Why should I use a PCM receiver
11-02-2006 | 12:27 AM
#26
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Brisbane, AUSTRALIA
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
After I posted I read your comment that you are running 5 cells. Not sure if it helps but while JR Rx are rated to 5 cells JR servos are only rated for 4 cells. If you are running JR servos with 5 cells could this be an issue?
I run most of my aircraft with four cells or regulate to 5V. I do have two 2M pattern planes running with 5 cells but I use Hitec rather than JR servos for this reason.
I run most of my aircraft with four cells or regulate to 5V. I do have two 2M pattern planes running with 5 cells but I use Hitec rather than JR servos for this reason.
11-02-2006 | 12:42 AM
#27
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: GeelongVictoria, AUSTRALIA
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
the rescupting was damn good.
Not sure I have the stomach anymore to build another patternship though. I think this last disaster became the final end of my pattern days.
Not sure I have the stomach anymore to build another patternship though. I think this last disaster became the final end of my pattern days.
11-02-2006 | 01:14 AM
#28
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Blackfoot ,
ID
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
I switched all of my JR single RX out for dual It seems they work ok for a simple set up Trainers and 40-60 sized planes.But when I got into the larger stuff they wouldn't ground check for nothing .Maybe my set up but the dual conversion seemed to work fine .
I also used Futaba RX's to replace the JR's . I sent 2 JR's back in, they replaced the antennas and said there was nothing wrong .Must be right because there in smaller planes and seem to work trouble free .
The fail safe is my only hangup with the PCM RX ,All the ones I have seen has been a total lockout .Which would be just fine if the plane was headed out to sea or a open field ,but what about if its headed to wards the pits or a crowd of people?
I have been hit before with PPM and it was not a big deal to cut the throttle and land the plane .I guess the circumstances could make a difference in either case.
I also used Futaba RX's to replace the JR's . I sent 2 JR's back in, they replaced the antennas and said there was nothing wrong .Must be right because there in smaller planes and seem to work trouble free .
The fail safe is my only hangup with the PCM RX ,All the ones I have seen has been a total lockout .Which would be just fine if the plane was headed out to sea or a open field ,but what about if its headed to wards the pits or a crowd of people?
I have been hit before with PPM and it was not a big deal to cut the throttle and land the plane .I guess the circumstances could make a difference in either case.
11-02-2006 | 04:21 AM
#30
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
I did this after reading about a young person killed in the UK by a runaway aircraft - yes a freak accident but one that would have been avoided if the owner of the plane were using a PCM Rx set to idle on failsafe.
I believe that this was suggested as a rule change to the FAI, but I don't know what transpired subsequently.
Just as a rather shallow aside, i use pcm (JR) receivers for everything--have done for many years, and ,apart from a couple of instances of range problems detected by ground checks(cured by re-routing the aerial),have never had a problem.
And I have to admit that my initial reason (again shallow) for moving from ppm was to avoid glitches spoiling a pattern flight, which the change most definitely did.
11-02-2006 | 05:34 AM
#31
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: GeelongVictoria, AUSTRALIA
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
I've reread all the JR docmentation, no where does it say JR servo's are rated for 4 cells.
In fact my 10X manual rates the JR servos as 4.8 to 6.0 v.
Not sure where that info came from.
In fact my 10X manual rates the JR servos as 4.8 to 6.0 v.
Not sure where that info came from.
11-02-2006 | 06:49 AM
#32
Senior Member
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
Hello Ozzieflyer, sorry to hear about your problems with the equipement. I would not use that receiver ever again as everyone has been saying, but I would not give it the hammer ether. (as satisfying as it may be) I have been using JR for some time in South Australia and have found that the agent is very good in their product support. Since you will not use it again anyway, send it back with a letter explaining what happened, and see what happens?
