Spectrum
10-04-2015, 01:27 PM
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 4,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hold on a sec' - before everyone runs off, I've got a question concerning the DX6i that I asked about just before that long standing thread was closed. Around page 15 of that thread there was some talk of a recall notice that I either missed, dismissed, or otherwise found didn't apply to my transmitter at the time - I just don't remember and can't find any paperwork acknowledging any record of such in my owner's manual or packaging that I saved.
The recall notice that was linked to asked the owner to identify the affected transmitters by checking for a stickered number located in the battery compartment - I don't have this sticker. I vaguely remember some kind of paperwork instructing an owner to put the transmitter into Monitor Mode from the System Checklist and see if the cursor for each stick axis followed stick movement smoothly without hesitation or jerkiness.
Is this what that recall notice was all about?
BTW, I remember East R/C offered an aftermarket aluminum scroll wheel and trim levers that could be retrofitted - also wondering if this had anything to do with it.
FWIW, I've been flying 4 different foamies without problem so far but I bought the radio around 2008 - one of the years the recall pertains to and was concerned since I plan to use it with some heavier models. Any feedback in this regard appreciated.
The recall notice that was linked to asked the owner to identify the affected transmitters by checking for a stickered number located in the battery compartment - I don't have this sticker. I vaguely remember some kind of paperwork instructing an owner to put the transmitter into Monitor Mode from the System Checklist and see if the cursor for each stick axis followed stick movement smoothly without hesitation or jerkiness.
Is this what that recall notice was all about?
BTW, I remember East R/C offered an aftermarket aluminum scroll wheel and trim levers that could be retrofitted - also wondering if this had anything to do with it.
FWIW, I've been flying 4 different foamies without problem so far but I bought the radio around 2008 - one of the years the recall pertains to and was concerned since I plan to use it with some heavier models. Any feedback in this regard appreciated.
It was fixed for free including shipping to and from the local distributor.
Here is the problem I had with my radio. (It has been perfect since being repaired)
10-04-2015, 01:35 PM
#52
My Feedback: (551)
Most average flyers fell into the trap that newer is better that 2.4 represented and the makers stopped developing the other stuff because the market moved.
And don't forget, the 2,4 systems are a lot cheaper to manufacture. The necessary chips are produced in the billions and cost almost nothing to buy. Thus the manufacturing profit is higher, giving the manufacturers a very good reason to switch over.
Last edited by jrf; 10-04-2015 at 01:43 PM.
10-04-2015, 03:59 PM
#53
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Tan Valley,
AZ
Posts: 5,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a list of the advantages 2.5 has over 72.
You might want to look at Wikipedia on spread spectrum systems first
1. The 2,4 eliminates frequency conflicts.
2. A SS system is nearly immune to stray interference.
3. They are much cheaper to manufacture.
4. Modern manufacturing techniques makes a much more robust receiver
5 SS systems enjoy a large processor gain.
6 There are crystals but no fragile ones like in 72 systems.
7 There are no fragile IF transformers
8.. The transmitter uses less power. Its battery will last longer'
9 The antennas are more manageable.
10 Most large meets require use of 2.4. .They didn't start that way. Its just nobody showed up on 72 anymore
You might want to look at Wikipedia on spread spectrum systems first
1. The 2,4 eliminates frequency conflicts.
2. A SS system is nearly immune to stray interference.
3. They are much cheaper to manufacture.
4. Modern manufacturing techniques makes a much more robust receiver
5 SS systems enjoy a large processor gain.
6 There are crystals but no fragile ones like in 72 systems.
7 There are no fragile IF transformers
8.. The transmitter uses less power. Its battery will last longer'
9 The antennas are more manageable.
10 Most large meets require use of 2.4. .They didn't start that way. Its just nobody showed up on 72 anymore
10-04-2015, 04:27 PM
#54
My Feedback: (551)
Here is a list of the advantages 2.5 has over 72.
