just what we need *MORE government to control the way we live & fly our planes sheeesh.
the "old farts" down at the field have a fit if you don't have a freak flag on your antana
if the fcc steps in you just gotta belive OUR quality of life will suffer...[sm=drowning.gif]

DAi- Maloof is very well controlled as you may or may not know. Anybody who does not follow the rules gets the Open Space Rangers called to escort them out. I am out their on a regular basis. With the amount of people who fly their, freq conflicts are rare . However the north and south fence are notorious for causing brief "hits." Also the routing of an antenna can give the impression of a "hit"

that apparently was a pre production prototype or something similar... cordless phones have been doing spread spectrum for ages, and are MUCH cheaper then that! http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=...al&sa=N&tab=wf

the total bandwidth coming out of a phone is also greater then what we transmit, so that shouldn't be a concern. (technically, it wouldn't take much to mod a phone handset/base into a frankenstein rx/tx pair!)

I don't remember who carried it, but I saw a spread spectrum rx/tx (not rc, just raw transmitters) for about $20 somewhere, think it one of the nuts&volts type places...

Hey Smokingcrater,

I would like to see you fly a plane with the range abilities of hte cordless telephone. I believe you would fail miserably. There is much more to it than just some telephone technology, believe me. I know that none of the radio manufacturers are looking at it very hard because of the cost and complexity. They just wouldn't sell is one of the belief's.

I also know that the system I have flown has far, far better range on the ground than what we routinley fly with has ever had.

I wish I could explain more, but I do not have the electrical background to even begin, only know what the two gentlemen have talked to me about who designed the system. I was also the lucky one to install it in hte latest demo plane that we have, and I will say that that was a royal pain. There are more pieces in the basic reciever/antenna system than I care to discuss.

Keep in mind that if it were as easy as you believe it is, that we would already have them.

Futaba has had a spread spectrum system they have been marketing for a very, very long time. Problem is it is for remote operation of machinery, not for model airplane usage. This once again comes down to the antenna issuses as well as a few others.

Using one of the newer receivers with "transmitter signal recogniton" would help with interference problems.

Correction to last post. That should be "transmitter signature recognition". Some of the newer receivers use a DSP circuit , digital signal processing, that will allow it to learn to respond only to your transmitter and reject signals from other transmitters on the same channel. Much better than so called "fail safe". You might want to take a look at the "Berg" receivers. They're not any more expensive and if more folks used them the big three or four major manufacturers would probably take steps to develop units with some form of interference rejection without loss of control.

The AMA is not responsible for who does and does not use 72 or 50 mhz. That is the jurisdiction of the FCC.

Fubar-One,

I had several different responses to make, but I'll settle for this one.

In the first place, I've been in R/C since 1987, am aware of the possible problems with frequency conflicts, and would make every effort to avoid any. That said, if I was flying in my back yard on 50mHz, and shot you down two streets over because I didn't know you were there, what does my being licensed or not have to do with the severity of your loss? You're still shot down. That magic piece of paper from the FCC won't make any difference. Its no different from the kid who DOES live two streets over from me with his E-Zone or whatever foamie on 72mHz that his folks got him for Xmas. I stopped and chatted with him yesterday. He had no inkling of the potential problems, etc., because the retailers/hobby mongers aren't concerned with warning these newcomers to R/C about frequency conflict. Turns out he isn't on my freq; but I'm still not flying at home until/if I get 50mHz gear.

To soothe your ruffled feathers, I have Gordon West's book, am studying it, and intend to get that magic piece of paper before I purchase the module and receivers; if I even do it.

But here's a newsflash: I haven't done it yet because I'm concerned about your fellow licensed hams who either:

1. don't know that parts of the six meter band are reserved for R/C use
2. don't care
3. regardless of #1 or #2, flood the airways during those 'contact contests' or whatever they're called, trying to make as many contacts as possible in a certain period of time. The six meter band, I hear, is used a lot for this.

Several ham pals have told me that's not a concern. Okay; but last week, I was having breakfast at a local eatery, next to a table full of guys who were obviously hams and talking about pushing signals all over, etc. I heard "six meters" mentioned a few times. When I finished my meal, I spoke with them, telling them my interest. ONE guy of the seven knew that a portion of the six meter band was "reserved" for R/C. But he was quick to say that it was a "gentlemen's agreement", unenforced, etc., etc.

My point to all of this is, spare me the righteous indignation, please. A ham license does not not make one a saint. Regardless of the endeavor, there will always be that percentage of participants who do what they want to despite rules, or may have forgotten what some of the rules are.

I am NOT saying hams are bad, etc., etc. But the sanctimonious tone of your post simply annoyed me. And I am looking at all sides of the issue before investing in the license and gear.

And could you please explain what those might be & in general how do they function?---

John,

Those who have had the foresight to pursue a technology that might assist all in the pursuit of frequency conflict avoidance are to be applauded. Someone will eventually solve the frequency conflict problem and Spread Spectrum is one of the many approaches than might be successful. There is nothing new about cost being a consideration in product development efforts.