11-02-2006 | 07:44 AM
#33
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: yeppoon, AUSTRALIA
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
I have used jr pcm recievers for years with no problems I also run the airal inside the fuse the only time I had a range issue was caused by the carbon fibre in the wings changing the freq fixed that problem JR does rate their recievers and servos to 6v but a fully charged 5 cell pack is close to 7v which is to high if you want to use 5 cell packs you need to use a voltage regulator I use 2 cell li-poly packs regulated to 5.5v
11-02-2006 | 07:46 AM
#34
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: yeppoon, AUSTRALIA
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
I have used jr pcm recievers for years with no problems I also run the airal inside the fuse the only time I had a range issue was caused by the carbon fibre in the wings changing the freq fixed that problem JR does rate their recievers and servos to 6v but a fully charged 5 cell pack is close to 7v which is to high if you want to use 5 cell packs you need to use a voltage regulator I use 2 cell li-poly packs regulated to 5.5v
11-02-2006 | 07:48 AM
#35
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: yeppoon, AUSTRALIA
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
I have used jr pcm recievers for years with no problems I also run the airal inside the fuse the only time I had a range issue was caused by the carbon fibre in the wings changing the freq fixed that problem JR does rate their recievers and servos to 6v but a fully charged 5 cell pack is close to 7v which is to high if you want to use 5 cell packs you need to use a voltage regulator I use 2 cell li-poly packs regulated to 5.5v
11-02-2006 | 09:09 AM
#36
My Feedback: (90)
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
Maybe the transmitter should be checked by JR service as well? I agree with other posters that that type of receiver should not be used with the radio.
For my Futaba gears, Radio-south and Futaba Service here are very good verifying air-worthy for receivers/radios. I have one FM receiver went dead as the plane making the final turn during the landing. The plane just dropped itself to the ground at 5 feet. The receiver was sent in and the diagonsis was intermittent connection. I ended up buying a new unit from the Service at the swap price. The crystal is verified OK. Note the receiver was checked normal after the 'minor' crash.
--qc
For my Futaba gears, Radio-south and Futaba Service here are very good verifying air-worthy for receivers/radios. I have one FM receiver went dead as the plane making the final turn during the landing. The plane just dropped itself to the ground at 5 feet. The receiver was sent in and the diagonsis was intermittent connection. I ended up buying a new unit from the Service at the swap price. The crystal is verified OK. Note the receiver was checked normal after the 'minor' crash.
--qc
11-02-2006 | 09:32 AM
#37
My Feedback: (90)
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
ozzieflyer,
I share the same feeling as you toward scratch-built planes being damaged or totaled. A lot of effort and time spent and wasted. But I have to admit that pattern flying is the most challenging and beautiful form of this hobby. The pattern pilots probably are the best RC pilots.
I have read on RCU that Hangar 9 Showtime 4D is a very good pattern ship and it nicely accepts 90-120 size engine, and I own one myself and sort of agree. Maybe an ARF in near future?
--qc
I share the same feeling as you toward scratch-built planes being damaged or totaled. A lot of effort and time spent and wasted. But I have to admit that pattern flying is the most challenging and beautiful form of this hobby. The pattern pilots probably are the best RC pilots.
I have read on RCU that Hangar 9 Showtime 4D is a very good pattern ship and it nicely accepts 90-120 size engine, and I own one myself and sort of agree. Maybe an ARF in near future?
--qc
11-02-2006 | 04:40 PM
#38
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: GeelongVictoria, AUSTRALIA
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
ORIGINAL: nonstoprc
ozzieflyer,
I share the same feeling as you toward scratch-built planes being damaged or totaled. A lot of effort and time spent and wasted. But I have to admit that pattern flying is the most challenging and beautiful form of this hobby. The pattern pilots probably are the best RC pilots.
I have read on RCU that Hangar 9 Showtime 4D is a very good pattern ship and it nicely accepts 90-120 size engine, and I own one myself and sort of agree. Maybe an ARF in near future?
--qc
ozzieflyer,
I share the same feeling as you toward scratch-built planes being damaged or totaled. A lot of effort and time spent and wasted. But I have to admit that pattern flying is the most challenging and beautiful form of this hobby. The pattern pilots probably are the best RC pilots.
I have read on RCU that Hangar 9 Showtime 4D is a very good pattern ship and it nicely accepts 90-120 size engine, and I own one myself and sort of agree. Maybe an ARF in near future?
--qc
Yeah the scratch built, I lost both. First one was 15 flights old, got to one comp with it. The second, only had 9 flights.