You might want to look at Wikipedia on spread spectrum systems first
1. The 2,4 eliminates frequency conflicts.
2. A SS system is nearly immune to stray interference.
3. They are much cheaper to manufacture.
4. Modern manufacturing techniques makes a much more robust receiver
5 SS systems enjoy a large processor gain.
6 There are crystals but no fragile ones like in 72 systems.
7 There are no fragile IF transformers
8.. The transmitter uses less power. Its battery will last longer'
9 The antennas are more manageable.
10 Most large meets require use of 2.4. .They didn't start that way. Its just nobody showed up on 72 anymore
You might want to look at Wikipedia on spread spectrum systems first
1. The 2,4 eliminates frequency conflicts.
2. A SS system is nearly immune to stray interference.
3. They are much cheaper to manufacture.
4. Modern manufacturing techniques makes a much more robust receiver
5 SS systems enjoy a large processor gain.
6 There are crystals but no fragile ones like in 72 systems.
7 There are no fragile IF transformers
8.. The transmitter uses less power. Its battery will last longer'
9 The antennas are more manageable.
10 Most large meets require use of 2.4. .They didn't start that way. Its just nobody showed up on 72 anymore
1. True, but since most flyers are on 2.4 now, it has become virtually a non-issue for 72.
2. And yet we are losing airplanes every day to brown-outs, lockouts and unknown radio failures.
3. True, and yet only the Chinese radios are cheaper than the 72's were.
4. See 2 above.
5. ?
6. See 2 above.
7. See 2 above.
8. Do you routinely use the last 5 or 10% of your transmitter battery?
9. True.
10. True, but not an issue for the 90+% of us who don't participate in large meets.
This is kind of fun.
Last edited by jrf; 10-04-2015 at 04:36 PM.
10-04-2015, 04:52 PM
#55
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Tan Valley,
AZ
Posts: 5,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your only point is a perceived large number of system failure. I dont think that is the case. People that have a failure scream loudly. You usually dont hear from those that dont.
Brownouts are the fault of the user, not the mfg.
The other failures would be explained if telemetry is employed. I expect its not the fault of the equipment in most cases.
Brownouts are the fault of the user, not the mfg.
The other failures would be explained if telemetry is employed. I expect its not the fault of the equipment in most cases.
10-04-2015, 06:58 PM
#56
My Feedback: (3)
Your only point is a perceived large number of system failure. I dont think that is the case. People that have a failure scream loudly. You usually dont hear from those that dont.
Brownouts are the fault of the user, not the mfg.
The other failures would be explained if telemetry is employed. I expect its not the fault of the equipment in most cases.
Brownouts are the fault of the user, not the mfg.
The other failures would be explained if telemetry is employed. I expect its not the fault of the equipment in most cases.
Brownouts are NOT the fault of the user but a direct result of the particular path the manufacturer took in designing and building the equipment compounded by not providing better power supplies with the RX systems or warnings. I really do wonder how many aircraft were lost before anyone happened to mention that these systems can go into failure mode due to brownout. Just saying..
ROFLOL! Well before 2.4 came out I switched to 5 cell packs after discovering that when 1 cell dies in my 4 cell pack the aircraft becomes uncontrollable but if it is a 5 cell pack, I get the chance to land it and find out what happened. So being told of brownouts was astounding to me and made me feel very lucky because I had never noticed the problem.
As for your sneering at those who point out problems, that is a personal problem sir because you clearly have elected to ignore wide spread problems most of the manufactures have already addressed.
The point is that there seem to be some continuing problems and you seem to insist we all become researchers for the manufacturer, which also means spending hobby money and time gathering data to find and identify problems rather than enjoy our free time playing with the things we have already paid for. This was not on the agenda in the 72 MHz days and ain't progress which smells like something from a government employee who is here to help us.
10-04-2015, 07:59 PM
#57
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Tan Valley,
AZ
Posts: 5,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well i agree. We disagree. The manufacturer sells an item and give you a specification for you to follow. If you dont supply the voltage it requires its your fault, not the manufacturer.
In the days of 72 we had to build our toys. That severely limited the people involved. It would take six months of part time work. The people that did that had tu be dedicated and competent.
These days there are thousands of individuals buying Chinese toys that do not know what battery is,let alone the type.
Think of all of the drones,small helles and bind and fly items you can get that you just throw a switch and it goes. Is it any wonder we have failures?
