Register

If this is your first visit, please click the Sign Up now button to begin the process of creating your account so you can begin posting on our forums! The Sign Up process will only take up about a minute of two of your time.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 140

  1. #51

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    4,754
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4

    Regarding Crimped vs Soldered, I think you will find that there are many who feel that Crimped is better.

    Regarding the radio, there are a number of Brand Names offering 2.4 products. JR/Spektrum and Futaba probably have the largest market share in the US, but there more new names every day. As the number of competitive products hitting the market increases, down go the prices.

    I have flown 72Mhz for 31 years and to me. 2.4 is the way to go, for now. I am sure that in the not to distant future, even newer technologies will replace 2.4. I feel that 72Mhz is increasingly risky due to the increasing lack of concern over Frequency Control and the number of older 72Mhz systems being sold for cheap. For some, it may be a short term way to afford outfitting their fleet with inexpensive higher end Tx's and Rx's, but it is not the long term way to go.

    I am still Half 72Mhz and Half 2.4Ghz because of cost, but I will not spend another dollar on 72Mhz.

    I love going to my flying field and being able to turn on my Tx whenever I need to, without fear of shooting someone else down or them shooting me down. Is there a chance I might suffer from some kind of Interference? Yes!! But after years of battling with RF noise and waiting for the pin, it is well worth the risk.

    Ham bands are no safer than 72Mhz, so that is not a long term option either.

    Since there are no 3rd party Rx offerings on 2.4, once you choose the Tx you like, you have to use the same brand Rx's, unless you use a 3rd party Module in your Tx, which would still require you to use the 3rd parties Rx.

    Pick the brand you like with the features that suit your needs and the After the Sale Warranty and Service that you can trust.
    Rich
    byronf16@gmail.com

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Savoy, IL
    Posts
    4
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4

    I use both 72 and 2.4, I can't see why one can't change slowly over.

  3. #53
    pilotpete2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lyndonville, VT
    Posts
    2,916
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4

    You mean I'm not alone
    Thanks,
    Pete

    Defiantly flying with my antenna at 90dg across the back of the Tx, both with a FASST module and a Spektrum DM8 with 2.2dbi on the back of the module
    \"If the woman don\'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'t find you handsome, they should at least find you handy\"

    [Red Green]

  4. #54
    JoeAirPort's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    10,259
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4

    I love going to field and just flying, not waiting for open frequencies. I also like not worrying about losing a $2000+ aircraft to shoot downs. Mine was a no-brainer. Spectrum sold me a Futaba 9C 2.4G module and 7 channel reciever for $110. I liked it so much I bought another for my other large gas plane. Not a single problem with either one. But then again I know how to select the proper batteries for my planes. Some people don't and blame 2.4G. If I ever want to use my 72Mhz tx module I just pull out the 2.4G and snap in the 72Mhz. Both modules' antenna's are quick connect.

    This year was 2.4G. Next year will be A123. This hobby just keeps getting better technology. Why not use it? I can't think of a reason other than money. But the money is less when you consider the risk of losing a large gas air plane to some bozo turning on his transmitter while you are flying (and I could have been that bozo to another guy.....not any more). Also the 2.4G is more noise immune. I just waited until the bugs were out. It's a no brainer today.
    Joe AP

  5. #55

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Country Club Hills, IL
    Posts
    58
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4

    Onewasp. Great way to Defend 2.4!
    Polishedbrother

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Bradenton, FL
    Posts
    2,060
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4

    Same thing here LollyPopper. There are 6 guys that fly pretty regular at our field. Everybody but 2 of us went to 2.4s. I'm just fine with my "antique radio" I try to kept 6 or 7 planes ready to fly ( I don't get bored that way). I can't see putting a 100 extra bucks each in them for the RXs. That'll buy another kit !!!!
    Too much horsepower- Just right !!!

