RC Jets Discuss RC jets in this forum plus rc turbines and ducted fan power systems

New Powerbox radio...

Reply

Old 09-22-2017, 12:24 PM
  #76  
olnico
 
olnico's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston, Texas.
Posts: 4,033
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

[QUOTE=gapellegrini;12369823]IAfter the UB I said to myself from now on will fly only dual rx with Powerbox and antennas outside of plane. I did that for one year and lockout again. The second one had setup above antennas outside was very close like 250 meters. Crashed./[QUOTE]

The problem here is that even with two receivers at the Powerbox, the Futaba protocol is still single RF link. If the hopping scheme gets jammed, there is nothing else to hop to and both receivers will lock at the same time!
Only true dual or triple redundancy can avoid this.
olnico is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2017, 02:42 PM
  #77  
Springbok Flyer
 
Springbok Flyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,205
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

[QUOTE=olnico;12369985][QUOTE=gapellegrini;12369823]IAfter the UB I said to myself from now on will fly only dual rx with Powerbox and antennas outside of plane. I did that for one year and lockout again. The second one had setup above antennas outside was very close like 250 meters. Crashed./

The problem here is that even with two receivers at the Powerbox, the Futaba protocol is still single RF link. If the hopping scheme gets jammed, there is nothing else to hop to and both receivers will lock at the same time!
Only true dual or triple redundancy can avoid this.
Point taken and understood - please Futaba, up your game and give us what we are crying out for, including some 'light' (as Jack calls it)...LOL

Jan
Springbok Flyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2017, 11:33 PM
  #78  
Esprit
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 212
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Here you are RC Man:

https://www.spektrumrc.com/Products/...ID=SPMSS6240RX

2 ch receiver servo.
Esprit is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2017, 10:54 AM
  #79  
c_makhija
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: , INDIA
Posts: 665
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

[QUOTE=olnico;12369985][QUOTE=gapellegrini;12369823]IAfter the UB I said to myself from now on will fly only dual rx with Powerbox and antennas outside of plane. I did that for one year and lockout again. The second one had setup above antennas outside was very close like 250 meters. Crashed./

The problem here is that even with two receivers at the Powerbox, the Futaba protocol is still single RF link. If the hopping scheme gets jammed, there is nothing else to hop to and both receivers will lock at the same time!
Only true dual or triple redundancy can avoid this.
So which are the radios with dual or triple redundancy?
Thanks Chatty.
c_makhija is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2017, 11:11 AM
  #80  
jescardin
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Talamanca de JaramaMadrid, SPAIN
Posts: 481
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by gapellegrini View Post
Carsten,

I never had a flight with Futaba and 0 antenna fades and 0 lost frames on my powerbox. I did check at least 100 times since I started to have lockouts.
"gapellegrini", was that with only S.BUS FUTABA receivers or with S.BUS/S.BUS2 ones? If second option was your set up you should ask POWERBOX about real full compatibility before suspecting FUTABA link quality.

Best Regards.
jescardin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2017, 02:23 PM
  #81  
gapellegrini
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: SP, BRAZIL
Posts: 246
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by jescardin View Post
"gapellegrini", was that with only S.BUS FUTABA receivers or with S.BUS/S.BUS2 ones? If second option was your set up you should ask POWERBOX about real full compatibility before suspecting FUTABA link quality.

Best Regards.
jescardin I post a lot on powerbox forum and they have one of the bests support around there. After the ub crash I learned that r7008 had an unofficial update that would make rx have less lost frames working with powerbox. The ub had no powerbox and 2x r7008. After that I read from Richard Deutsch -Emmerichs's son- that r7003 was a newer product and a better link and less lost frames than all other futaba rx. So I did r7003 on all my planes. I tried really hard to stick with futaba. As I see some guys here trying to stick to them. I did holes on many $10k airframes to put antennas outside to stick with them.