I had the Aresti III arf in between, and while I am thankful to have had it to keep flying, I didn't really enjoy it.
It was a bit heavy for my 140L, and I realise after I flew my new one this week, which just flew basicaly without any trim adjustment, just how out of square/alignment the Aresti was. Plus for , the Aresti always seem to fly too fast, if I slowed it down it would get very wishy washy. I still have it, but will no longer entertain flying it. Plus I no longer have an engine in one piece, the crankshaft is broken off at the front, the front piece was still attached to the spinner.
Does anybody know if the Hatori pipe is STEEL or Aluminium? If it's steel, I might be able to make a new front, when the 'O' ring fits. If it is steel, can sombody tell me the inside diameter of the front, PLUS the inside diameter for the 'O' ring groove?
The Hatori header is bent too. NOT kinked, but it needs to be rebent if I am to use it again. If somebody could give me the Plan view dimensions that would be great. It's the 822
Jpayne,
We've met a couple of times at the masters YEARS ago, but you probably don't remember me now.
I have always been told that 5 cells was never any problem. Maybe I will do some digging around for more specs on the radio gear. For me, a regulator is just another thing to go wrong, and I have been running 5 cells for over 10 years. BUT that's not to say it's right either.
What sort of regulator?
Thanks for all help. Still not convinced on PCM though. But maybe I was just unlucky with that receiver.
11-02-2006 | 08:04 PM
#39
My Feedback: (90)
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
I sold my 140L long ago and got a 110 for the Showtime. Lighter, and good power-to-weight ratio for the airplane. I figured I can do almost anything with ST without the extra cost of running a 140. The stock muffler is prety quite. 15X8 APC @ 9000 RPM. The dry weight is 8.5 lb.
--qc
--qc
11-07-2006 | 06:21 PM
#40
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , ITALY
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
ORIGINAL: KeithB
ozzieflyer,
Here's a link to an excellent post from the NSRCA mailing list. It's a detailed description of testing done by an RC Club on PPM vs. PCM. One of the best post I've seen on the subject: [link=http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/htdig/nsrca-discussion/2006-September/044780.html]PCM vs. PPM tests[/link]
Keith Black
ozzieflyer,
Here's a link to an excellent post from the NSRCA mailing list. It's a detailed description of testing done by an RC Club on PPM vs. PCM. One of the best post I've seen on the subject: [link=http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/htdig/nsrca-discussion/2006-September/044780.html]PCM vs. PPM tests[/link]
Keith Black
thank you so much for pointing out this test! Wonderful results to read...
I would like to discuss them more in detail here, in particular about how the test has been performed (perhaps you have spoken with Wayne, or know some detail about the test).
The fact that seems not stated is whether the PCM vs PPM tests was performed with TX with the SAME FREQUENCY or not. I assume yes, since otherwise no problem could result, but actually this conclusion is very surprising:
"If the primary was PCM and the shoot down TX was in FM
mode it was almost a non existent problem. A very very rare blip of power
when the shoot down TX was closer to the model than the primary. And this
was only with the shoot down antenna extended more than about 1/3 to 1/2
way."
So the question I have is: is the test proving that a PCM system will not be disturbed by a PPM one with the SAME FREQ? Is this correct?
To me it seems a bit strong result, I din't thought that PCM rejection was so good.
It would be very good to hear the opinion of somebody who knows exactly how the test was performed, if that actually was the result. I send an email to Wayne, but unfortunately he dind't replied me yet.
Thanks again Keith!
11-07-2006 | 06:43 PM
#41
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: GeelongVictoria, AUSTRALIA
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
But the question still remains.
Why should I use PCM?
The more I have researched this, and thanks to Keithb for the link on pcm versus ppm, I am even less convinced on PCM.
Bottom line for me is,
PCM goes into failsafe, never comes out. This is not just me, I have now spoken to 3 experienced flyers who have confirmed the same thing has happened to them.
PPM, sure, it glitches etc, but apart from somebody shooting them down, or a battery failure, in all cases, the 'plane was saved and the problem rectified.
No more PCM for me.
Thanks for all input
Why should I use PCM?
