daven

My Feedback: (1)

Yes, wide band receivers are not allowed at our field.

In todays "sue happy" world you have to cover your back side.

bentgear

Dave, are you sure that's not transmitters that have not been narrow banded are not allowed at your field?

Ed M.

Capt Jim

My Feedback: (168)

If I may interject a comment here....
Transmitters must be narrow band so as to not interefere with receivers on adjacent channels. Receivers must be also narrow band, so as to REJECT legal narrow band signals from adjacent channel transmitters.
Either situation could cause a loss of control, and.......well, I'm sure you get the picture.
Happy Holidays.
Jim

iflyj3

My Feedback: (7)

I asked you that question to show a point. I would be legal at your field flying wide band receivers on 53 MHz and even 50 MHz should I want to. Also did you know that some of the park flyer receivers are not truly narrow band? AMA has said in the past that wide band receivers would be OK if you take 4 pins either side of your channel and I don't know of any recention of that suggestion.

The point I was trying to make of you all is before you act, know what the heck you are talking about. Knee jerk reaction is not needed.

And BTW, if I came to your field, how would you know if I was wide band?

dagnythepilot

Just for my own curiosity, how come 3 channel spectrum system for RC cars are far more expensive than 6 ch radio for park fliers, $350 vs. $200?
Does anyone have answers?

bentgear

Think thats $250 vs $200. Could be that the air radio will outsell the surface radio about 10 to 1 so there is economy in volume.

Ed M.

rmh

The little SPEKTRUM works likea champ here at 4500 ft elevation -in a "bowl" surrounded by mountains with various antenna towers feeding the valley.

Once I figured out the sequences for running thru the mixes / ATV/ Expo /etc- I setup my model on two aileron servos and flew it in our park.
It is a great setup and only the absent rudder expo was any issue.
So -now I will get more rx for my other foamies and sell off my 72.00 stuff.
I fly HAM on all my gas powered stuff as the plethora of newbie "I don't know/care" flyers on 72-is just to spooky for me.

uninverted

This new technology for flyers sounds great.
One point here though.
We are all having trouble with models being frequently shot down. 4 models last Friday. These were NOT wrong thumbs.
So what's the beef with placing the Spectrum system in a larger model?
Can't see that it increases the risk at all, you may still dive in, but so what?
Probability is that you would have been shot down in any case!

rmh

Here is another model with the Spektrum-note antenna placement!
As long as you are a good flyer who can and will stay in close -no problem
problem is most novices just follow the plane around and at very high -long distances -so the radio is NOT recommended for any but small models which must be in close .
I can see no problem tho with a good 3D model flown in at under 1000ft distances -
I am not speaking for the manufacturer!
if this stuff is all new to you -- stick with the recommendations!

Airbike

My Feedback: (6)

I've heard hat this 2.4 ghz system is supposed to be a line of sight. But Obviously it isn't since we put the Rx inside of airplanes made of foam, balsa, fiberglass, plastic covering, etc.

Can someone give some info on what density of material would become a blocking factor? I usually hear that fiberglass is transparent to radio waves. Some flyers have no problem with their antenna inside carbon fuselages, others put them outside.

Any thoughts?

JPMacG

My Feedback: (2)

Yes, 2.4 GHz is line of sight, but for that matter so is 72 MHz as far as RC is concerned. Line of sight means that the propagation path is a straight line between the transmitting antenna and the receiving antenna. Line of sight does not follow the curvature of the earch, bounce off the ionosphere, get ducted in the troposphere, etc, etc.

Balsa and thin plastic coverings are virtually transparent to 2.4 GHz. Any thin non-conductive material will not be a problem. Thicker non-conductive materials are not a problem if they are low density (e.g. balsa). Conductive materials such as metalized coverings and carbon fiber would be a problem.

It seems to me that they did a real nice job with the Spectrum. It appears they have a basic polarization diviersity setup with two receive antennas. Ideally those antennas should be oriented perpendicular to one another.

Mluvara

My Feedback: (10)

Antenna loading depends on how close the antenna is to the material and the type of material. Foam, fiberglass, etc can all have an effect on an antenna's usable frequency and the signal degradation through the aircraft. 2.4GHz has a higher path loss than 72 MHz and is MUCH more directional. I beleive this is why they have essentially placed two receivers inside the receiver and placed them out of phase with each other. With a rapidly varying attitude of an aircraft, this is pretty important.

Michael

JPMacG

My Feedback: (2)

From what I can see from their literature, the 2.4 GHz antennas are short monopoles, and therefore should have the same directional characteristics as 72 MHz RC antennas. It would not make sense to use a directional antenna in a mobile system.

Mluvara

My Feedback: (10)

The wavelength of 2.4GHz is much shorter than 72MHz, therefore you will be flying through many more antenna pattern nulls as the aircraft moves along. You will always have a direct signal in line of sight, and constructive or deconstructive signals based on the phasing of the signals and where they reflect off of other objects. Picture a radiowave as a standing sine wave. The 2.4GHz repeats far more often than 72MHz, therefore you will fly through possibilities of nulls more often.

Yes, monopole antennas exhibit the same antenna patterns, i.e. a donut. They radiate outwards. The frequency/wavelength correlation are what give the nulls. Your transmitter antenna is bouncing radiowaves off of anything within the signal's propagation distance.

A directional antenna would not be of any use on an aircraft, unless one needed gain and had the ability to track the aircraft.

FWIW, our club is pretty large and it was decided that we are going to make up a set of frequency pins that simply say 2.4GHz, spread spectrum . Since there is a system in place where a member must put up a club card in place of the pin, we will at least know what frequency the pilot is flying on while he is out on the flightline.