Bill S

Future of RC???? Hmmm....LHS sold more rtf park flyers than any other type of RC plane. How many of these people are gonna stick with flying, join a club and join AMA? I'm thinkin not many. If I'm not mistaken, there are only 6 channels that these planes can be used on....Doesn't make for a nice time at the park with alot of people with these types of planes.
Luckily, I have 50 acres (own farm) that I fly my electrics on. I don't worry about who's on my channel. However, I fly my glow aircraft at one of the two clubs I belong to. I've only experienced one radio hit at the club. Had my Arrow on the ground and getting ready to start engine. A guy and his grandson show up. The grandson's radio just happened to be on channel 36, my channel.
I already had the pin. He turned it on anyways and I seen all my control surfaces pegged to full!!!! Glad I wasn't in the air or standing in front of prop with the engine running!!!

Dave...

Hi;Earlier mention of Polk,they at least made some effort in the direction of channel recognition.There radio has a built in scanner,and a system that won't go on if channel is in use.They have the synthesised channel system on both there receiver and transmitter.All this for $200.If they can make these advancements where are the others?Granted this won't cure the problems you mention but much better than the nothing the other companies are doing!

moodier you are correct that we must ask the manufacturer for better technology to assist in avoiding the frequency conflict. Polk has certainly made a good step in the correct direction.

Bill S

Dan,

It might be good to understand that many will be migrating to the ham frequencies if other solutions fail to materialize. Some will be legal, many will not. A very large number of dangerous park flyers on 72 could in fact push many to pursue the ham frequencies. Likely many will do whatever is required to protect their expensive airplanes.

Bill S

I understand it but I dont have to like it. One of the rewards for spending the time and effort to get my Ham ticket is the right to use a restricted frequency. If some guy goes out and buys 50mhz gear and uses it because, hey nobody will stop him, who cares?, it pretty much diminishes what MY efforts were for and makes them pointless. The dollar amount of his planes doesnt make it right.
So, yes, it bugs me.
I'm going back to polishing my halo now...

<<One of the rewards... is the right to use a restricted frequency.>>

I hear you. I know exactly how you feel, because I feel the same way about all these duffers who can buy a plug'n'play park flier and use it without going through the "rites of passage" most of us had to endure when we began the hobby; IOW, learning the dos and don'ts of the hobby. I don't begrudge them the ease of progress in technology, but I begrudge the hell out of their being able to cause me grief, frequency conflict-wise, whether it be through ignorance or lack of concern.

The one glimmer of hope in all of this is that the park flyer fad is just that; a temporary phenomenon that will go away after a few years. You know the industry is going to keep pushing these damn things, since they've invested so much in them if the advertisements are any indicator. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you....

And those of you who think that these hundred-dollar wonders are all on the CB freqs need to look again. Most of them come with 72 mHz radios these days.

I think I understand now why golf is so popular. Its just you and that little white ball. There are few worries about some fast-buck entrepreneur coming up with a variation of the sport that has potentially disastrous effects on some.

get a frequency scanner.. our club has one they are $100 the one we have scans all the 72mhz freqecys and tells you what channel everyone is on that has a transmitter onwe usually have so few people at our field there is no problem. but we still scan it regularly. we have also used an IFR spectrum analyzer just to make sure there were no harmonics spikeing from other frequencys since we fly near a mountain that is rented by people with repeaters. all is clear

We had one. It won't do any good against a clueless or careless dipstick who turns on without getting the pin first.

true but at our field if you turn it on and shoot someone down that has it you pay for his plane. transmitter impound works too if there are real hard heads there . get you transmitter when you pick up pin. we do fun flys that way

Doesn't do any good aganist the guy down the street that crashed one of our planes,Was using a 72 Mhz radio on his car!No idea of problems or any apologies either.Those kind will always be out there.My tracker won't turn on if the frequency is in use!All I get is a busy signal!Also I have a built in scanner already don't have to buy extra one,probably not as good as the real ones but does tell if anything is in the area.

Hello RCers,

Beside the frequency conflict that I am worried about, there is another one that fuels the fire. That is the lack of understanding among kids or grown ups about the potential danger from the small RFT packages. Since it is so easy nowadays for anyone to pick one of these and fly at parks, they do not understand the potential danger until it is too late. I was flying at the field this Saturday and as I walked the field, I saw a sad face looking fellow with his crashed glider. On investigating, I have learned that this poor fellow thought that he just bought the kit the night before, and thought that he could open the box and fly this thing like a newly bought kite from Walmart! It is a good thing that he crashed immediatetly after take off. Imagine if it hits somebody in the eye! Then later that morning, a Easystar missed my face about 5 feet. There was this kid landed his plane into the pit area! Though not intended, these planes still require coordination and practices that many people don't know when they get into this hobby. As the colorful ads in the box don't do justice since they provide a false sense of security. I think that we need to educate our newly young comrades that even with small foamies, they remain to be a lethal weapon both in the air and ground. With the lack of mandatory AMA licensing, I think that a disaster will happen one of these days with the growing popularity of ARFs. We need to keep an eye out for new comers so accident hopefully will never happen. Dai Phan