I dont suspect I had link problems with futaba Im sure of it.
gapellegrini is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2017, 02:35 PM
  #82  
gapellegrini
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: SP, BRAZIL
Posts: 246
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

[QUOTE=c_makhija;12370196][QUOTE=olnico;12369985]
Originally Posted by gapellegrini View Post
IAfter the UB I said to myself from now on will fly only dual rx with Powerbox and antennas outside of plane. I did that for one year and lockout again. The second one had setup above antennas outside was very close like 250 meters. Crashed./

So which are the radios with dual or triple redundancy?
Thanks Chatty.
Double: Jeti Duplex line, Weatronics and Core.
Triple: Jeti Ds-24

These are the ones I know. Not sure if all Weatronics has redundancy or only Bat 60
gapellegrini is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2017, 07:32 AM
  #83  
Jack Diaz
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Caracas, VENEZUELA
Posts: 544
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Another very important feature for improving link reliability is multiple transmitter antennas.
That takes care of flying thru the weak signal area of a single antenna.
Modern radio brands are now using at least two antennas in perpendicular orientation.
Jack Diaz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2017, 08:38 AM
  #84  
c_makhija
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: , INDIA
Posts: 665
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

So is the redundancy a function of the Tx only or new Rxs would be needed to be compatible for triple redundancy?

Thanks Chatty.
c_makhija is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2017, 09:45 AM
  #85  
David Gladwin
 
David Gladwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: CookhamBerkshire, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 3,383
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

[QUOTE=Jack Diaz;12370382]Another very important feature for improving link reliability is multiple transmitter antennas.
That takes care of flying thru the weak signal area of a single antenna.
Modern radio brands are now using at least two antennas in perpendicular orientation.[/QUOTE"

.........or, of course, they could use patch antennae which have a more hemispherical radiation pattern, which avoids the "cone of silence" inherent in the more common rod aerials.

There have been many technical publications, freely available on the Internet, which explain the differences and advantages of patches so I don't know why more rc manufactuers are not using them. ( Less vulnerable to accidental damage, too)

Weatronics systems use twin patches (redundancy again) on all tx modules (-and were available for receivers too) so since the Core RF is based on the Weatronic design I presume the Core will use them too.

Patch receiver antennae also also have a hemispherical reception pattern which means that if two patches are installed, facing in opposite directions, there is a spherical reception area eliminating poor reception orientation of the model.

David G.

Last edited by David Gladwin; 09-24-2017 at 09:59 AM.
David Gladwin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2017, 11:32 AM
  #86  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,713
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by David Gladwin View Post
.........or, of course, they could use patch antennae which have a more hemispherical radiation pattern, which avoids the "cone of silence" inherent in the more common rod aerials.

There have been many technical publications, freely available on the Internet, which explain the differences and advantages of patches so I don't know why more rc manufactuers are not using them. ( Less vulnerable to accidental damage, too)

Weatronics systems use twin patches (redundancy again) on all tx modules (-and were available for receivers too) so since the Core RF is based on the Weatronic design I presume the Core will use them too.

Patch receiver antennae also also have a hemispherical reception pattern which means that if two patches are installed, facing in opposite directions, there is a spherical reception area eliminating poor reception orientation of the model.

David G.
David, that's not true. If you look at the radiation pattern of a patch antenna, it has nulls just like a dipole. If you put two patch antennas back-to-back, you get a radiation pattern that is almost exactly like a dipole - in one plane - in the other plane its actually worse.

Patch antennas may make sense for transmitters because the airraft is generally in front of you, but they do not make much sense for receivers - unless they are actively pointed.

Of course all of this discussion is academic if the RF link you are using *works* for your application...

Bob
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	patchFields.jpg
Views:	63
Size:	58.5 KB
ID:	2233531   Click image for larger version

Name:	RadPatt-dB.png
Views:	44
Size:	4.9 KB
ID:	2233532  

Last edited by rhklenke; 09-24-2017 at 11:46 AM.
rhklenke is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2017, 12:37 PM
  #87  
David Gladwin
 
David Gladwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: CookhamBerkshire, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 3,383
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Your diagram appear to have been lifted from antenna-theory.com. They have a lot of theory on patches!

They also show the radiation pattern in a colour diagram where the strongest signal is at the top of the hemisphere, decaying at the sides. Circularly polarised patch antennae appear not to have the doughnut characteristic of rods.

I have a lot of data from a lot of flights with twin receiver patches, which show considerably better signal lock than conventional "whip" receiver aerials.

May I suggest you take a look at Olnico,s description of the application and benefits of Weatronic patch antennae, on Ultimate Jets, it is as I described.

Flying yesterday, with two Weatronics receivers, the one with patches never even lost the downlink, usually the weakest aspect of those receivers with whips. ( .SkyGate Hawk, Savex L39)

I am am no Rf engineer but I am content to believe the publications from such qualified engineers, and accept my very encouraging empirical data !

