RE: what 2.4 article
 

I read these posts and maybe there is a problem on 2.4 I still fly most of my planes on 72 but I do own 3 very BASIC 2.4 radios the 2 that I have used in elc. models work fine the other is nib. but one of the things I have learned from reading these argument's about 2.4 is that the rec. get installed differently I guess you DON'T wrap a 2.4 rx completly in foam like you would a rx on 72 because of heat and I wonder how many guy's are reading the inst. that came with the radio and just installing their rx's like they would a rx on 72.
I have an idea for a rx mount that MIGHT reduce vibration and increase cooling a bit to the rx if anyone is interested. Greg

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Don;t think any manufacturer makes a transmitter on 72 anymore. The horse is out of the barn..... Yes, 2.4 will probably be replaced.....in the future just as 27 mHz, wideband 72, etc.

The article in MA notes that on 72, we are primary users of the frequency. On 2.4, we are secondary. But if everyone else;s transmitters play fair, we should be OK. Most everyone at our field has been on 2.4 in the last year. Yes....there have been crashes, but none I know of that can be attributed to 2.4. Several were due to taking off on the wrong airplane program...should have had Spektrum Model Match. Another was due to the use of a LiPo transmitter battery that was not charged for months "because it was supposed to last all season" The typical dumb stuff that everyone has been doing on 72 also. Plus, no one has been shot down by someone who accidently turned on transmitter without a pin. With planes getting more and more expensive, this was certainly a worry as everyone does not think first.....

Given a choice between 72 and 2.4, I think most would go to 2.4 and this is supported by the wallet. If there was still a market for 72, someone would be making it and selling it. 72 is going to go by the wayside like buggy whips. It did great service for a number of years, but time and technology march on.....

bob

RE: what 2.4 article
 

I wasn't trying to dispel "the 2.4 issue," and saying that what I said enhances your point, seems like wishful thinking. BTW, it seems like you like to generalize and say that there's an issue with the entire 2.4 technology. I guess some systems are working out some kinks, so by that logic, all systems are having the same problems. I must be one of those weird exceptions to the rule, because none of my 2.4 systems have had any problems. I have Futaba in my good cars, cheapo 2.4 in my cheap cars, and Airtronics in my planes.

I've read the same things, but it seems to be limited to a few of the big name brands. Then, of course, you also have the many many people who crash and just assume that it was the radio.

You must be looking at that big picture through conspiracy colored glasses. Please stop spreading FUD.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

This is wrong on both accounts and brings the rest of the article into question. On 72 we were absolutely secondary users and had to accept all interference that may have happened from primary users. Hence some folks had channels that could not be used around certain TV stations or pager stations.

On 2.4 we are users just like everyone else we are on the unlicensed ISM band. In the United States of America, uses of the ISM bands are governed by Part 18 of the FCC rules, while Part 15 contains the rules for unlicensed communication devices, even those that use the ISM frequencies.

This seems to be a huge error if in fact the article states such. I wish my MA would show up already!!!

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Did I miss it? Just what is this new technology that is being tested that will replace the 2.4 systems we are now using? I also do not see planes dropping out of the sky because of radio problems. I still use 72 and 2.4 and have converted my JR radios to 3 different venders. Hitec, Extreme Link and DSM2, and have only had problems with the DSM2. The DSM2 acts just like a bad unturned 72 RX. This problem is only at one of the flying fields that I fly at and that is just a simple fix, don fly it there. I keep the DSM2 only for the small planes that are Bind and Fly. I am VERY happy with all 3 … 2.4 systems. I am confused about the statement that 72 is safer than 2.4. The one big fear is someone turning on the same frequency when you are flying on 72 and for that on issue I think that the 2.4 has saved planes and may be some lives. With all the new comers flying the new electrics just stop and think if these newbie’s were flying at parks and fields next to you with everyone on 72. How many of you remember back a few years flying at an AMA field and heard in the distance another model engine and had to land only to hunt down the rouge flyer that did not know about the flying field and frequency control. Guys you cannot here the new electrics. At the fields I fly at the frequency boards are virtually unused. We have more pilots and flights than ever all on 2.4. I just do not here “I don’t have it “anymore. Everyone back on 72, WOW if that is where we are headed I am getting out. The changeover to 2.4 went better than the 1991 narrow band 50 channel systems. That was a big mess. Our hobby has grown and I just do not see at the field the problem with 2.4. I am glad we have what we have, love every flight on 2.4. I also fly at more none AMA fields, indoors and in my back yard knowing that I will not take anyone out. Every flight I know that I will not be shot out of the air. My Hitec and Extreme Link systems are so far working great. I guess my 2.4 stuff will end up in my pile of old Kraft RC junk. On to the next system, just hope it is offered as a plug upgrade. RC is becoming more and more like the Smart phone market.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