A fellow recently showed up at our field with a $5000 quad. He had never even flown an airplane. Our field does not have quad fliers. No one wanted to take the responsibility to help him.
In the days of 72 we had to build our toys. That severely limited the people involved. It would take six months of part time work. The people that did that had tu be dedicated and competent.
These days there are thousands of individuals buying Chinese toys that do not know what battery is,let alone the type.
Think of all of the drones,small helles and bind and fly items you can get that you just throw a switch and it goes. Is it any wonder we have failures?
A fellow recently showed up at our field with a $5000 quad. He had never even flown an airplane. Our field does not have quad fliers. No one wanted to take the responsibility to help him.
10-05-2015, 11:52 AM
#58
Senior Member
As an experiment, I decided to check several NiCad and NMIH RX and TX packs that had sat in the shop for some time. None are new, but do have name brand cells.
In general, what I found was that packs off the shelf could only deliver about 1/4-1/2 the rated capacity (and current). Cycling them 5 or 6 times made a night and day difference!
All were able to deliver enough current to be used, but some were around 80% of the original rated capacity. For whatever it's worth, the older RC NiCad 600 mah packs recovered
close to all of the original capacity. The NMIH were about 75-80% The higher 2200mah cells did not recover as well as the lower rated ones.
One of my current problems has to do with 6S5000mah Lipos. The maximum current draw is 75-80A. This is well within specs for the battery specs, and usually results (with a good battery) spirited flight times
of 5 to 6 minutes on a 10.5 LB P51 Calculated P/W is about 1.11 to 1. More recently, I've had problems with loss of power, accompanied by a "warble" at high throttle settings.
Although the batteries pass tests such as cell IR, balance, etc. and even short term high current testing well in excess of 75A, the problem persists.
It's just intermittent enough to question both the battery and the CC 75 A ESC. I have a CC 90A that I may put in, just to eliminate the 75A ESC as a possible culprit.
So far ground runups haven't shown anything unusual. ????
In general, what I found was that packs off the shelf could only deliver about 1/4-1/2 the rated capacity (and current). Cycling them 5 or 6 times made a night and day difference!
All were able to deliver enough current to be used, but some were around 80% of the original rated capacity. For whatever it's worth, the older RC NiCad 600 mah packs recovered
close to all of the original capacity. The NMIH were about 75-80% The higher 2200mah cells did not recover as well as the lower rated ones.
One of my current problems has to do with 6S5000mah Lipos. The maximum current draw is 75-80A. This is well within specs for the battery specs, and usually results (with a good battery) spirited flight times
of 5 to 6 minutes on a 10.5 LB P51 Calculated P/W is about 1.11 to 1. More recently, I've had problems with loss of power, accompanied by a "warble" at high throttle settings.
Although the batteries pass tests such as cell IR, balance, etc. and even short term high current testing well in excess of 75A, the problem persists.
It's just intermittent enough to question both the battery and the CC 75 A ESC. I have a CC 90A that I may put in, just to eliminate the 75A ESC as a possible culprit.
So far ground runups haven't shown anything unusual. ????
10-05-2015, 12:11 PM
#59
Senior Member
The load of real concern usually has to do with digital servos, and occasionally electric retracts. It's a short term high current "spike" or spikes.
On electric retracts, such as E-Flite's with a curved cam slot and a couple of "bumps" the spike occurs as a cylinder pops over the bumps.
The digital servos can produce a very short duration repetitive current spike as pulses are sent to the servo motor. Older versions of a JR 821
servo were known for their high peak current, and the resulting problems.
20-22 Ga wire is large enough for most servo power conductors, but is likely to be marginal between the RX and battery, unless the RX voltage is higher than 5v.
(This assumes digital servos.) 2A BECs are not really capable enough to reliably provide the needed higher currents for today's digital servos, unless the number is small.
When you add electric retracts to the mix, I'd really prefer to use a separate power source for them and other non essential servos. If I use a SBEC, it's gotta have a 5A continious
rating.
On electric retracts, such as E-Flite's with a curved cam slot and a couple of "bumps" the spike occurs as a cylinder pops over the bumps.