Michael

jonkoppisch

My Feedback: (162)

I've heard that there are growing concerns in the ama concerning the use of these radios in larger models. They're concerned that people are exceding the designer specs by putting them in larger models than park fliers and that it could cause more incidents!!! We probably will see the ama issue some kind of statement although I don't know if they will deny insurance. I look for them to put the issue more to the clubs to enforce, police?

The only limitation spektrum lists is the range. Personally, I love the radio and 3,000 feet (take your car and drive 1/2 mile from an object, stop and see how far that really is) is a LONG WAYS AWAY!! Following their logic, the closer the plane gets to the transmitter the more reliable it's going to get so the only chance of loss, other than dumb thumb, is flying to far away. I fly jets and 40% planes and I don't fly them that far away!

I think a module with the same range or slightly better would be more than adequate!! Can't wait!!!

rmh

In actual practice -as noted -the radio is grrrrreat!
I have had kicking around -for years a lovely small scale Taylor Cub -built years back by an old friend - It was powered by a .049 glo and had an old radio etc..
I stripped it out fitted the new Spektrum and a 370 electric motor.
I can fly it as far as I can see to control it .
Frankly -I think I could fly any of my big gassers on it also - But I will NOT do that- I fly in reasonably close

in the monkey see monkey do approach seen today -I am certain someone else would folow suite and fly their model out of range.

braceforimpact

how are all the features on this thing. I am debating over this or the optic 6 and don't really know what to do. will this work for sail planes. also can you put the DR and EXpo for both Ailerons and elevator on one switch? it's nice to be able to get to the "Slow" controls quick if i'm about to eat it.

firegarden

Hi Airbike, did you manage to test out the Spektrum on your Mini Extra? Like you I also have an Optic 6 but looking to get the Spektrum. I have the Fliton Mini Extra as well. Just worried about the 400m range.

Airbike

My Feedback: (6)

Hi Firegarden, no need to worry about the range of the Spektrum in a Fliton Mini Extra, I've flown my Mini extra farther than normal until it was just a speck and had no range problems. So far, with another Rx on my Foamy Extra, both planes have flown way beyond normal comfortable visual range and I haven't had a single glitch yet.

I was at the AMA Convention/Show here in Southern Calif. yesterday and spoke with a Spektrum rep. I was concerned about the speed of a small pylon racer and any possible Rx orientation problems, but was reassured than as long as I stay close in (like a park flyer) the Spektrum would be fine.

and sorry, I don't have an Optic 6 Tx, I was using an Electron 6 Rx with my JR9303 Tx when my little electric pylon plane took a dirt nap[]

sxates

Hey guys.

Am relatively new to RC flight, currently have an RTF, and am looking at plane number 2 now. That will likely be a slow stick, but I want to go ahead and get a versatile radio that I can use for a long time with many different planes. I'm kind of a geek, so the 2.4ghz latest and greatest is pretty appealing, but I don't understand what all the features of the radio are, so it's hard for me to judge this thing against a more typical 72mhz in the same price range. What do you guys think--is the Spektrum something that's a good radio to get and grow with, or am I going to be running into problems with a lack of some key feature, or flying fields banning me?

j_keiter

My Feedback: (21)

Just wanted to add my 2 cents. I full range checked a friends DX6 today at the field. I drove about 2300ft away and the thing was flawless. No noise and fully functional. I put the DX6 in the bottom of my VW bus and it still freaking worked great. The whole time I was talking to my friend on my cell phone to confirm operation of the plane. The metal body of the VW bus did not kill the signal. By comparison both my Futaba R127 had significant gitter at the same distance and the Polks Hobby receivers did not work at all. Both the Seeker 6 and the Sekker II from polks have been the worst receivers I have ever seen. I just sent them back for the 3rd time with a note stating it's the 3rd time and am hoping they will finally send me a pair of receivers that give me better than 2300ft range. The Polks Tracker III transmitter has been working great for the last 5 hours of flight time I have on it. It appears to have good range. Futaba specs their R127 at 6000ft+. I'm gonna have to send my R127's back for tuning. One more thing. My cheap GWS 8ch dual conversion was the best receiver I had of my 72mHz receivers. It was functional and glitch free to 2300ft. Same as the DX6.

I'm very impressed with the DX6.

Jason Keiter Vacaville, CA

heli-cuzz

Eventually they'll have a spektrum module for my Futaba 9chp, but for now I have my T-rex450 and Caliber 30 set-up on the spektrum system. I keep both heli's within a 200 yard range, and hav'nt noticed a single glitch. They're both CCPM and the dx6 is ccpm capable. It's a great system for the money, Tx,Rx, and four micro servos for a couple hundred bucks.

j_keiter

My Feedback: (21)

1.03 mile or 5430ft line of site range worked flawlessly on my friends Spektrum RD6. I was talking to him on the cell phone the whole time. By comparison my Polks Tracker III with a GWS receiver had no functionality on ch58 nor did another plane on ch50 with the Tracker III. I'm totally blown away. I cannot wait for them to make an 8ch or bigger with digital trims and allow gas planes. If they could do it for $300 with receiver and one servo I'm sold. If anyone else owns an RD6 I suggest you find an area with a good line of site range and have a freind help you do a range check to see just how far you can get. I used my GPS for distance measurment. There was a huge mound of dirt where I was and I did lose signal when I went behind it. The dirt pile was about 40ft high and around 200ft thick.

j_keiter

My Feedback: (21)

2 of the four receivers my friend has bought were bad. They definitly appear to have quality issues. I'm still impressed with the 1 mile range though.

Jason

captinjohn

What did the receivers do bad? Thanks Capt,n