I still see a lot of guys flying with their rods pointing in the wrong direction, straight at the model, for best reception!

David.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Eleft3D_struct.gif
Views:	50
Size:	29.1 KB
ID:	2233575  

Last edited by David Gladwin; 09-25-2017 at 12:26 AM.
David Gladwin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 01:25 AM
  #88  
David Gladwin
 
David Gladwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: CookhamBerkshire, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 3,383
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Radiation pattern of standard rod antennna.

D
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	rod.jpg
Views:	67
Size:	159.3 KB
ID:	2233577  
David Gladwin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 01:36 AM
  #89  
Carsten Groen
 
Carsten Groen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,722
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Patch antennas makes sense on the transmitter, not so much in the plane (because of front to back ratio). This is pure science, and has nothing to do with "feelings" or "my plane has not fallen down, so it must be great" (it is also of no influence if you were once a pilot on a Concorde).
Carsten Groen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 03:34 AM
  #90  
jescardin
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Talamanca de JaramaMadrid, SPAIN
Posts: 481
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by gapellegrini View Post
jescardin I post a lot on powerbox forum and they have one of the bests support around there. After the ub crash I learned that r7008 had an unofficial update that would make rx have less lost frames working with powerbox. The ub had no powerbox and 2x r7008. After that I read from Richard Deutsch -Emmerichs's son- that r7003 was a newer product and a better link and less lost frames than all other futaba rx. So I did r7003 on all my planes. I tried really hard to stick with futaba. As I see some guys here trying to stick to them. I did holes on many $10k airframes to put antennas outside to stick with them.

I dont suspect I had link problems with futaba Im sure of it.

Of course only you know the tests you did and the results you got and, again of course and from your firm sentences I am not going to convince you at all, but I feel you miss some clarifying details:

1.- FUTABA current receivers are not upgradable, nor by owners nor even by the official services.
2.- From what I have investigated from PB forum, it is NOT an UNNOFFICIAL update as you call but a POWERBOX one they send via personally mail.
3.- PB advertised on the manuals they got the comunications serial protocoles officialy from all the radio manufacturers. How then their systems doesn´t correctly read S.BUS data?.

I discovered a thread on an independent, non comercial, forum on the matter and think post #4 just hit on the point:

https://www.flyinggiants.com/forums/...ad.php?t=78340

Taking in account all this information is from where I question your position and are as sure as you are in the contrary than most probably your problems were not from a link issue when using PB accessories.

Of course me -nor you- are able of fully demonstrating our positions, aren´t we?

Best Regards,

Last edited by jescardin; 09-25-2017 at 03:37 AM.
jescardin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 04:13 AM
  #91  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,713
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Carsten Groen View Post
Patch antennas makes sense on the transmitter, not so much in the plane (because of front to back ratio). This is pure science, and has nothing to do with "feelings" or "my plane has not fallen down, so it must be great" (it is also of no influence if you were once a pilot on a Concorde).
Thank you! You saved me having to type a similar response. Clearly he can't see in his own diagram that there are many angles on a patch antenna where gain is very negative - and placing two back-to-back doesn't solve the problem...

Of course once piloting a Concorde is quite cool, but a Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer engineering is probably more apropos to this discussion..

Bob
rhklenke is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 04:31 AM
  #92  
gapellegrini
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: SP, BRAZIL
Posts: 246
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

it looks like patch antennas worked for Weatronic
  • operating distance: > 3.000m / > 1.8 mi, with patch-antenna > 5.000m / > 3.0 mi (unobstructed view)
Receiver Gizmo | weatronic GmbH, professionelle RC-Komponenten
gapellegrini is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 04:32 AM
  #93  
gapellegrini
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: SP, BRAZIL
Posts: 246
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by c_makhija View Post
So is the redundancy a function of the Tx only or new Rxs would be needed to be compatible for triple redundancy?

Thanks Chatty.
For Jeti you need 2 x rx for dual redundancy and 2 x 2.4 rx and 1x rx 900 mhz for triple redundancy.
gapellegrini is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 05:20 AM
  #94  
gapellegrini
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: SP, BRAZIL
Posts: 246
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by jescardin View Post
Of course only you know the tests you did and the results you got and, again of course and from your firm sentences I am not going to convince you at all, but I feel you miss some clarifying details:

1.- FUTABA current receivers are not upgradable, nor by owners nor even by the official services.
2.- From what I have investigated from PB forum, it is NOT an UNNOFFICIAL update as you call but a POWERBOX one they send via personally mail.
3.- PB advertised on the manuals they got the comunications serial protocoles officialy from all the radio manufacturers. How then their systems doesn´t correctly read S.BUS data?.