The digital servos can produce a very short duration repetitive current spike as pulses are sent to the servo motor. Older versions of a JR 821
servo were known for their high peak current, and the resulting problems.
20-22 Ga wire is large enough for most servo power conductors, but is likely to be marginal between the RX and battery, unless the RX voltage is higher than 5v.
(This assumes digital servos.) 2A BECs are not really capable enough to reliably provide the needed higher currents for today's digital servos, unless the number is small.
When you add electric retracts to the mix, I'd really prefer to use a separate power source for them and other non essential servos. If I use a SBEC, it's gotta have a 5A continious
rating.
10-05-2015, 04:53 PM
#60
My Feedback: (14)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Boise ID
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I've said before, there is one major problem with Spektrum that seemly can't be fixed... IT'S MADE IN CHINA!!!.
That is the common denominator with all Spektrum problems. Shucks, even a large majority of the lipo's and life's are
MADE IN CHINA.
Do you see trend here?
You can type all the technical gobble goop you want to but it always come's back to: IT'S MADE IN CHINA.
Futaba, made in Taiwan. No problems
JR, made in Japan. No problems.
Some thing made in China may or may not work. It's a roll of the dice.
I'm not anti China... I just know that they are not known for their quality or longevity. Stuff is made in China because they make stuff so cheaply. And they make it cheap by using cheaply made parts.
And now I'll go jump into my Chinese made car.... wait, there is no such thing, wonder why. Quality lacking?
Bob... Spektrum user.
That is the common denominator with all Spektrum problems. Shucks, even a large majority of the lipo's and life's are
MADE IN CHINA.
Do you see trend here?
You can type all the technical gobble goop you want to but it always come's back to: IT'S MADE IN CHINA.
Futaba, made in Taiwan. No problems
JR, made in Japan. No problems.
Some thing made in China may or may not work. It's a roll of the dice.
I'm not anti China... I just know that they are not known for their quality or longevity. Stuff is made in China because they make stuff so cheaply. And they make it cheap by using cheaply made parts.
And now I'll go jump into my Chinese made car.... wait, there is no such thing, wonder why. Quality lacking?
Bob... Spektrum user.
10-05-2015, 05:29 PM
#61
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Tan Valley,
AZ
Posts: 5,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Futaba is no longer made in Taiwan. Its made in China probably in the same factory as Spektrum. Don't know about JR but it probably is too. Its much cheaper there so they make bigger profits. Then they raise the price so those that equate price with quality will buy it.
10-05-2015, 06:34 PM
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 4,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-05-2015, 09:21 PM
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sanger,
CA
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, but you are not exactly correct. A bind is NOT FOREVER rather it is as good as the equipment and lasts until the electronics in the circuit fail. If there is a weak capacitor on the RX side, the bind can, and has been lost. A little research will yield that Spektrum had some RX's with that particular problem.
While I really love being reamed by the perfect folks here, that is not productive nor is it called for.
All having telemetry will do is tell me it stopped working, and maybe not even that in this case. Your write up is great for on airframe failure, but if you read carefully what was said, the evidenced failure strongly suggests it is more than likely with the transmitter. As you said, a bind is not a connection and that seems to be where the issue is. Since it appears to be common to multiple RX's the thinking observer would look to see what was common to them rather than suggest a totally disconnected test procedure that ignores the basic problem - multiple RX's on multiple airframes failing to connect.
In short, while having TM has value and probably will/has saved airframes due to on board failures, it will not save the airframe, nor will that replace the airframe in the event of a TX fault. Unfortunately when I ate the earlier giant scale birds, TM was not available.
While I really love being reamed by the perfect folks here, that is not productive nor is it called for.
All having telemetry will do is tell me it stopped working, and maybe not even that in this case. Your write up is great for on airframe failure, but if you read carefully what was said, the evidenced failure strongly suggests it is more than likely with the transmitter. As you said, a bind is not a connection and that seems to be where the issue is. Since it appears to be common to multiple RX's the thinking observer would look to see what was common to them rather than suggest a totally disconnected test procedure that ignores the basic problem - multiple RX's on multiple airframes failing to connect.