The more I have researched this, and thanks to Keithb for the link on pcm versus ppm, I am even less convinced on PCM.
Bottom line for me is,
PCM goes into failsafe, never comes out. This is not just me, I have now spoken to 3 experienced flyers who have confirmed the same thing has happened to them.
PPM, sure, it glitches etc, but apart from somebody shooting them down, or a battery failure, in all cases, the 'plane was saved and the problem rectified.
No more PCM for me.
Thanks for all input
11-07-2006 | 07:07 PM
#42
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Brisbane, AUSTRALIA
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
Ozzieflyer,
Firstly, I thought I gave you a significant reason why you should use PCM in Post 25 but you didn't respond to it? Personally I would ban PPM on models above 40 size if I could on this basis alone. If it saves just one life or serious injury it would be worth it.
Secondly, I'm not sure how you can read the links to the excellent reports indicated by Keithb and not be convinced as to the value of PCM.
Thirdly, PCM do come out of failsafe (as per the report) once the interference is removed.
You can always find someone with a contrary view on anything, in this case there are some great reasons for going to PCM that outweigh the value of PPM in the case that interference keeps a PCM Tx locked out for long enough for the aircraft to crash.
Twoturnspin
Firstly, I thought I gave you a significant reason why you should use PCM in Post 25 but you didn't respond to it? Personally I would ban PPM on models above 40 size if I could on this basis alone. If it saves just one life or serious injury it would be worth it.
Secondly, I'm not sure how you can read the links to the excellent reports indicated by Keithb and not be convinced as to the value of PCM.
Thirdly, PCM do come out of failsafe (as per the report) once the interference is removed.
You can always find someone with a contrary view on anything, in this case there are some great reasons for going to PCM that outweigh the value of PPM in the case that interference keeps a PCM Tx locked out for long enough for the aircraft to crash.
Twoturnspin
11-07-2006 | 07:32 PM
#43
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Garland,
TX
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
ORIGINAL: ozzieflyer
Bottom line for me is, PCM goes into failsafe, never comes out. ...
Bottom line for me is, PCM goes into failsafe, never comes out. ...
Ozzieflyer,
I don't think you read the report very well. It went to great lengths to dispel the opinion you've come to.
PCM is *clearly* far superior to PPM period. If you read everything that's been posted (including the link I provided) and you think about it logically it's clear that PCM is better. Even *if* PCM is no more resilient to interference at least the PCM failsafe can cut the throttle and could save someone's life! This ALONE is reason enough to use PCM. And BTW, PCM actually does deal with interference better than PPM.
BTW, from what I've heard the newer FM receivers that provide failsafe functionality by recognizing a particular TX's signal "finger print" are also very good options and an alternative to PCM RXs. Example: [link=http://www.castlecreations.com/products/berg_7-channel.html]Castle Creation's Berg 7[/link]
Keith Black
11-07-2006 | 07:37 PM
#44
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: GeelongVictoria, AUSTRALIA
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
ORIGINAL: twoturnspin
So back to your original question "Why use PCM?", the main reason in my view is safety. I have changed all my glow (and electrics other than foamies) over to PCM because I would rather lose a plane than kill/injure someone. I did this after reading about a young person killed in the UK by a runaway aircraft - yes a freak accident but one that would have been avoided if the owner of the plane were using a PCM Rx set to idle on failsafe.
I was at a pattern contest earlier in the year when an Rx in a 5kg model went off line (crystal fell out) and it was terrifying. Sad thing was that the Rx was PCM but the failsafe position for throttle had not been set or didn't work for some reason. The model was in the middle of a loop when the Rx failed and continued to loop between 200 and 500 or so feet in the air for about 10 minutes before it ran out of fuel, by that time it had flown over the town before landing in the grounds of the town's university (amazingly landing upright with no damage). No problem in the end but that was pure luck. It could just have easily crashed into a home, sporting field, town street, etc - or worse a person. If this had of occured that would have been the end of that flying field and incredibly bad publicity for our hobby nationally were a death to result.
Of course PCM does not stop unfortunate incidents happening but it does reduce the risk significantly and I reckon that's a good thing.
