72 mhz still ok?
07-19-2012, 09:54 PM
#27
Junior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: hueytown, AL
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 72 mhz still ok?
I still fly 72 never felt the need to change,But when you can get a 6ch Corona Synthesized Dual Conversion Receiver for 17 bucks why would would you go 2.4.I have 2 Futaba 8-uaf and 6ch computer futaba and a prisim 7.So i think im good for at least another 10 years.Dont forget to pull the silver stick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
07-20-2012, 04:51 AM
#28
RE: 72 mhz still ok?
I was one of the very last at my club to switch from 72 to 2.4 and really only did so because of my gas models which I think are safer being flown on 2.4, just my personal opinion.
Karol
Karol
07-20-2012, 04:55 AM
#29
RE: 72 mhz still ok?
What is funny a few months ago I went to the field the fly my Hangar 9 p-47 150 because one of my coworkers wanted to see it. So I start my plane, do a range check and walk up to the flight line after I place my plane on the ground and pull my antenna out. He says what kind of radio is that. I said a 72, he then says WOW why do you not have 2.4. I did not want to get in a unneeded debate and just left the subject as it start and started talking about my plane 
He even asked why I carry that large flight box.... I said I fly glow and left it at that. It is funny how people want you to cross over to all electric, gas, or new radio technology. I love my old radio, I love my glow and I love everything that comes with it even cleaning the plane after a long day or short day of flying
He even asked why I carry that large flight box....
I said I fly glow and left it at that. It is funny how people want you to cross over to all electric, gas, or new radio technology. I love my old radio, I love my glow and I love everything that comes with it even cleaning the plane after a long day or short day of flying
07-20-2012, 06:31 AM
#33
RE: 72 mhz still ok?
ORIGINAL: BuschBarber
At $30 per gallon for Glow vs $4 per gallon for Gas, I will take Gas any day. I have large electrics, but the flight times are short and charging is non-stop. Electrics are, however, quiet and peaceful.
At $30 per gallon for Glow vs $4 per gallon for Gas, I will take Gas any day. I have large electrics, but the flight times are short and charging is non-stop. Electrics are, however, quiet and peaceful.
I usually only buy 2-3 gallon a year so it is not that bad.
07-20-2012, 07:01 AM
#34
My Feedback: (2)
RE: 72 mhz still ok?
ORIGINAL: rowdog_14
I have nothing against Gas or Electric. I actually like electric because it is clean an quite and I would like Gas because of price but I just like glow more and will pay the money for it right now as long as it is in my budget. I know you are not knocking me but when I go to the field I enjoy what people have and do not give my advice about radios, engines or anything of that matter unless someone ask. The reason I do not do that is because this is a hobby and like BIGNASDY said, to each is own.
I usually only buy 2-3 gallon a year so it is not that bad.
ORIGINAL: BuschBarber
At $30 per gallon for Glow vs $4 per gallon for Gas, I will take Gas any day. I have large electrics, but the flight times are short and charging is non-stop. Electrics are, however, quiet and peaceful.
At $30 per gallon for Glow vs $4 per gallon for Gas, I will take Gas any day. I have large electrics, but the flight times are short and charging is non-stop. Electrics are, however, quiet and peaceful.
I usually only buy 2-3 gallon a year so it is not that bad.
Glow engines are fine. They generally run quieter than gas but there is more cleanup. I fly all year round although not as much in the winter. I liked the 160 OS two strokes and 150-180 Saito 4 strokes. They use quite a bit of Glow fuel. It was just too costly for me to continue with Glow. There are Gas engines as small as 14cc and a number of Glow 4 strokes are offered in Gas Ignition versions.
07-20-2012, 07:23 AM
#35
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lyndonville, VT
Posts: 3,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 72 mhz still ok?