In short, while having TM has value and probably will/has saved airframes due to on board failures, it will not save the airframe, nor will that replace the airframe in the event of a TX fault. Unfortunately when I ate the earlier giant scale birds, TM was not available.
Jim
I am absolutely correct. I think you may not be understanding the difference between a Bind and a Connection. They are 2 distinctly different functions.
A Bind is negotiated between a Tx and a Rx. They store the vital info about each other in non volatile memory. It stays there until it is replaced by another Bind sequence. Loss of power in any circuit will not erase it.
A Connection on the other hand is different. It can be lost for a few different reasons. The 2 biggest are loss of signal or loss of adequate power to the Rx bus. With a loss of signal the Rx remains active and goes into a Hold state until it receives good data again and resumes the connection.
With a loss of power it shuts down. If power comes back it will attempt to reboot and Connect again. It follows the same rules as if it was powered up originally. If it requires a Remote for the Connection to complete and it does not see a signal from it the Connection will not happen.
If the voltage drop was in part due to the load on the surfaces raising the current enough to pull the voltage down at the Rx bus as soon as it reconnects the load will likely be reapplied and force another shutdown. If the power delivery is marginal its pretty easy to get into a voltage loss,shutdown,reboot,current drawing voltage down again,shutdown,reboot over and over in an endless loop.
Like I said most problems dont just happen out of the blue.They develop. If you can recognize that your voltage is becoming lower than normal or your antennas are not performing as they should before the system completely fails and you lose control it will allow you to land gracefully under control. I call that a saved airframe. Without data your fat and happy until the sticks dont work anymore and your playing lawn darts instead or RC aircraft.
Having this information in realtime and being able to set alarm thresholds is leaps and bounds above using a logger like Eagletree like we did before telemetry was common.
Sudden catastrophic faults in the Tx do not appear and then disappear. Same is true with the Rx system. It is possible but very rare. If they fail they generally fail on powerup. The first thing to ensure a healthy signal connection is a good low power check.The perception is that the systems should be 100% reliable so any kind of checking is unnecessary. Range Check is kind of the legacy term for doing this but in the new systems it is more properly defined as Low Power check.
You are doing more than confirming the absolute range with this low power.
Its not an analog system and you cant apply analog logic to what is going on.
10-05-2015, 09:51 PM
#64
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sanger,
CA
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly those folks with advanced skills in electronics and RF are able to discern and compensated for the weaknesses of our modern radio systems. Then there are those of us who flew for 25 years on 72 MHz with no such problems. Call me a Dinosaur, an Old Guy, or a Luddite, but I don't see this as progress.
Jim
Jim
users to understand how to get that power from the source to where it is used.
"Been doing it this way for 25 years" doesnt make any sense. This isnt the equipment of 25 years ago. You cant set it up the same way.
10-05-2015, 10:17 PM
#65
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sanger,
CA
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an experiment, I decided to check several NiCad and NMIH RX and TX packs that had sat in the shop for some time. None are new, but do have name brand cells.
In general, what I found was that packs off the shelf could only deliver about 1/4-1/2 the rated capacity (and current). Cycling them 5 or 6 times made a night and day difference!
All were able to deliver enough current to be used, but some were around 80% of the original rated capacity. For whatever it's worth, the older RC NiCad 600 mah packs recovered
close to all of the original capacity. The NMIH were about 75-80% The higher 2200mah cells did not recover as well as the lower rated ones.
One of my current problems has to do with 6S5000mah Lipos. The maximum current draw is 75-80A. This is well within specs for the battery specs, and usually results (with a good battery) spirited flight times
of 5 to 6 minutes on a 10.5 LB P51 Calculated P/W is about 1.11 to 1. More recently, I've had problems with loss of power, accompanied by a "warble" at high throttle settings.
Although the batteries pass tests such as cell IR, balance, etc. and even short term high current testing well in excess of 75A, the problem persists.
It's just intermittent enough to question both the battery and the CC 75 A ESC. I have a CC 90A that I may put in, just to eliminate the 75A ESC as a possible culprit.
So far ground runups haven't shown anything unusual. ????
