what 2.4 article
 

I didnt get an article about 2.4 frequency.Is there something going on that I should know about???

RE: what 2.4 article
 

somebody else may know what yer referencing, but, i will need more data to have any idea.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Same here. ME TOO! :D

RE: what 2.4 article
 

No...the leader members have all the important issues covered. You need not worry.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

http://www.modelairplanenews.com/blo...he-discussion/

The AMA is well aware of all the 2.4 problems. I don't doubt that it won't be long when the 2.4 radio's will be replaced again by the mHz band.


Pete

RE: what 2.4 article
 

wrong!!!!

RE: what 2.4 article
 

LOL! Yea, OK.


Pete

RE: what 2.4 article
 

no disrespect just respectfully disagree.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

I have inside info that I can't talk about. Lets just say I know something that the public doesn't know and we'll leave it at that. Just save your money and don't buy any more 2.4 radios.


Pete

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Isn't this a popular ruse on 3rd grade playgrounds? "I know something you don't know!!"

RE: what 2.4 article
 

This argument always sounds and smells the same. Do you have any verifiable information, or just an agenda to push?
<br type="_moz" />

RE: what 2.4 article
 

lol.yeah it does remind me of kindergarten days.I dont let things like this get to me...I got shot down more than a few times using my old 72..,the 2.4 is a vast improvement and whatever the issue I am sure it will be addressed.I dont see us going back to edsels and model T fords either.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

I get the same nonsense when I started flying electric planes a few years back and now our club president has several of them and to add insult tries to give me advice .really .?

RE: what 2.4 article
 

The conversations about 2.4 remind me of the same discussion about fuel injection 20+ years ago. The traditionalists weren't ever going to buy a car with all that "computer controlled junk" on it!

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Despite the impressive looking references, the blog was pretty sophomoric. For example comparison of signal path loss between 72 MHz and 2.4 GHz is made as if the signaling design were the same. No consideration given to the gain due to SS, which pretty much nullifies everything else.
You don't need to be involved in the RF comms industry to spot bogus facts cited. An example is the discussion regarding latency where he states "A seven millisecond latency or a fourteen millisecond latency claim is irrelevant since the human being, the RC pilot, has a painfully slow 200 millisecond latency and can not differentiate between seven or fourteen milliseconds." Anybody that has been to drag race knows that's bunk. Even a lapse of 7-14 ms in responding to the green light is only a 'fair' performance. A 200 ms lag will earn you a loss to a hole shot every time down the track.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Some interesting info:

Info -
http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/...time/stats.php

Test Yourself -
http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/...time/index.php

Drag Racing -
http://www.staginglight.com/guide/react.html

Drag racing is unique since you have a standardized means (time between lights) to anticipate the green light. Imagine what would happen if you simply sat there and waited a random amount of time until the light turned green!!

Swimmers are a little closer to what we deal with:

http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJF...D200501043.htm

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Tnx for the articles. Actually, I thought about a similarity in R/C model flying to the drag race Christmas tree. Agreed that reaction time would be likely much greater if the event came in isolation, sans any precursor events to signal it was imminent. That's a commonality in the two sports (drag racing and R/C), for the most part one is reacting to events that are anticipated based on prior events that occur with some learned synchronicity. I think perhaps for model flying what I was thinking of as reaction time might better be called 'perception time,' in that what one is looking for is the reaction of the aircraft prompted by a control input - a process in continuum, so no time wasted sorting out what the event was that requires a reaction. In the context of the article I think it is germane that some of most skilled pilots I know fly 3D and insist on servos that go stop-to-stop in 100 msec or less. Not every change in control input requires full servo transit of course, so that leads me to think reaction to the model's response to a control input with another control input typically happens in a control loop that cycles considerably quicker than the 100 ms required for full deflection of the control surface. How to know with any precision I dunno.......would be an interesting experiment. no doubt involving some very expensive equipment. I'll settle for analogy for now - how's this: most everyone notices a large difference in image quality between a 60 Hz HDTV and one that refreshes at 120 Hz. Something perceptible is obviously happening in the gray matter during the ~ 10 ms time frame between events, and that makes it seem to me quite realistic to expect expert modelers to notice a difference between 7 ms and 14 ms latency. At least they think they do, and perception is reality, isn't it?;)