  7. #57
    Cobra1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Monrovia, MD
    Posts
    561
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4

    I am "testing" 2.4 on my foamy right now but have it in installed in a 50cc gasser that i have ground test only so far. As with other people, I have 6 72MHz rcvrs and they all work. As long as they are legal and work well, I will continue to use them. I too believe 2.4g is the wave of the future, but there is no reason for me to do a wholesale change over. If I was starting today, 2.4g and giant scale gassers all the way!!!

  8. #58
    rager24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Pasadena, MD
    Posts
    81
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4

    I went to 2.4 over a year ago with my 12z
    I have never had anything not work
    And yes you have have the cost of the new rx's but I did it one at a time, witch makes not feel so bad
    A123 packs are the way to go, they charge fast put out a high voltage that stays steady, and you don't need a reg
    I'm using a fma cellpro to charge them just plug it in and in 10 to 15 mins all charged and ready to go.

    www.deadstickgraphics.com
    For all your graphic needs
    Make your plane a stand out at the field

  9. #59
    Gringo Flyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Formosa, ARGENTINA
    Posts
    2,370
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4

    I don't upgrade because I've never had any problems with my current setup.

    Also, you can get 72 rxs super cheap now from people who are upgrading. I have bought several like new rxs for $15 or less.
    \"Courage is being scared to death...and saddling up anyway.\"---John Wayne

    Roll Tide Roll!!!!

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Crestwood, IL
    Posts
    246
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4

    I just picked up the Spektrum module & rx for $110.00 that I'll put in one of my radios. I'll use the other radio on 72 MHZ to fly my current planes but any new planes I get will be on Spektrum. Can't afford to convert them all at once.
    Revver #75
    \"Speed Kills............but it happens so fast you won\'t feel a thing!\"


    (Quote By C.H.L

  11. #61

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    San Tan Valley, AZ
    Posts
    5,015
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4

    Did you know you can get a 27mhz AM set for practically nothing? In fact I have a TX I will sell for $5. I used it for many years and never had a failure. You will have the pin all to yourself.
    I don't have any receivers though. I sold them all when I went to 72mhz.
    dirty old men need love too.

  12. #62

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    altamonte springs, FL
    Posts
    13
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4

    Hi, I simply must respond to the discussion because I have been very involved in 2.4 testing of about everything out there except Airtronics(would love to test it). AMAs efforts in securingmodel freqs has been marvelous. Our exclusive 72x meg freqs has worked very well. The intro of 2.4 is awesome. We don't even have to worry about casual flyers flying on the street corner and this new revolution bodes well for our hobby. I have tested all Spektrum. Jr and some Futaba with excellent results. They offer a new freedom from shootdowns, ease of operations, tighter control loops and elimination of EMF as a problem. flying is simple just turn on and fly if the sky isn't too crowded. Range is excellent and reliability of eqpmt excellent. We don't even have to worry about the casual flyers flying on the street corners. To be successful 2.4 eqpmt should have multiple antennas placed in different positions to assure a good rf connect in all flight attitudes. I have flown equipment in over a dozen models of all types withexcellent results. If you are contemplating buying new eqpmt buy 2.4. There is no panic to move from 72 since that eqpmt still works well in this environment. I have flown r/c since the 50's and am extremely gratified to see the hobby mature and the technology reach new heights. What can I sayI love this hobby and now its even better technically and its vitally feeding the onrush of UAV's for untold utility

  13. #63

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Bowling Green, KY
    Posts
    2,487
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4

    Why should we care what reasons anyone has for upgrading or not. These type of threads to me are a waist of time. They almost appear to be for the sole reason to start a argument.We make our own decisions about what we do for our own reasons. The new systems are on the market. More are being sold then the older 72. Why else would the used market for 72 be so cheap. I do know one thing for sure. If you like to fly at events you will upgrade. There are very few 72 showing up and the impounding of radios will be a thing of the past. Yes, I know you'll say if I'm the only one there so what. But can you control what is in the air one mile down the road. Don't forget E-Bay. 72 is for planes, but the users don't have to be club members or even AMA to be legal. Dennis
    DadstoysRC. I fly what I sell
    CD Vette City Big Bird

  14. #64
    nonstoprc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central, TX
    Posts
    2,391
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4

    One advantage of 2.4 over 72 is that the response time of the control surfaces become much fast (with 2.4). This open the opportunity to improve precision acrobatics skills where a small correction can be made quickly and almost invisible. I do not think one can do the same with the 72 equipment.

