ORIGINAL: Campgems
ORIGINAL: cappaj1
Speaking of range, which radios in general are supposed to have more of it between 2.4 GHz and 72 MgHz? I would think the shorter wavelengths of 2.4 GHz would make it travel a shorter distance but that's just a wild guess.
A lot depends on the TX and RX. Both have park flyer verisions, meaning short range. With the 72mhz, the receiver/antenna plays a bigger role in the range.
One point I would like to point out. 2.4 is really line of site. We have several areas close in around our field that you can drop out of site and with luck not crash. More than one time, I've dipped below the hill and was lucky enough that I was able to pull it back up and in the air. With 2.4, that isn't going to happen. If you drop below a hill or the likes, it's a goner. If you can see it, the radio is off line.
Don
ah, the perpetuation of misinformation. Gotta love it.
The wave properties of any radio signal will allow the signal to bend around objects. Sure, at such a high frequency and shorter wavelength, the bending of the wave will be substantially less than with 72 mhz, but it will, none the less, bend around objects. Any 2.4 ghz wireless telephone will work through and around walls in the house. And I guarantee you our transceivers are much stronger than the ones found in wireless household phones. I'm not arguing that the 2.4 ghz won't bend as well as the 72, but to call it absolutely line of sight is simply incorrect. Even as such, that would be a terrible reason to pick 72 mhz over 2.4 ghz. The odds of you actually flying a plane that you can't see successfully are low anyway. Again, not saying it can't happen, but not likely.
If it were truly "line of sight" then anytime someone inadvertantly walked in front of your radio while you were flying, you'd lose your airplane, since the radio would no longer have a line of sight to the model.