In general, what I found was that packs off the shelf could only deliver about 1/4-1/2 the rated capacity (and current). Cycling them 5 or 6 times made a night and day difference!
All were able to deliver enough current to be used, but some were around 80% of the original rated capacity. For whatever it's worth, the older RC NiCad 600 mah packs recovered
close to all of the original capacity. The NMIH were about 75-80% The higher 2200mah cells did not recover as well as the lower rated ones.
One of my current problems has to do with 6S5000mah Lipos. The maximum current draw is 75-80A. This is well within specs for the battery specs, and usually results (with a good battery) spirited flight times
of 5 to 6 minutes on a 10.5 LB P51 Calculated P/W is about 1.11 to 1. More recently, I've had problems with loss of power, accompanied by a "warble" at high throttle settings.
Although the batteries pass tests such as cell IR, balance, etc. and even short term high current testing well in excess of 75A, the problem persists.
It's just intermittent enough to question both the battery and the CC 75 A ESC. I have a CC 90A that I may put in, just to eliminate the 75A ESC as a possible culprit.
So far ground runups haven't shown anything unusual. ????
The variables prohibit a calculation for the most part.
Funny thing is that this does apply directly to the OT. In a smaller way the same thing happens in any circuit. If your circuit is being pushed to its maximum ability when new clean and cool your more than likely going to have problems as resistance goes up.Resistance can and will likely increase at several points along the way. Each point combines with the next as until the cumulative effect is seen at the endpoint(Load). Generally it is loss of voltage. If there is a minimum voltage threshold for any component to continue operating and it falls below that is stops working.
The warbling you describe would be explained as loss of voltage likely first seen at the ESC.It automatically reduces the output to limit input voltage depression. The instant this happens the voltage rebounds and it allows more current to flow. The voltage depresses again and it becomes a cycle.More/less/more/less over and over.
Kind of like what an I/C engine does when its starved for fuel except the cycles can be much faster.More like many times per second its all happening so fast.
10-06-2015, 06:35 AM
#67
Not all our products are made in China. We have stuff made in China, yes, but also in Taiwan, Singapore, and elsewhere. Some of our final assembly is done in the USA and DE using components made elsewhere.
Andy
10-06-2015, 08:56 AM
#68
My Feedback: (14)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Boise ID
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy. I'm glad to hear that some of Spektrum's stuff is made in Taiwan and Singapore. I did not know that. I hope mine was one of those.
I heard a rumor that Futaba was going to have some of their stuff made (assembled) in China too. That is very sad news. If anyone owns a genuine made in Taiwan Futaba system they had better hang on to it because things will now never be the same. Futaba will now join the "brownout" club. I have a Futaba 8UAPs and I'm never turning loose of it now.
Okay.... back to reading about ohms and amps and resistance and wave lengths. Lots of theory's floating around on here but no cures...yet. Good reading though.
Bob
I heard a rumor that Futaba was going to have some of their stuff made (assembled) in China too. That is very sad news. If anyone owns a genuine made in Taiwan Futaba system they had better hang on to it because things will now never be the same. Futaba will now join the "brownout" club. I have a Futaba 8UAPs and I'm never turning loose of it now.
Okay.... back to reading about ohms and amps and resistance and wave lengths. Lots of theory's floating around on here but no cures...yet. Good reading though.
Bob
10-06-2015, 09:58 AM
#71
10-06-2015, 10:32 AM
#72
My Feedback: (14)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Boise ID
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gosh Andy... you're a lucky guy in that you didn't end up with a made in China one. I'm going to go check mine now... Dang... wouldn't you know.... mines made in China. Well, I run Life 6.6v batteries so I should be okay.
Bob
Bob
10-06-2015, 12:01 PM
#73
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Tan Valley,
AZ
Posts: 5,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is nothing wrong with made in China equipment. Its just cheaper to make high class equipment there as the labor cost is much less. You can buy junk from any country including Japan Taiwan and Singapore. You can even get it here in the US.
If you check your old Taiwan equipment you will probably find a lot of Chinese parts.
If you check your old Taiwan equipment you will probably find a lot of Chinese parts.
10-06-2015, 12:05 PM
#74
Andy