    So in my opinion, to become a better pilot, upgrade to 2.4 is a good option.

    The other reason is that this hobby is so addictive that one has to try the best equipment (such as 2.4) available.

    Where facts are few, experts are many.
    Perfection is God\'\'\'\'s business.

  15. #65

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Posts
    270
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4

    I guess I'm one of those in-between 72 mHz and 2.4gHz. I have 4 Transmitters and 23 Good Futaba Receivers on 72 mHz that I fly quite often. I also have a 2.4 Specktrum 6 with 2 receivers in Electric airplanes that I built and a 6 channel Futaba Fasst 2.4 with 2 receivers in additional Electric powered models that I built. I load up lots of models and spend the day at our beautiful flying field. [8D] (1.3 miles from my home)

    I bought the 2.4 Systems because of the small receivers and stub Antenna on the Transmitter. I didn't need the 2.4 due to interference or any frequency conflict, I haven't had a problem with 72 mHz Futaba Systems for the last 15-20 years. I just wanted the 2.4 because I hadn't bought a new radio for 5-6 years.

    I won't be changing over to total 2.4 gHz, I won't live that long, I don't even buy Green Bananas any more.[sm=tired.gif]

    Ken AMA 1528
    kbkopy

  16. #66

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Country Club Hills, IL
    Posts
    58
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4

    Don lowe, amen!
    Polishedbrother

  17. #67

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    São Carlos, BRAZIL
    Posts
    117
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4


    ORIGINAL: rager24

    A123 packs are the way to go, they charge fast put out a high voltage that stays steady, and you don't need a reg

    I agree that the A123 is the best way to go, but UNREGULATED?
    If you go 2sXp, you get 7.2v when the baterry is toped off, agread that some servos are ok with that,
    to me that best part of using regulated output voltage is that:
    1. I can be sure I'm not stresing my eletronics that much
    2. I can use "4.8 only" servos safely(just not on gyro servos, in gyro aplication)
    3. The servos speed is constant if it's the first flight of the day, or the last (Not that I would be able to notice the diference )
    I get enough exercise just pushing my luck and jumping to conclusions

  18. #68
    JoeAirPort's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    10,259
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4


    ORIGINAL: Gutaaaooo


    ORIGINAL: rager24

    A123 packs are the way to go, they charge fast put out a high voltage that stays steady, and you don't need a reg

    I agree that the A123 is the best way to go, but UNREGULATED?
    If you go 2sXp, you get 7.2v when the baterry is toped off, agread that some servos are ok with that,
    to me that best part of using regulated output voltage is that:
    1. I can be sure I'm not stresing my eletronics that much
    2. I can use "4.8 only" servos safely(just not on gyro servos, in gyro aplication)
    3. The servos speed is constant if it's the first flight of the day, or the last (Not that I would be able to notice the diference )
    A123 won't be at 7.2V for more than a few seconds. Just like my NiMh 5-cell packs don't stay at 7V for very long. A123 spends most of its time at 6.6V and doesn't change much from there. So no regulators are needed. I will never use a regulator on any of my planes. Just another current bottle neck and failure point.
    Joe AP

  19. #69

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    4,754
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4

    I like A123 because you can run UnRegulated. An exception is when I use JR791 Retract Servos. They will not work properly above 5v. I confirmed this with Horizon. There are a few other servos that won't work at 6v, but not many.
    Rich
    byronf16@gmail.com

  20. #70
    rmh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    , UT
    Posts
    12,597
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4

    I remember when I got my first car with hydraulic brakes
    What a difference
    I was constantly jacking up the '34 coupe - and tweaking the "drag" on each wheel - even then the darn things were dodgy.
    When I switched from 50/72 -radios -to the 2.4 .,the change just as profound .
    Control was much more precise and Ihad no more concerns about properly tuned systems or PCM/Z/S PPM etc.,
    Night n day improvement.
    The part that is a bit amusing to me , is that many see the switch as simply a resolve of the old frequency conflict issue.
    Libby is still watching you

