what 2.4 article
11-02-2011 | 12:35 PM
#351
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Aguanga,
CA
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
If we had done that in the 70's there would be no R/C today except for a few small toys.
ORIGINAL: sheograth
How about we leave issues regarding airwaves to the FCC, and go out and enjoy flying planes or something, what a concept.
How about we leave issues regarding airwaves to the FCC, and go out and enjoy flying planes or something, what a concept.
If we had done that in the 70's there would be no R/C today except for a few small toys.
I would have been flying with a Technician Class operators license on a ham band above 30 MHz, just as Ihave been while using a license free part of the spectrum at 72 MHz that is designated for R/C use (among other purposes). Lot's of other folks did (and do) just to avoid shoot-downs by other modelers on 72 MHz or standing in line for a frequency pin.
11-04-2011 | 09:41 AM
#352
RE: what 2.4 article
Is this still going on ? I just want to know what to fly with, I have some nice planes, and don't want to see them go down for any reason. So Please give me an answer. Stay with 72 or go to 2.4 all together. I have been flying for a long time. I think in 30 years I went in twice.. One because of a battery dieing when I put the gear down to land. DONE!! One othe time a crystal went bad in my reveiver.. Other than a few glitches in certin spots all was well.. Now with metal all in my body I had to go to 2.4. Some how I was interfering with the 72Mhz band.. I only want a good solid answer. If we have to go back to the 72 Mhz I will have to quit flying!! So if that happens hit me up I will have some planes for sale haha.. Thanks guy's 
11-04-2011 | 10:23 AM
#353
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Aguanga,
CA
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: warbird72
Is this still going on ? I just want to know what to fly with, I have some nice planes, and don't want to see them go down for any reason. So Please give me an answer. Stay with 72 or go to 2.4 all together. I have been flying for a long time. I think in 30 years I went in twice.. One because of a battery dieing when I put the gear down to land. DONE!! One othe time a crystal went bad in my reveiver.. Other than a few glitches in certin spots all was well.. Now with metal all in my body I had to go to 2.4. Some how I was interfering with the 72Mhz band.. I only want a good solid answer. If we have to go back to the 72 Mhz I will have to quit flying!! So if that happens hit me up I will have some planes for sale haha.. Thanks guy's
Is this still going on ? I just want to know what to fly with, I have some nice planes, and don't want to see them go down for any reason. So Please give me an answer. Stay with 72 or go to 2.4 all together. I have been flying for a long time. I think in 30 years I went in twice.. One because of a battery dieing when I put the gear down to land. DONE!! One othe time a crystal went bad in my reveiver.. Other than a few glitches in certin spots all was well.. Now with metal all in my body I had to go to 2.4. Some how I was interfering with the 72Mhz band.. I only want a good solid answer. If we have to go back to the 72 Mhz I will have to quit flying!! So if that happens hit me up I will have some planes for sale haha.. Thanks guy's
You seemed to have figured out what works best for you under your special circumstances (the metal in your body). I don't think anyone is better qualified to make your decision than the one you have made based on your experiences. You want a guarantee, or what?
11-04-2011 | 10:29 AM
#354
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: cj_rumley
Maybe not for you, but..........
I would have been flying with a Technician Class operators license on a ham band above 30 MHz, just as Ihave been while using a license free part of the spectrum at 72 MHz that is designated for R/C use (among other purposes). Lot's of other folks did (and do) just to avoid shoot-downs by other modelers on 72 MHz or standing in line for a frequency pin.
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
If we had done that in the 70's there would be no R/C today except for a few small toys.
ORIGINAL: sheograth
How about we leave issues regarding airwaves to the FCC, and go out and enjoy flying planes or something, what a concept.
How about we leave issues regarding airwaves to the FCC, and go out and enjoy flying planes or something, what a concept.
If we had done that in the 70's there would be no R/C today except for a few small toys.
I would have been flying with a Technician Class operators license on a ham band above 30 MHz, just as Ihave been while using a license free part of the spectrum at 72 MHz that is designated for R/C use (among other purposes). Lot's of other folks did (and do) just to avoid shoot-downs by other modelers on 72 MHz or standing in line for a frequency pin.
11-04-2011 | 10:37 AM
#355
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Aguanga,
CA
RE: what 2.4 article
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
Well you would have had only a few flyers and probably no club, because only a few would be able to use the ham band. And I am thinking the AMA had some input on the ham band as well.
Well you would have had only a few flyers and probably no club, because only a few would be able to use the ham band. And I am thinking the AMA had some input on the ham band as well.
11-04-2011 | 03:07 PM
#356
My Feedback: (15)
RE: what 2.4 article
it is more than possible, that, without the intervention of the AMA back in the late 80s to get the 50 72 meg freqs, we might have had spread spectrum equipment a decade or 2 sooner. the tech existed back then, in infancy, but was being used for inventory control in industrial situations. who really knows what was actually a good thing, or a bad thing.
