While I'm going to agree with most of your post and as I said in the other thread that my perspective has changed some with our discussions. Obviously it is being done so the reliability is higher then what I had originally anticipated. I'm still going to hold my ground some and say that although some guys are successful I still have to say it's with a lesser degree of reliability. There just simply is no way you are going to install an RX with internal antennas into a metal structure and get the same signal saturation. Now you may get enough to operate the model in most environments but what about that one time when you can't? Of course this is speculation on my part but why wouldn't someone who has done his homework on this topic share what he has found? it could very well put this debate to rest could it not? My theory and it is nothing more then that is that he has discovered that he has in fact reduced his safety margin and by posting such findings he would eliminate his plausible deny ability and be open to a higher level of liability should there be an accident. Again you are correct that nobody on RCU should take what anyone says at full face value. However is what you read makes some sense then do your own investigations and deem what is safe and what is not. Obviously I am of the opinion that an all metal airframe is beyond my personal safety margin, you may not and that is perfectly fine. Then again the reason for my opinion is based on my 36 years of flying R/C and my 15 years experience in the RF industry.