I discovered a thread on an independent, non comercial, forum on the matter and think post #4 just hit on the point:

https://www.flyinggiants.com/forums/...ad.php?t=78340

Taking in account all this information is from where I question your position and are as sure as you are in the contrary than most probably your problems were not from a link issue when using PB accessories.

Of course me -nor you- are able of fully demonstrating our positions, aren´t we?

Best Regards,
Jesus,

I have my convictions but I may be wrong. So I really like the debate.

On my UB crash I had 2 r7008 and no powerbox. Each rx had half side of plane excluding flap that I had booth on rx1. I had 2 batteries, one for each rx and two JR heavy duty switch. Booth systems didn’t communicate with each other. Totally independent. So we can rule out some reasons for a lockout: servo short circuit, batteries and switch problem. As there were other lockouts on same day same place and because of setup I can rule out many likely causes there is not much left other than a RF problem.

About your sentences:
1- I never did any update but they can be updated with CIU-2 unit. I know this is not very standard.
2- From what I read and understand Futaba acknowledge there is kind of a problem with r7008 (maybe is only with powerbox but pb support says it isn't) but not a problem big enough for an update. People say is something about Japanese culture and is a shame to them for acknowledge there is an error and send out an update, so they have this informal update that powerbox can't post on their download page. I believe this makes a lot of sense. Look what happened with rx 7018. It went out, crashed tons of planes and then they took out of market. No recall, no sorry message, nothing. They just stopped selling it.
3 - I can't comment on that. Don’t know enough information.

I'm not sure how things are in Spain but in Brazil lockouts happens all of the time in all brands. I have seen events with 4 lockouts in US and Brazil and I'm not talking about Joe Nall. Some of these are not RF problem for sure but some are. RF link is the main problem in our hobby today in my opinion. Most 2.4 protocols were developed when there was almost anybody else using 2.4 and they got old.

Gabriel
gapellegrini is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 06:22 AM
  #95  
David Gladwin
 
David Gladwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: CookhamBerkshire, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 3,383
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Carsten and Bob,

You our obviously don't know my connection with Concorde. I never qualified as a Concorde pilot, (although advised I was to join the fleet in 1978) the official BA Concorde history by Chris Orlebar, explains what and why, you might enjoy the read. Anyway , a Concorde connection is totally is totally irrrellevant!

I have had great success with patch antenna on 2.4 receivers and have the numbers and practical experience to prove they work as installed and recommended by the Weatronic engineers. That is why I use them and pass on my experience here. I may not be the sharpest tool in the box but I am not so stupid as to risk very high value models with a system in which I do not have total confidence and confidence confirmed by considerable experience and numerical data.

Being a practical sort of guy, I would rather believe what I see working for me than listen to theoretical arguments which turn personal.

However, perhaps you would use your PHD knowledge t o explain to us all why twin patch antennae are not the best, and what your solution would be, and why I am getting such good results using this concept.

Further, perhaps you could suggestion reasons why such a capable electronics company as Powerbox chose to use the Weatroncs RF system,and are so complimentary about it, as the basis for their Core which must be a huge investment, in both time and money, for the company.

No BS or sarcasm etc, just plain scientific facts, and perhaps your suggestions as to why I should ignore all my accumulated RSSI data and practical experience in view of your contrary opinions, however well, or otherwise, intentioned!

David.

PS The 300 or so flights I made on Concorde delivering the technical commentary, and giving our pax a brief flight deck visit, often at Mach 2, from the flight deck on my BA charters,, and a few on AF, was great fun,and for me a hugely successful business. If you never flew on Concorde, you don't know what you missed !

Watching the Mach number climb from 1.7 to 2 in dry power, climbing and turning, was something even the most experienced Concorde crewed delighted in, sheer magic, still unmatched 48 years after she first flew. Irrelevant to 2.4 RF propagation though!

Last edited by David Gladwin; 09-25-2017 at 07:24 AM.
David Gladwin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 06:43 AM
  #96  
David Gladwin
 
David Gladwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: CookhamBerkshire, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 3,383
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

....