I've heard for the past several years that there "might" be issues with 2.4, but then again don't we all blame the radio with things happen.  I'm still on 72 , and plan to upgrade (don't seem like I have a choice) but like all new techno, there's a few bugs.  I don't see these Manufactures coming out and saying there's a problem with 2.4, even if there is.  I really don't seem them bringin back 72 either.  So what's next? You know they have a fallback plan, they have too.  Way to much money involved, and it's such a market, they can't afford to go backwards financially. 

I'll keep my 9CAP Futaba, till they come out with something I feel better with.  It'll probably end up a 2.4 system.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

The articles I see are all theoretical. Most 2.4 radios have a very safe way of communicating and eliminating interferences.
I don't see any practical test or prove for the 'problems' with our systems.
A crowded area with lots of 'traffic' in the 2.4 Ghz band might cause some delays in the transmission, but those are minor.
So these 'experts' tell us about specific problem you could possibly experience in this wave lenght.
Our radios are safe to use - they have been around for a number of years and they have very few problems - I can't say that about the 72 Mhz systems.
I had no trouble with my radio and do not see any reason to replace it.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

I would guess that at least 75% of the modelers in the USA are using 2.4 I know that the number will vary some according to location, About two years ago
I visited a field in the Tampa Florida area andlot of flyers were still on 72mhz while in Calif at that timemost of the folksI fly with including myself were
and still are on 2.4.

Other than a certain brand and I think we all know who I have in mind I just have not heard many complaints about problems with loosing radio link with
2.4 interesting enough the brand i'm thinking of did a upgrade with their system earlier this year and I have not heard any problems from that camp lately
either. I think also that many of the problems that we previously heard of such as brown outs and receivers overheating had nothing to do with 2.4
techology but more to do with quality control and design of the product.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

There is no playing fair on 2.4 GHz because there are no rules. That aside the frequency is too high. All it takes is for some large person to walk between the transmitter and your plane. Lower frequecies will bend and reflect around that person. Also it would be nice if there were some rules on how the spread spectrum system works, or a broader band.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

No, we ARE the primary users. They have made broadcast systems tune their stations for this before. It is not a high priority because we are not comercial and they are but we are the primary users. On 2.4 there is no primary user.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

No one is saying we go back to 72, at least not single channel 72. Maybe a spread spectrum or frequency hopping 72. But more likely some other band.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

So since you stick to the old technology, does this mean that you will not be participating in buying the "new perfect technology" that you know so much about?

All technology is flawed. Mostly its the users fault. A hammer and a chisel can be very effective and safe in some hands, dangerous in other hands, they still let anyone buy them. The companies cant be there to review everyone that buy their equipment, nor can they install it in their model craft for them. They can and do (the good ones) offer tech. support for people that need it.

Remember Windows 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista, and 7 were all released being the big "fix" for its predacessor. Then people got "smart" and bought macs cause they didn't get viruses (whatever, they just hadn't been targeted yet). Its all hype. You should use what works for yourself. If the AMA wants to come to BFE oklahoma to take my 2.4 system, power to them... (My dog will eat them first)!!!

As for the companies putting 2.4 out there early just to make a buck.... THATS BUSINESS!!!! Keep up or get left behind. The companies have to make money in order to bring us new products. They aren't like the solar and wind generator companies that get huge government subsidies to produce products that cost more than they sell them for.

As for your precious aircrafts, don't fly them and they will never crash.... Sounds boring...

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Is this actually true, or is it one of those, "I heard from a friend who, had a brother, who knew a guy who lost his plane because of..."?

RE: what 2.4 article
 

If the AMA wants to come to BFE oklahoma to take my 2.4 system, power to them... (My dog will eat them first)!!!