All my PCM Rx are set to throttle to idle and hold the control surfaces. All my Rx are JR, I have 2 x RS10DS (dual conversion synthesised), 2 x NES649 (single conversion), 1 x RS77S (synthesised), 1 x R770S. All seem to work ok.
I reckon you just had a bad R1000DS, this could have occurred with a PCM or PPM Rx so it's really nothing to do with the modulation of the Rx.
I hope this helps to answer your question,
Twoturnspin
PS. I'll bet the re-scuplting you did with a hammer felt good!
So back to your original question "Why use PCM?", the main reason in my view is safety. I have changed all my glow (and electrics other than foamies) over to PCM because I would rather lose a plane than kill/injure someone. I did this after reading about a young person killed in the UK by a runaway aircraft - yes a freak accident but one that would have been avoided if the owner of the plane were using a PCM Rx set to idle on failsafe.
I was at a pattern contest earlier in the year when an Rx in a 5kg model went off line (crystal fell out) and it was terrifying. Sad thing was that the Rx was PCM but the failsafe position for throttle had not been set or didn't work for some reason. The model was in the middle of a loop when the Rx failed and continued to loop between 200 and 500 or so feet in the air for about 10 minutes before it ran out of fuel, by that time it had flown over the town before landing in the grounds of the town's university (amazingly landing upright with no damage). No problem in the end but that was pure luck. It could just have easily crashed into a home, sporting field, town street, etc - or worse a person. If this had of occured that would have been the end of that flying field and incredibly bad publicity for our hobby nationally were a death to result.
Of course PCM does not stop unfortunate incidents happening but it does reduce the risk significantly and I reckon that's a good thing.
All my PCM Rx are set to throttle to idle and hold the control surfaces. All my Rx are JR, I have 2 x RS10DS (dual conversion synthesised), 2 x NES649 (single conversion), 1 x RS77S (synthesised), 1 x R770S. All seem to work ok.
I reckon you just had a bad R1000DS, this could have occurred with a PCM or PPM Rx so it's really nothing to do with the modulation of the Rx.
I hope this helps to answer your question,
Twoturnspin
PS. I'll bet the re-scuplting you did with a hammer felt good!
Valid points, but I also am well versed in that terrible accident in th UK.
In that particular case, sure, would have helped. Crystal falling out, not part of the discussion, just stupidity.
As far as not being convinced after the "excellent article", its quite easy. I have been around RC stuff for a long time, that is enough to not be convinced.
I think, as you pointed out, that there will be many contrary views, that I should retract the question and just forget it. Especially with the opinion of banning PPM on models above 40 size. Any engine/model, no matter how big or small is lethal when out of control.
And just for the record, I have seen more models go out of control and crash, on PCM than on PPM. Sure, the failsafe part is a good safety feature. The Lockout? I think is a totally bad design.
Enough said.
I think it best if I will ask to have this thread removed.
Thanks for all input.
11-07-2006 | 09:16 PM
#45
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Brisbane, AUSTRALIA
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
Yes I read your post Twoturnspin.
Valid points, but I also am well versed in that terrible accident in th UK.
In that particular case, sure, would have helped.
Valid points, but I also am well versed in that terrible accident in th UK.
In that particular case, sure, would have helped.
I think, as you pointed out, that there will be many contrary views, that I should retract the question and just forget it. ...... I think it best if I will ask to have this thread removed.
11-07-2006 | 09:37 PM
#46
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: GeelongVictoria, AUSTRALIA
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
Why remove?
On a brighter note, I just caught my hand BEFORE it toched the Rx in question. Had a lovely reply from distributor offering to replace with
new RS10DS PLL receiver which does not use crystals!!
Wow!!. What great service.
Anybody using this model Rx?
11-07-2006 | 10:08 PM
#47
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Brisbane, AUSTRALIA
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
Can't say I blame you being upset with losing an aircraft like that.
Great news about the RS10DS from the distributor, they are a very nice unit, I have two currently in service, both in pattern planes. I love the synthesised feature and they have excellent range. The only issue I have had with them is an intermittent problem with (you guessed it) the Rx going into failsafe in one particular circumstance, I have only seen this happen in one of my RS10DS Rx. This has only occured on the ground, in the air the Rx has been rock solid.