Last edited by David Gladwin; 09-25-2017 at 06:46 AM.
David Gladwin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 08:27 AM
  #97  
Jack Diaz
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Caracas, VENEZUELA
Posts: 544
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

[QUOTE=David Gladwin;12370590
If you never flew on Concorde, you don't know what you missed !
[/QUOTE]

David, guess where I was given this matchbox ????
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Concrde.JPG
Views:	78
Size:	402.2 KB
ID:	2233648  
Jack Diaz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 08:59 AM
  #98  
Jack Diaz
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Caracas, VENEZUELA
Posts: 544
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Despite the Patch vs Coax discussion, I think that multiple transmitter antennas to increase signal spatial diversity ought be a welcomed hardware upgrade for those high end radios with single antenna.

Of course, this whole discussion depends on what type of model is flown. An almost empty airframe can't be compared with the myriad of electronic components stuffed in a turbine model. A flawless radio in one model may not be suitable for others.
Jack Diaz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 09:39 AM
  #99  
digitech
My Feedback: (10)
 
digitech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: klimmenlimburg, NETHERLANDS
Posts: 3,534
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by David Gladwin View Post
Carsten and Bob,

You our obviously don't know my connection with Concorde. I never qualified as a Concorde pilot, (although advised I was to join the fleet in 1978) the official BA Concorde history by Chris Orlebar, explains what and why, you might enjoy the read. Anyway , a Concorde connection is totally is totally irrrellevant!

I have had great success with patch antenna on 2.4 receivers and have the numbers and practical experience to prove they work as installed and recommended by the Weatronic engineers. That is why I use them and pass on my experience here. I may not be the sharpest tool in the box but I am not so stupid as to risk very high value models with a system in which I do not have total confidence and confidence confirmed by considerable experience and numerical data.

Being a practical sort of guy, I would rather believe what I see working for me than listen to theoretical arguments which turn personal.

However, perhaps you would use your PHD knowledge t o explain to us all why twin patch antennae are not the best, and what your solution would be, and why I am getting such good results using this concept.

Further, perhaps you could suggestion reasons why such a capable electronics company as Powerbox chose to use the Weatroncs RF system,and are so complimentary about it, as the basis for their Core which must be a huge investment, in both time and money, for the company.

No BS or sarcasm etc, just plain scientific facts, and perhaps your suggestions as to why I should ignore all my accumulated RSSI data and practical experience in view of your contrary opinions, however well, or otherwise, intentioned!

David.

PS The 300 or so flights I made on Concorde delivering the technical commentary, and giving our pax a brief flight deck visit, often at Mach 2, from the flight deck on my BA charters,, and a few on AF, was great fun,and for me a hugely successful business. If you never flew on Concorde, you don't know what you missed !

Watching the Mach number climb from 1.7 to 2 in dry power, climbing and turning, was something even the most experienced Concorde crewed delighted in, sheer magic, still unmatched 48 years after she first flew. Irrelevant to 2.4 RF propagation though!
Wow , so wat happended again when you flew a RC jet right thru a roof of a hangar?, was that with Patch antennas? or your great knowledge of Technical stuff?
digitech is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 09:54 AM
  #100  
David Gladwin
 
David Gladwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: CookhamBerkshire, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 3,383
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Jack Diaz View Post
Despite the Patch vs Coax discussion, I think that multiple transmitter antennas to increase signal spatial diversity ought be a welcomed hardware upgrade for those high end radios with single antenna.

Of course, this whole discussion depends on what type of model is flown. An almost empty airframe can't be compared with the myriad of electronic components stuffed in a turbine model. A flawless radio in one model may not be suitable for others.
Could'nt agree more, Jack, and that is my point. My most complex model, FC Mig 29, two engines, multiple servos, dual batteries, dual hydraulic systems with electric pumps, all working with flawless RF performance with dual patch antennae. If the dual patches and Weatronic receiver can cope with all that, it can work with anything!

Rea world, practical, experience, it works, don't knock it .

Your Concorde matchbox must be very old, that is , I think, the original logo and we stopped smoking on Concorde many, many years ago!

Still remember the thrill of seeing four greens at 80 knots, as all the burners lit, and we were off like a scalded cat, accompanied by a wonderful roar and assorted burning smells. We relived our past at the Concorde crew reunion last Friday at Brooklands with, DG , the preproduction Concorde, parked outside. A wonderful occasion.

David G.
David Gladwin is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service