Partisan, Woodward is not BFE, maybe Mutual or Sharon, those places are BFE.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Why is someone walking in front of a pilot, this is a big distraction to the pilot and this is just unsafe for many reasons. As far as the human blocking the 2.4 signal I did test this because I had a situation where a student lost control on a landing approach and we had thought that he stepped forward and blocked my master TX. I later took up the plane and had it on the same flight path and we were unable to get the plane to lose control by having someone moving in front of the TX. So for me this myth is busted.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

      The propagation characteristics of 2.4GHz wavelength is directional. Therefore, it is a bad choice to control model airplanes since we can not focus a high gain directional parabolic dish antenna between our constantly moving model airplanes and our transmitters we have to use an omnidirectional vertical antenna system which has a much lower signal intensity. Furthermore, our signals now scatter and diffract from objects and from the terrain cousing interference.
      2.4GHz radios under harsh conditions work most of the time, however, MOST OF THE TIME IS UNACCEPTABLE.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

if that person was tall enough that his midsection passed between the tx antenna and the rx antennas, maybe. probably have to stay there for a small bit of time as well, for it to be noticeable. have to be someone with a LOT of water mass(nice way of saying very fat).

RE: what 2.4 article
 

So far I haven't read anything in this thread to dispel what Dave Horvath has written, nor has it solved the issues that the 2.4 radio is having. If the 2.4 radio has no problems, then why am I reading everywhere that people are having issues with them? Why are there so many warnings about them? Why are 2.4 radios suffering from brown and blackouts? Why don't people heed the warnings?

Pete
[/quote]

Really? You didn't read about how the author doesn't have the technical knowledge to evaluate the technology? And you didn't read about how the article fails to state a single verifiable statistic to support its premise? Overall (the point I made) you didn't read about how the article is based on useless research (if you can even call it that) and draws conclusions that the data simply does not demand? You must not read much.

72mhz wasn't and isn't perfect either. There are plenty of issues with that technology, yet you aren't calling for people to abandon it. Why the double standard? If you're having a radio problem, you might do some testing and try to figure out exactly what the issue is then get in touch with the manufacturer.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

The human body can block 2.4 signals to a small degree but as far as causing a crash highly unlikley,I suppose if a large person was tostand right in front of
your antenna for a long time and your model was way out you may see a glitch.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

[/quote]


The brown out problem was only with the early JR/Spktrum systems and has been corrected also it was not a 2.4 problem but a problem with the receiver design.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

The same thing was said about 72, don’t point the antenna at the plane you will lose control. Never found it to be true either. Just because a text book describes a wave pattern to help understand different systems, in the real world may perform differently. The diagram showing the wave pattern for 72 had a big cone where there was no signal and if the antenna really did have this large area of no signal we would never been able to fly at all on 72. Still, why anyone big enough the block your signal standing in front of a TX, you would not be able to see the plane. I do not fly behind fences, people, trees or bushes no matter what type of system.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Your not the only one. Does UAV mean anything to you and I.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Guy,

You are sounding like a conspiracy theorist. You makea vague problem statement (people go missing), then blame it on a problem with technology you can't explain or don't fully understand(UFO), then site anecdotes of planes crashing (Alien Abduction) with any real proof of actual causal events.
Com on, get real, all technlogy will be replaced by something better, so yes its obvious that 2.4GHz SS radio's will go the way of the dinosaur in time. Theres no revelation in that POV.
If the AMA has information on a serious problem with 2.4 Technology then they are committing a crime by allowing it to continue to be used because it ISa public safety issue. The 2.4 technology has allowed for growth in the park flying market. There s probably more Rc flyers out there no than there ever was on old FM systems simply because of the lack of the need for frequency control. The fact that FM systems needed to be controlled very strictly infers that it was an inferior technology.
Yours and the article in MAN simply holds little water when looked at objectively and through enquiring eyes.

YOu make the obviosu point that 2.4 will be replaced in time. Well I never would have thought that was possible WOWDude. Thats insightful even my fortune teller missed that one. Her crystal ball must be worn out or perhaps its receiving interference from your new "Secret" technology.

Some obviosu points:
2.4 is imperfect
2.4 is an improvement over FM and derivatives
2.4 is good enough to allow multiple pilots to fly together
2.4 will be replaced by something better in time.

In the mean time I'm going flying with my thus far glitch free FASST2.4 radio system.

One thing I say in strong defense of 2.4 systems, is that its robustness highlights how many people in our hobby should really take a course on RC airplane construction, installation and set up. There are many poorly assembled/built ARF's, plan builts, and scratch builts taking to the air.Probably symptomatic of peoples general impatience and limited time but if our clubs have safety officers and if those folk conducted a safety inspection on all new and "to be Maidened" aircraft, as well as random checks on planes flying at a club, there would be fewer accidents.
Unfortunately, 2.4 has made us lazy so preflights are merely a glance to check that we did not forget the glow driver at home.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH OBERST

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Well... that makes two

:D