Fw: [RCSE] 2.4 ghz Digital Spread Spectrum for RC may be Here...
(These people claim 1.2 miles. I don't believe it. With the much smaller antenna and 1/8th the power, I'd expect maybe 0.3 miles tops. With the wavelength shrinking from 4.13 to 0.125 meters, can't the antenna be practically made more efficient with no size increase, or even a net decrease from the current? At 0.125 meter wavelength, full dipoles, crossed full dipoles, loops, crossed loops and perhaps even fancier arrays become feasible. Of course the downside is that tolerances on the antenna dimensions get tighter. Mark Holm [EMAIL PROTECTED] RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.
