2.4 GHz alternative
 

This might turn out to be a superior 2.4 GHz alternative:

http://2.4gigahertz.com/

especially if they are the first to come out with more than 9 channels...

True frequency hopping may more immune to interference from other 2.4 GHz systems and allow more than 40 radios to operate at once...

Bob

RE: 2.4 GHz alternative
 

yes futaba! finally! it wont be long til the 14z is on fasst! cant wait.

RE: 2.4 GHz alternative
 

.

RE: 2.4 GHz alternative
 

Bob,
I don't understand why Futaba with the many years in the R/C business would allow another manufacture to beat them to the market with the SS systems. Yep, my MZ is waiting for the module upgrade I just don't understand why they are sitting on the dime!!
Lee H. DeMary
AMA 36099

RE: 2.4 GHz alternative
 

Lee,

I don't know why Spektrum came out with it first. Perhaps Futaba's approach of true frequency hopping took longer to perfect and test? I was going to jump on the Spektrum bandwagon and get a Futaba module on order, but I've decided to order one of these new Futaba radios to check it out and then wait for the higher channel unit from Futaba.

Spektrum has the lead right now, but if Futaba is the first to come out with a unit that has more than 9 channels, I think that traditional Futaba flyers will switch back and even some JR users will move over - especially if Futaba comes out with a module for the MZ and JR doesn't come out with a unit over 9 channels soon there after...

Bob

RE: 2.4 GHz alternative
 

It is the way to go, full military technolgy.

They have been using this fo 25 years.

Well done Futaba :D

Now give us a good set, 9+ and i will be 1st in the Q ;)

RE: 2.4 GHz alternative
 

ANother alternative to 2.4 is to wait around for awhile. Then you'll be the only guy at your field NOT flying a Spektrum radio. Probably lessen the chance of getting shot down on 72 MhZ if your the only guy left flying it. So do you think that Spektrum will stop at the DX7?

One step at a time my friends.

RE: 2.4 GHz alternative
 

Cool, but can someone please explain why all this 'new' technology (in R/C terms) seems limited to old fashioned numbers of channels??!? e.g. 6,7 and 9?? Why on earth can't they just go "Ta-Da! 14Ch 2.4Ghz rx and tx module - we're leading the way....smaller cheaper units to follow...."????

Is there a technical reason why everything being launched is so few channels??

RE: 2.4 GHz alternative
 

Carefull boys and girls I've heard that the "upgrades" to exsisting trannies DOES NOT HAVE CE approval YET which means insurance in the UK especially is a bit of a grey area just check for your own countries I'm sure it won't be long until they are but just keep it in mind.

Ant

RE: 2.4 GHz alternative
 

"...which locks this receiver to the transmitter. And with over 134 million possible codes, there's no chance for a conflict."

Erm, there's a one in 134 million chance :D :D :D

RE: 2.4 GHz alternative
 

My thoughts exactly!!

RE: 2.4 GHz alternative
 

.

RE: 2.4 GHz alternative
 

actually fhss is older technology. There are advantages/disadvantages to both types. Can't really say one is better over the other...just different...

RE: 2.4 GHz alternative
 

Hopefully the XPS module will materialize and I can use all 12 channels of my Evo.:D

RE: 2.4 GHz alternative
 

ahh, forget 2.4 ghz.
wait til they get the 5.8 ghz technology. its coming

RE: 2.4 GHz alternative
 

No matter what technology you get the RF link can go down.. someday, someway. Let the radio manufacturers continue to improve the game for you, but perhaps we need to push technology in another direction at the same time. Computers and GPS are so fast and small now, perhaps I or someone should make a small onboard failsafe autopilot flight computer. Something that you could upload coordinates at an event, where the event organizer will give you a preplanned "circle of death" flight pattern when you loose radio control for any reason and after a few minutes if you do not regain control it can ditch at a specified location...(net, foam blocks......the dump)

I'm probably going to regret giving up, yet another one of my ideas...

[:o]

bob

RE: 2.4 GHz alternative
 

Yes you may, how much do you need to put this together? I want five of them.

RE: 2.4 GHz alternative
 

Hey,

Ideas like yours is how we got the Weatronic Dual Receivers. Before they came out people could only dream of a unit that monitors between two Rxs and two antennas for the best signal, now we can get that for only $600. These units are great and still pose a benefit to the spectrum Rxs. There is still the possibility of a Rx failure. The only way for redundant Rxs in a jet is to go with a Weatronic in my opinion. Two individual Rxs will do you no good in a jet setting them up like you would on a large 3D plane(half control surfaces on one and the other half on the other), you can't fly a 40 lb F-18 with only one elevator and one aileron. That isn't even going into the other benefits of the weatronic, just wait until they go to 2.4. Meanwhile, for a jet I will still put a Weatronic in until I see a 10 channel dual receiver unit on 2.4.

Russ

RE: 2.4 GHz alternative
 

In response to the 5.8ghz and the question on why there are not more channels check out my BLAB in the frequency control thread.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_54...tm.htm#5509303

RE: 2.4 GHz alternative
 

Bob,

Thanks for inserting a bit of sanity into the 2.4 GHz "hype." It was pretty amazing to hear the descriptions of the 2.4 GHz systems from the announcers at Fl Jets as the manufacturer's reps. flew the systems. You would have thought that the "old" 72 MHz systems were rubber-band powered escapements in comparison...:eek:

The 2.4 GHz systems have some potential, but dispite what the manufacturers are saying, they are NOT a panacea! In addition, it has yet to be determined how the different systems are going to play togther and how they will perform at a flyin like the Joe Nall where, in the pits, on the main flight line, down at the pond, and at the "foamy" area, there can easily be 50+ pilots with their radios on (or attempting to turn them on).

As far as the "failsafe autopilot" system is concerned, my students and I have pretty much developed a system that can do just that (even "land" it in a fairly controlled manner) for about the same price as the Weatronics receiver. However, before a system like that can be perfected for commercial use, the AMA will have to change its safety code - which right now, prohibits the operation of any aircraft with an autonomous flight system...

Bob

RE: 2.4 GHz alternative
 

Bob, Do you teach in the Richmond area?

I did a speaking / demo engagement at the Highland Springs High School Center for Engineering in Richmond Virginia. I used the Jet Luge as the Cool Factor hook to get the kids attention and then talked about my career do's and don't and how I got to achieving my dreams. And the challenges of designing the Jet Luge for safe operation. After, I did a little parking lot demo.. That school has allot of very bright kids and they are fortunate to have such a program. If you have not seen it please go check it out....
http://www.henrico.k12.va.us/HS/HighSprHS/esc/cfe.htm
bob

RE: 2.4 GHz alternative
 

Bob,

I teach computer engineering at VCU. I have visited the Engineering Center at Highland Springs and even sponsored a group there building an RC plane for their class project a few years ago. I haven't heard much from them lately though. I'll bet they did get a kick out of the luge! Looking forward to see you and your ride again at Liberty Jets!

Bob

RE: 2.4 GHz alternative
 

Because there are only 8 channel in PPM mode of Futaba MZ, Spectrum modul/receiver for Futaba MZ only 8 channels availible. Is it possible to connect 1 or 2 Futaba MPDX-1 8 channels expender to Spectrum 2.4GHz receiver and expend channels to 15 or 22 ? I have download the manual of this channel expander and found it can work with G3, 1024 & PPM receiver, so I think it may be compatible with Spectrum module and receiver.