ORIGINAL: rhklenke
ORIGINAL: Woketman
That is crazy. I don't care how technically superior the equipment is SUPPOSED to be, I want proof! I wanna see the signal strength or some way to KNOW how much margin I have in the link, not just blindly saying that my gear is the best.
Really? How much data did you have back in the 72 MHz days? These 2.4 links are *vastly* superior to the old 72 MHz links. I understand that
you may want the data, but I have enough experience with this kind of stuff to know that I, personally, don't need to see it. That's not "crazy," its just my opinion - based on a lot of experience.
Probably the difference is that I see FASST work way beyond the distance that I can see a 13' wingspan aircraft on a routine basis, and that's plenty of proof to me and tells me *much* more that a record of signal strength on a typical RC flight ever would. YMMV...
Bob
I have to respectfully disagree, I would much rather have the information telling me that the link is good rather than blind faith based on the system's good performance history. Don't forget, that even though you have never experienced an RF link failure with Futaba, other people have , many of them having many successful flights before the one failure.
I flew JR/Spektrum DSM2 in all my planes for years and it performed flawlessly. I switched the jets to Weatronic for the added features and security but, still fly the giant aerobatic stuff on DSM2 with never a glitch. Still I can't discount the fact that other's have had failures.
I'm sure Weatronic can fail too but, the difference is you will know what happened or what didn't happen ie. battery failure, servo lock up etc.
Mike