Well gas is pretty clean, but quieting them down does take some extra expense. We have a couple of 30cc class gassers that really aren't much noisier than a high performance electric of the same size and weight, prop noise, is prop noise, not to mention a larger EDF[8D], which is as close to a jet as I'll ever fly, something to do with the fixed income
While there's no wait for a pin on the 72Mhz board, we do have interference problems, being that our field, while on a large farm in a very rural town in Vermont, is smack up against a large town across the river in NH, where we've had issues with kids flying foamies at the school across the river within earshot of the field. "Pete's Law" states that the odds of being hit by this type of interference is directly proportional to the size and price of the plane[>:]. In other words, a foamie on 72Mhz, no problem, on the other hand, a 1/3rd scale WWI bipe with beaucoup building hours and cost is a sitting duck[
]
it's all fun.
Pete
While there's no wait for a pin on the 72Mhz board, we do have interference problems, being that our field, while on a large farm in a very rural town in Vermont, is smack up against a large town across the river in NH, where we've had issues with kids flying foamies at the school across the river within earshot of the field. "Pete's Law" states that the odds of being hit by this type of interference is directly proportional to the size and price of the plane[>:]. In other words, a foamie on 72Mhz, no problem, on the other hand, a 1/3rd scale WWI bipe with beaucoup building hours and cost is a sitting duck[
]it's all fun.
Pete
07-20-2012, 07:27 AM
#36
RE: 72 mhz still ok?
ORIGINAL: BuschBarber
2-3 gallons of Glow fuel is not much flying time. A gallon is 128oz. at 2oz per minute, that is only an hour of flying time per gallon. That is six 10 minute flights. At 1 oz per minute that is still only 2 hours of flying time or twelve 10 minute flights.
Glow engines are fine. They generally run quieter than gas but there is more cleanup. I fly all year round although not as much in the winter. I liked the 160 OS two strokes and 150-180 Saito 4 strokes. They use quite a bit of Glow fuel. It was just too costly for me to continue with Glow. There are Gas engines as small as 14cc and a number of Glow 4 strokes are offered in Gas Ignition versions.
ORIGINAL: rowdog_14
I have nothing against Gas or Electric. I actually like electric because it is clean an quite and I would like Gas because of price but I just like glow more and will pay the money for it right now as long as it is in my budget. I know you are not knocking me but when I go to the field I enjoy what people have and do not give my advice about radios, engines or anything of that matter unless someone ask. The reason I do not do that is because this is a hobby and like BIGNASDY said, to each is own.
I usually only buy 2-3 gallon a year so it is not that bad.
ORIGINAL: BuschBarber
At $30 per gallon for Glow vs $4 per gallon for Gas, I will take Gas any day. I have large electrics, but the flight times are short and charging is non-stop. Electrics are, however, quiet and peaceful.
At $30 per gallon for Glow vs $4 per gallon for Gas, I will take Gas any day. I have large electrics, but the flight times are short and charging is non-stop. Electrics are, however, quiet and peaceful.
I usually only buy 2-3 gallon a year so it is not that bad.
Glow engines are fine. They generally run quieter than gas but there is more cleanup. I fly all year round although not as much in the winter. I liked the 160 OS two strokes and 150-180 Saito 4 strokes. They use quite a bit of Glow fuel. It was just too costly for me to continue with Glow. There are Gas engines as small as 14cc and a number of Glow 4 strokes are offered in Gas Ignition versions.
Please do not bring up calculations. Flying time does depend on the engine size yes. But I mainly fly .40-.60 size engines and with my heli I flew a full 30 min on one tank. The heli is a century hawk pro with a TOKI 40. I have two os160fx, but I know you can not use them as an everyday flyer. That was probably your problem. My p-47 150 and topflite staggerwing both have OS160 and I fly them 3-4 times a year. They are not everyday flyers so I could care less about how much it cost to fly them. It all comes down to budget for that individual. It is in my budget and you decided it was not in yours so that is that. Lets drop this and let the forum continue based on the actual topic 72 radios.