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Wow sounds like a secret agent man!:D It cracks me up we have guys that go in all the time and its always a radio problem 2.4 or 72... All i know is i have been flying dsm2 from the time the first 2.4 9303 came out without issue. If something comes out better than 2.4 i will just shell out and purchase it. I replace my TX every 3 years any way that is just part of my maintenance program. Just my .02

RE: what 2.4 article
 

I think the AMA needs to lobby the FCC for those unused beeper frequencies or some frequency band and use the spread spectrum and/or ffrequecy hopping system on that.  In fact you can use the frequency hopping system on 72 but I am not sure there are enough channels to do that with enough aircraft at one time, or without interferance to ajacent non R/C channels.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

If you want the latest, just read the Focus on Competition column in this month's mag. Greg Hahn basically says 2.4 sux. Well, he doesn't say it but he devotes the whole column to somebody that does.......

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Call it what you want. I had a long private conversation with Dave Mathewson and he asked me not to write or tell anyone what the 2.4 will be replaced with.

The article is from Dave Horvath, one of the people who scientifically proved that the 72mhz is more dependable and reliable in a lot of ways and warned people right in the beginning about the 2.4.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/forums/...e=1&print=true

His articles have been featured in all the model aviation magazines internationally warning people everywhere about the risks. I joined his cause shortly after seeing people having mysterious crashes losing multi thousand dollar aircraft. Because of the strict rules regarding the 72mhz and enforcing impound I've seen more brown out and black outs more than the famous 72mhz shoot downs.

Spectrum isn't the only one with problems. Futaba this year surpassed JR with the mysterious black outs. Joe Nall is a great example that there's a problem with the 2.4 and they are considering impounding the 2.4 along with the 72mhz.

I don't have the latest November issue of Model Aviation, but Dave Horvath has informed me that the AMA as a whole finally admits that there are issues with the 2.4 in this issue. It's about time! And I can hardly wait for the new replacement, I hate carrying secrets. But I am a man of my word, if someone high up tells me not let something out in the public, I don't. Only a few need to know and they know it already.

All the insults don't work with me folks. I'm married and I'm used to it. You all can't hold a torch to what the wife can come up with when she's on the warpath.

Pete

RE: what 2.4 article
 

This sentence alone would be enough to question your knowledge and integrity. The "I have secret information, but can't tell you" crud might have worked for you in High School but .......................

Wait, I think the sky is falling.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

Does that suggest a real problem surfacing?

You might even wish to pick up your November issue of AMA's Model Aviation and read AMA Technical Director', Greg Hahn's full page "informational" concerning what is happening with 2.4 Ghz, right now.

Kick that in with the fact that the main 3 individuals on the AMA's "Marketing Committee" are the CEOs of Great Planes, Horizon, and I believe Hobby People.
I suspect the radio suppliers have found another way to market something to get your RC $$$, HA! Don't be too quick to dump your 72Mhz stuff. Not my original idea, however that is what Greg alludes to. I will never give mine up.

BTW, for those that do not know him, Grehg Hahn is one nice guy, extremely talanted RC pilot, and full of knowledge in all model aviation disciplines. He and I had some minor disagreements way back when, however he was more right than me. I have every respect for him in every way pertaining to us aeromodelers.

RE: what 2.4 article
 

This should be interesting. I have not gotten my new issue yet, but I know what I will turn to first. Some may not know but Greg came to the AMA from Hobbico, which ironically enough is where Steve Kaluf went. Almost like a job swap!!

RE: what 2.4 article
 

When I see an independent study done by a group led by someone with at least a Master's degree in electronics or electrical engineering (preferably a doctorate) that shows a flaw in the 2.4 technology, I'll believe it. Some guy Googling a few pieces of information and drawing big conclusions based on logical fallacies (the article) isn't worth the time it took to read it. Read some real research or don't read anything! Sure, our radios are not 100% reliable. They never have been. But the widespread use of 2.4 has shown that it does work and does have some advantages that 72mhz cannot provide.