  21. #71

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Twin Cities, MN
    Posts
    741
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4


    ORIGINAL: tankertoad

    Here WAS my set up when it failed:

    Batt: Expert 2700mah nimh on a heavy-duty switch.
    Tx/Rx: Spektrum DSM2 Airmod on a Futaba 9C/AR7000 remote Rx spaced on 12"extension mounted 90 degrees off the primary Rx
    Servos: 5 Digital/High-torque
    Battery condition after failure: Batt volts - 6.5 used 370 Mah
    Plane was pointed at me, at ~300 ft, wings level, pitch level. I lost control for 3-5 secs. The plane went to fail safe. The throttle went to idle and the nose dropped until at about 200 ft, I was able to re-gain control and land.

    Should I have not had a loss of signal? Absolutely. Did I have one for longer than it takes to click a stop watch? Absolutely
    Only way to properly diagnose what happened is use one of the data loggers. The NEW version of the AR7000 is data log capable. Old ones are not. All the AR9000 receivers can do this.

    Additionally, all Spektrum receivers can have the quick connect feature updated via firmware. If you doubt your AR7000 has this, send it in to Horizon. They'll do the update for no charge.

    Also, you use the DSM2 module for your 9C TX. Do you orient the TX antenna perpendicular to the aircraft? Means if you hold the TX parallel with the ground (most of us do), then bend the TX antenna so it's pointing straight up, perpendicular to the ground.

  22. #72

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    lebanon, NJ
    Posts
    437
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4

    I try not to get too jacked out of shape trying to understand what frequency /band an individual flies on.

    What matters to me is the person's field presence. How well does he build or in the case of ARFs , assemble his ships ? Does he struggle to get his engine to run properly?

    Once in the air , does he show a skill level that commands respect from his fellow modelers. Many of the most accomplished and precision flyers ( even world level ) are not using 2.4.

    Reasons will always vary. It's a personal thing . I own a V-8 car; my neighbor drives a Prius. Big deal.

    Let's stop infering that all non-2.4 flyers are knucleheads.

  23. #73
    RSEA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Posts
    715
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4

    I have an RC submarine. 2.4Ghz is UNUSABLE for submarines, as the signal is too high frequency to penetrate water.. Because of this I have no choice other than to use 75Mhz radios for submarine use. The subs won't even work when they are running on the surface.. This is because the VERY SHORT (LENGTH) 2.4Ghz antenna will almost always be beneath the water line, even when the sub is surfaced. This is an example of an RC application that 2.4 is totally unsuitable for and never will be.
    Ultimo Comandante della Tigre

  24. #74

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    San Tan Valley, AZ
    Posts
    5,015
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4


    ORIGINAL: RSEA

    I have an RC submarine. 2.4Ghz is UNUSABLE for submarines, as the signal is too high frequency to penetrate water.. Because of this I have no choice other than to use 75Mhz radios for submarine use. The subs won't even work when they are running on the surface.. This is because the VERY SHORT (LENGTH) 2.4Ghz antenna will almost always be beneath the water line, even when the sub is surfaced. This is an example of an RC application that 2.4 is totally unsuitable for and never will be.
    Are you able to control it with the sub under water? I would not think that would be possible even on 75.
    dirty old men need love too.

  25. #75
    JollyPopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Mountain Home, AR
    Posts
    2,147
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Reason for not upgrading to 2.4

    All you 2.4 users who are complaining that they can't even "give" their old 72 MHz stuff away, put your radios where your complaints are. I am actively looking for a good 72 MHz Futaba or Hitec computerized system. Onewasp, you said you couldn't even get $10.00 for a good reciever and you were gonna give your stuff to a neighborhood kid. Post your stuff here. If you have something I can use, I will give you a fair price for it.
    \"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; In practice, there is\"

    Intolerance is not to be tolerated


Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:45 AM.

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.