wsmalley

My Feedback: (6)

Where do you buy them? Are they difficult to install? I have a Futaba 8U-if that matters. Thanks, Bill S.

dant-RCU

My Feedback: (3)

Do a search on "rubber duck" and you will get sources plus all the info you would ever need.

Dan

emersunn-RCU

I found one at http://www.californiasailplanes.com. Very easy to install, (just attach wire to antanna post with a nut) and I think it will fit most any TX.

$25 plus shipping!

I like the look and feel of it. An essential for me beacuse I DLG.

visioneer_one

My Feedback: (506)

http://www.htantennas.com/

Shortman

My Feedback: (21)

How do you know if it works on the Futaba 9CAP? It says something about channel and model make on the price sheet???

dant-RCU

My Feedback: (3)

I use one on my 9CAP and also my Eclipse with no problems at all. The one's I use are from the company at the link visioneer_one supplied above.

Been using ducky's for a number of years with no problems.

Dan

amcross

My Feedback: (2)

Please note that duck antennas are not legal on your TRANSMITTERES unless they were type certified with the TX (JR has one that is, no one else does that i know of).

Have a crash with your transmitter, and your AMA insurance may be void, your radio warranty is void, etc....

Don't want to start an argument about whether they are OK to use, how many people do use them, etc...just wanted to be sure you're aware of the potential risks.

wsmalley

My Feedback: (6)

Interesting comment, or position. I would be interested to know the rational, reason, or 'legal implication' of using them. What if I break the standard ant. and install a new one-has that voided something? Not wishing to be be argumentative, but many things are said to be unapproved, 'illegal'-that word scares me, what law am I, or others, violating? Why, operationally or electronically, is a telescoping antenna better? Practically every transmitting device( handheld) that I can think of uses them. Bill S.

amcross

My Feedback: (2)

Hi, Bill! Happy to reply.

The rational is an FCC requirement that the eqiupment must be operated by the user in exactly the configuration it was tested and type accepted. Any antenna other than the original stock equpment provided by the manufacturer, or any other modification of any TRANSMITTING EQUIPMENT (such as a non-stock module) is against FCC regulation and voids your AMA insurance as well as your radio's warranty.

I don't believe there is a rationale regarding which is better, it is simply a matter of what is tested with the equipment. JR has chosen to have their equipment type accepted with both their stock and a rubber duck style antenna, so THAT duck antenna is legal for use in the radio.

wsmalley

My Feedback: (6)

Seems to me that the Futaba factory boys ought to think of 'testing' one for their radios! The lawyer in me could make a good lawsuit out the inherent danger of a 3' antenna in the proximity of a moving prop. the product liability of something easily broken off during a flight causing an injury, or poking someone in the eye! I would be willing to bet the FCC ruling or regulation probably was around before the advent of this type of antenna. To a point, the issue of factory 'tested' or approved is I think a valid argument, but obviously JR must have proved they work! (I would certainly call them to the witness stand). There must be a reason so many folks use the rubber duck, if they're equal to or better in operation, why use a flimsy, easily bent antenna on a $300 radio? MY 21/2 cents worth, but thank you AnnMarie, for your explanation!

amcross

My Feedback: (2)

Thanks Bill! Please know I'm not saying it is the best result, only that it is the FCC regulation. Remember, we are just "hobby users", do not pay for our frequencies and, as such, get a tad less 'FCC focus" on what might be easier for us, the users. It is VERY important to the FCC, however, that we DO NOT bleed onto the paying, primary users between our channels.

Could the antenna makers have it FCC certified? sorry, I have no idea, never got that deep into it while i was at futaba.

Warren

My Feedback: (72)

As an aside, if you are on a HAM and have a radio on 50mhz or 53Mhz you can legally change your antenna.

JPMacG

My Feedback: (2)

This is an old and well worn subject, but I will say once again that there is nothing new or better about the rubber duckie antenna. They are preferred over longer antennas for convenience to the user, not for their electrical properties. If anything, the rubber duckie is less efficient (more power turned to heat, less radiated) than the longer antenna. This is rarely if ever of any consequence, but I would guess that selling a radio with a duckie is more an invitation to litagation, not avoidance.

RCAddiction

My Feedback: (87)

JR offers their own aftermarket rubber ducky base-loaded antenna. It's highly unlikely that each of their transmitters is submitted to the FCC with both a standard and rubber duckie for qualification.

