ron ward

I can't see the need for special "single terminal" connections. simply plug an extension into the rx so that you're not constantly plugging and unplugging at the rx. I agree that that is somewhat chancy, in that there's always the potential to loosen another connection, so the extension isolates the constant plugging and unplugging away from the rx. I put a wrap of green and red electrical tape around mating wires to indicate "port" and "starboard" connections to make finding them easier. never had any problem with that system.
in my opinion, all these suggestions are part of the reason r/c flying has become so expensive and is slowly declining because of the perceived need to make simple issues more complex and higher tech than they need to be. what is so terrible about having to plug in a left and a right aileron servo wire before mounting the wing ?.

scale only 4 me

My Feedback: (158)

Well obviously if all you have is two servo connections it's much easier,, But some plane's wings are more complicated than just ailerons, some have additional flap servos, electric retracts, gear doors, bomb drops,,

The multi plugs not only save time, they save mistakes

malitape

My Feedback: (213)

Well said.

I do however, agree with ron ward not to use the receiver as the terminal. Constant use WILL wear out the firmness and possibly break a pin because of the force needed.That is why I like this new connector I made reference to, above.

Ron ward:Back in the day, kits were $10 and salary was $2 ph. And that was u-control. Yes, this hobby is expensive, but for so many improvements, well worth it. Most important though, if there is a gadget that will help my plane be idiot proof or more convenient, well at my age I do need all the help I can get. As far as a declining interest in RC, not at my field. With the onset of these new flying contraptions, we are gaining both old and young new faces. You can do it "your way", no problem. But please, don't get on us who want to make it easier for "ourselves". There is no right or wrong, here. Just different methods.

ron ward

there's no right or wrong, just different opinions about the subject. I flew "back in the day", both large u-control and r/c. I've watched all the "improvements happen, and they haven't changed a thing about flying except the cost. you don't need idiot proofing for connections, unless you don't check control surface function before flight. and if you get in the habit of checking before flight, you don't need any gang plugs to keep the connections sorted out.
like wise, you complain about my opinion and then you say the same thing I did, about my opinion.

malitape

My Feedback: (213)

Let it end here. You are of course right and I am wrong. End of story

scale only 4 me

My Feedback: (158)

Not sure why you're arguing the "need" and idiot proofing points,, of course no one "needs" a special connector, regular extension plugs work fine, I have many planes like that and use a piece of masking tape on each with corresponding numbers to identify them,,, but it sure a nice convenience if someone chooses to add those to their plane,,

Calvinman

For me, it is difficult holding the wing and the end of the extension from the receiver and the servo lead all at the same time on a windy day is all. Multiply that by the number of servos in the wing and the greater the chance of the wing getting blown out of my hand.

ron ward

this is a general questions and answers forum, read by many people who might not be as initiated as some of us. . I certainly didn't mean to make it an argument, just wanted to express that we make our hobby more expensive and more complicated than it needs to be......this sometimes, shies people away from trying it, because they maybe aren't all that technically minded. they read about stuff on here trying to get an idea of what is needed and find all sorts of "high tech" information that isn't appealing to them, so they look for something else to do. my post was to expose that there are other, much more simple ways to do what some people over complicate with expense and complexity.

Calvinman

Yes I too do believe in the KISS principle Ron. the Photo's I posted earlier show my "simple" solution. It sure is nice to have so many options and opinions for my next build though. I used to use the dubro switch/ charging jack setup and was lucky enough(after struggling for so many years to get the jack to stay in place and still be able to plug into it)to discover the ERNST switch with a built in charging jack. Here is the pic of my solution for this build. Also a pic of the ERNST switch/charging jack

Calvinman

Sorry the photos of the receiver lead holder was too large, here is the cropped version

scale only 4 me

My Feedback: (158)

Calvin,
Futaba recommends your antenna be arranged perpendicular not parallel as is appears you have them there,,

good luck

ron ward

Calvinman, yes, one leg of that antenna should at right angles to the other leg, it really does make a difference in reception with 2.4 systems.
I really like those switches with the charge port In them.

Calvinman

Yes, I noticed how my antennae are not quit at 90 degrees looking at the photo too, I will address that before I fly again.