07-20-2012, 07:36 AM
#37
RE: 72 mhz still ok?
ORIGINAL: pilotpete2
Well gas is pretty clean, but quieting them down does take some extra expense. We have a couple of 30cc class gassers that really aren't much noisier than a high performance electric of the same size and weight, prop noise, is prop noise, not to mention a larger EDF[8D], which is as close to a jet as I'll ever fly, something to do with the fixed income
While there's no wait for a pin on the 72Mhz board, we do have interference problems, being that our field, while on a large farm in a very rural town in Vermont, is smack up against a large town across the river in NH, where we've had issues with kids flying foamies at the school across the river within earshot of the field. ''Pete's Law'' states that the odds of being hit by this type of interference is directly proportional to the size and price of the plane[>:]. In other words, a foamie on 72Mhz, no problem, on the other hand, a 1/3rd scale WWI bipe with beaucoup building hours and cost is a sitting duck[]
it's all fun.
Pete
Well gas is pretty clean, but quieting them down does take some extra expense. We have a couple of 30cc class gassers that really aren't much noisier than a high performance electric of the same size and weight, prop noise, is prop noise, not to mention a larger EDF[8D], which is as close to a jet as I'll ever fly, something to do with the fixed income
While there's no wait for a pin on the 72Mhz board, we do have interference problems, being that our field, while on a large farm in a very rural town in Vermont, is smack up against a large town across the river in NH, where we've had issues with kids flying foamies at the school across the river within earshot of the field. ''Pete's Law'' states that the odds of being hit by this type of interference is directly proportional to the size and price of the plane[>:]. In other words, a foamie on 72Mhz, no problem, on the other hand, a 1/3rd scale WWI bipe with beaucoup building hours and cost is a sitting duck[
]it's all fun.
Pete
[link]http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXJUP2&P=7[/link]
Since I moved to GA there are a lot of rouge fields that people fly at and I might invest in this gadget.
07-20-2012, 07:55 AM
#39
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Los Angeles,
CA
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 72 mhz still ok?
The range of 72 MHz radio is greater than the range of 2.4 GHz radio.
The 100mW RF output on 2.4 GHz radio is no match to a 750mW RF output on 72 MHz radio. When out of range, error correction, unique GUID code, and the "robust" pseudo-random control sequence will do no good.
Therefore, I only fly on 72 MHz.
The 100mW RF output on 2.4 GHz radio is no match to a 750mW RF output on 72 MHz radio. When out of range, error correction, unique GUID code, and the "robust" pseudo-random control sequence will do no good.
Therefore, I only fly on 72 MHz.
07-20-2012, 08:01 AM
#40
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lyndonville, VT
Posts: 3,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 72 mhz still ok?
Yes, we do have one at our field, but have found they offer little to no protection, as your channel may be clear before taking off, but someone a mile a ways turns on after you're in the air[>:]
I switched to 2.4Ghz and never looked back. No unexplained hits like I had on 72Mhz.
Pete
I switched to 2.4Ghz and never looked back. No unexplained hits like I had on 72Mhz.
Pete
07-20-2012, 08:08 AM
#41
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lyndonville, VT
Posts: 3,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 72 mhz still ok?
Normal RC operations fall well within the range of a good 2.4Ghz system, so I fail to see an advantage to 72Mhz. Our ability to see the orientation of our models is the limiting factor for range.
Pete
Pete
07-20-2012, 08:52 AM
#43
My Feedback: (2)
RE: 72 mhz still ok?
2.4 GHz radio systems have to overcome a tremendous disadvantange. The signal loss from Tx antenna to Rx antenna ("path loss") is 30 dB higher on 2.4 GHz than it is on 72 MHz. 30 dB is a factor of one thousand in power. A 2.4 GHz transmitter would have to transmit 1000 times more power than a 72 MHz transmitter in order to produce the same signal level at the receive antenna terminals.
