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 jo

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. (Windo

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 Dar

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

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 a

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

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 obvi

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 v

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

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

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 suppor

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 <[EMA

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 St

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 a

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] w

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 G

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 disc

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 Swingle To: Soaring@airage.com Sent: Friday, March 21,

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 kn

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

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

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

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

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 messag

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 silli

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

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 installati

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 orga

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 AR

RE: [RCSE] 2.4 GHz & back in 1933

, 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

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: [R

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

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 ge

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 be

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 F

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.

Re: [RCSE] 2.4 Gig JR v Futaba ???

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

Re: [RCSE] 2.4 Gig JR v Futaba ???

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

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 receiv

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

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 log

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 interest

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 en

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 jus

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.

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 Spect