As submitted to the FCC, all radio antennae are new and in excellent condition. When we use them for RC aircraft, they tend to get dirty and oily and we don't clean them as much as we should. This reduces the contact between the extending sections and reduces performance. Rubber duckies don't have this problem (in terms of reduced performance due to normal use)

The one I use is from Smiley Antenna and I purchased it for the same $25 from Radio South. Tony Stillman knows a thing or 2 about radios and recommends it. Nice BNC connector, allows you to remove the antenna for range checks and storing in my radio case. Very nice piece.

amcross

My Feedback: (2)

"JR has chosen to have their equipment type accepted with both their stock and a rubber duck style antenna, so THAT duck antenna is legal for use in the radio."

Yes, they do and have.

Are the duck's a great, good, better, safer, cooler, whatever, antenna? I'm not arguing that in ANY direction.....but are they against FCC regulation? YES. THAT is my point.

Believe me, I spent a TON of time with this stuff when I was at Futaba. Tony, as a non-manufacturer rep, has likely not had to deal with or even really think about it....wish I were in his shoes many days while I was at futaba!

Peter Khor

My Feedback: (4)

Well, just 2 wrenches to throw in ....

1) iirc JR had not type certified they base loaded antenna with FCC - urban legend? (could not find it on FCC database)

2) about "type certifying"; say a European flyer comes to the US with a JR 3810; to fly in the US they get a 72MHz module - wouldn't the the module be type certified with 8103 radio only? Or a 9C vs. FF-9 (I see that FCC cert on the RF decks in these radios, and on the other radios with integrated RF decks, the FCC cert is for entire radio). How about those mixed brand Graupner/JR/Robbe/Futaba radios being used in the US during competition (all AMA sanctioned)? Or do all overseas flyer have to buy/use US equipment only.

RCAddiction

My Feedback: (87)

Interesting points and great question, Peter. I could be wrong, but I recall checking out the equipment list (radio, engine, plane mfr) right after the TOC, one of the pilots from Europe was listed as flying a Graupner-branded radio.

AMC, glad to see your time on the horsey farm has not slowed you down one bit. Nice to see you here on the boards. Need to update your signature, though...it says your next training session starts 3/31. Would be a long drive for me anyhow to learn how to fly, er.... ride, a horse.

Peter Khor

My Feedback: (4)

Sec. 95.647 FRS unit and R/C transmitter antennas.

"The antenna of each ... R/C station transmitting in the 72-76 MHz band, must be an integral part of the transmitter. The antenna ... must be vertically polarized."

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...2000&TYPE=TEXT

Hmm ... helically wound antennas like JR's aren't vertically polarized, are they?

amcross

My Feedback: (2)

Per JR's rep, they have certified with their base loaded.

At least with Futaba, the certification process takes into account varied models of the same radio such as 8UAF, 8UHF, FF8, etc.

Warren

My Feedback: (72)

Yes, the polarization does not change: Unless you hold your radio sideways...

JPMacG

My Feedback: (2)

Helical antennas of the size used in 72 MHz duckies are polarized the same as, and have radiation patterns similar to telescoping antennas. Very large diameter helical antennas are circularly polarized and radiate off their axes, but that diameter would be around 6 feet at 72 MHz.

Whether RC duckies/telescoping antennas are vertically polarized or horizontally polarized or something in between depends upon how the transmitter is held.

I believe the FCC's concern when evaluating a radio/antenna for Type Acceptance is that the radio/antenna puts out less than the maximum allowable RF power (EIRP) and that the radio/antenna does not put out harmonics or parasitics or adjacent channel splatter that might interfere with others. I do not believe the FCC cares how well the radio/antenna works for RC. I may be mistaken on this one.

York

We pay for our frequencies--it's called Federal Income Tax!!! Evidently you weren't aware of that?

Also--who has registered use of the 20 hertz "between" each of our channels? I wasn't aware of that. Can someone tell me what industrial devices are available at those frequencies specifically?

amcross

My Feedback: (2)

York,
There are a huge range of users between our frequencies who pay the FCC SPECIFICALLY for the allowance/use of those frequencies. These users include cell phones, pagers, and particularly construction cranes, as well as TV stations, etc. If you do a search here for a post by ladyflyer, she does a great job of telling you how to do a search on FCC for this info, and lists all the users authorized in here area alone (about 200 if i recall) that are between our channels.

Hope you find this info helpful. As I understand it, the useage by other PRIMARY users between our channels was part of the background for our narrowbanding back in 1991.

York

Thanks for the info. You do understand, however, that you and I pay for our specific frequencies as well.

amcross

My Feedback: (2)

Hi, york, just to clarify, the FCC does not pay an annual license fee for our frequencies. of course, we all pay for the FCC organization via oru taxes, whether we as people use this service, or hundreds of other government services, or not. i am assuming that is what you mean? if ont, please clarify.