Failsafe occurs intermittently when the Tx aerial is fully extended and running parallel to the Rx aerial within about 1 metre. For me I do this at every take off because my habit is to run up my engine (clear its throat) by standing in front of the tailplane just before I take off, I experience the problem about 10% of the time in this position. It is intermittent so it isn't something that I can replicate on demand - irritating when you are trying to show someone else the problem. I heard that Chris Callow (Pylon World Champion) had experienced the same problem and I called him up. I got his Dad (Kevin) on the phone and it turns out he did have the problem and his advice is that it occurs because the Rx gets swamped when the Tx is really close (<2 metres) and that it doesn't occur further away so there is no issue when flying. He also told me that Chris now wont use this Rx and has switched to the JR R900 (PCM non-synth, single conversion) because he flies so fast/close and can't afford for interference/failsafe condiiton to occur.
So I must say I am smiling as I write this given the views I expressed in earlier posts! But I thought you ought to know.
These are the facts as best I know them about the RS10DS, if anyone knows anything else I would love to hear it.
Great news about the RS10DS from the distributor, they are a very nice unit, I have two currently in service, both in pattern planes. I love the synthesised feature and they have excellent range. The only issue I have had with them is an intermittent problem with (you guessed it) the Rx going into failsafe in one particular circumstance, I have only seen this happen in one of my RS10DS Rx. This has only occured on the ground, in the air the Rx has been rock solid.
Failsafe occurs intermittently when the Tx aerial is fully extended and running parallel to the Rx aerial within about 1 metre. For me I do this at every take off because my habit is to run up my engine (clear its throat) by standing in front of the tailplane just before I take off, I experience the problem about 10% of the time in this position. It is intermittent so it isn't something that I can replicate on demand - irritating when you are trying to show someone else the problem. I heard that Chris Callow (Pylon World Champion) had experienced the same problem and I called him up. I got his Dad (Kevin) on the phone and it turns out he did have the problem and his advice is that it occurs because the Rx gets swamped when the Tx is really close (<2 metres) and that it doesn't occur further away so there is no issue when flying. He also told me that Chris now wont use this Rx and has switched to the JR R900 (PCM non-synth, single conversion) because he flies so fast/close and can't afford for interference/failsafe condiiton to occur.
So I must say I am smiling as I write this given the views I expressed in earlier posts! But I thought you ought to know.
These are the facts as best I know them about the RS10DS, if anyone knows anything else I would love to hear it.
11-07-2006 | 10:20 PM
#48
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: GeelongVictoria, AUSTRALIA
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
hmmmmm,
PPM looking good.
Thanks for the honesty. You can imagine what I think now.
I think the RS10DS PLL is the same as the R2000 in the 'States.
Anybody else like to comment before I commit (or get committed).
PPM looking good.
Thanks for the honesty. You can imagine what I think now.
I think the RS10DS PLL is the same as the R2000 in the 'States.
Anybody else like to comment before I commit (or get committed).
11-08-2006 | 12:43 AM
#49
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Perth, AUSTRALIA
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
Well after all this discussion, the question needs to be asked, What is the best JR receiver for pattern?
I'm currently setting up a ship and a receiver to go into my plane is something I've been toying with.
I have a JR 3810 (or XP8103 for the americans) so I assume I can't go synthesised can I?
I'm currently setting up a ship and a receiver to go into my plane is something I've been toying with.
I have a JR 3810 (or XP8103 for the americans) so I assume I can't go synthesised can I?
11-08-2006 | 12:51 AM
#50
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: GeelongVictoria, AUSTRALIA
RE: Why should I use a PCM receiver
You can use a synthesised rx with a NON synthesised TX.
The synthesising part is how it generates it's base frequency, it replaces the crystal part, on both Tx and Rx. Hence the ability to change your TX channel, OR make the RX lock on (hopefully) to a new channel.
The synthesising part is how it generates it's base frequency, it replaces the crystal part, on both Tx and Rx. Hence the ability to change your TX channel, OR make the RX lock on (hopefully) to a new channel.