The 2.4 GHz systems have overcome this disadvantage through the "processing gain" associated with a spread spectrum system, and by using multiple receivers, which provide polarization and spacial diversity.
I feel that aside from the interference problem, 72 MHz is a more robust system. But the interference susceptivility of a 72 MHz system is a real concern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_loss
The 2.4 GHz systems have overcome this disadvantage through the "processing gain" associated with a spread spectrum system, and by using multiple receivers, which provide polarization and spacial diversity.
I feel that aside from the interference problem, 72 MHz is a more robust system. But the interference susceptivility of a 72 MHz system is a real concern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_loss
07-20-2012, 09:43 AM
#44
My Feedback: (125)
RE: 72 mhz still ok?
Only problem I ever had with 72mhz was the time I forgot to extend my antenna.
I'm on 2.4 now that I bought the Aurora 9 for more features and wanted to stay with the same "dashboard" for all my planes.
Then again, 72mhz is only a module and antenna change away.....
I'm on 2.4 now that I bought the Aurora 9 for more features and wanted to stay with the same "dashboard" for all my planes.
Then again, 72mhz is only a module and antenna change away.....
07-20-2012, 10:49 AM
#47
RE: 72 mhz still ok?
ORIGINAL: BuschBarber
I flew 72Mhz for many years. I am now 100% over to 2.4. It is true that our Frequency Board gets very little use. We had one person, last week, that came out with 72Mhz - Ch38. He grabbed the Ch33 pin. One other person came out with 72Mhz and he was on Ch38. The guy with the Ch33 pin was shot down. Another person came out on 72Mhz who also flies on 2.4. He forgot to extend his Silver Sword. He crashed. There are newbies buying up used, cheap, high end 72Mhz radios and using them for ground vehicles. They could be in the yard next to your flying site.
There is more risk flying 72Mhz than flying 2.4 especially when it comes to interference caused by RF noise.
I flew 72Mhz for many years. I am now 100% over to 2.4. It is true that our Frequency Board gets very little use. We had one person, last week, that came out with 72Mhz - Ch38. He grabbed the Ch33 pin. One other person came out with 72Mhz and he was on Ch38. The guy with the Ch33 pin was shot down. Another person came out on 72Mhz who also flies on 2.4. He forgot to extend his Silver Sword. He crashed. There are newbies buying up used, cheap, high end 72Mhz radios and using them for ground vehicles. They could be in the yard next to your flying site.
There is more risk flying 72Mhz than flying 2.4 especially when it comes to interference caused by RF noise.
07-20-2012, 10:54 AM
#48
RE: 72 mhz still ok?
I recall that 2.4MHz radios also say they are limited to 3500 feet. That is just over the length of the runways at my old field and we flew past them all the time. And at around 120 MPH you would cover that 3500 in around 20 seconds.
07-20-2012, 11:09 AM
#49
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Middlefield,
OH
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 72 mhz still ok?
I still fly 72 Mhz. Partly because I haven't had many problems, and partly because I don't feel like buying another transmitter. Very few guys in my club still fly 72 Mhz, so I have very few worries. I have a Hitec Optic 6 with Spectra module, and I'll admit I'm tempted to get the 2.4 Ghz module, which would would pop right in there...
07-20-2012, 11:38 AM
#50
My Feedback: (48)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lone Rock,
WI
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 72 mhz still ok?
In our local club the guys fly fm/72 primarily, we have one guy who tried 2.4 and has had nothing but trouble and crashed/damaged several planes. he dumped the 2.4 and went back to fm. i have 20+ planes all on the same frequency and for me to switch everything over to 2.4 would be cost prohibitive anyway, and besides why bother if you don't have radio interference problems. And with everybody else buying 2.4 you pretty much have the sky to yourself then. its my opinion 2.4 belongs to the park flyer crowds and people that fly indoors. i wouldn't trust anything with 2.4 in it. from what i've seen at my field and from attending other local rc fly ins.