dbcisco

Does anyone know where I can get cheap 3ch, 72Mhz, FM, neg. shift receivers? I've been using 4 and 6ch receivers and wonder if I could save some money. I only use 3ch (no ailerons) so I don't need the extra channels.

offtom

Far as I know 4 channel is smallest you can get. I've never seen a 3 channel reciever for aircraft.

Course I could be wrong, it is a big world out there and I haven't seen everything.



http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LL6795&P=1

These aren't too expensive, and very good recievers, I have a few and never had a problem with them.

Bub Steve

I think Hitech has them, I got one in the Max V, , 4 Ch reciecers are 15$ , 19$ for a corna synth,4 ch ,bub, steve

dbcisco

I've been collecting micro Rx's when I find them under $10 on ebay, I just thought that with all the 3ch planes out there, someone was making them. Maybe I could contact a manufacturer in China. If they could make me a couple thousand at $5-10 each, I bet I could sell them all at a decent profit

Seems like a market is out there for them. Maybe GWS and Futaba would pay me not to do it

dbcisco

Great collection there Steve, and the fleet is nice too.

CarpenterDave

Now you won't

dbcisco

I bet China could make them for $2 each. I may have to contact the toy companies. I would be happy with something like the 3ch AM RX's from their cheapo heli's and planes. I don't need much more than that for my indoor/backyard flyers.

Bill G

Yep, I've had excellent results with both Coronas and GWS Pico receivers. It would scare me to go any cheaper.
The only issue I found with the Pico, is to get the version with the longer antennas. I've since extended my Pico antennas with shorter antennas. Around 3 feet in length is ideal, and I've experience glitch/ range problems with the shorter antennas.

CHELLIE

Hi, Dont Go Cheap on Receivers, Thats what is controling your plane, Cheap Receivers = CRASH !!!!!! its not worth it, Use a BERG receiver with all of your planes, they are the best of the best, and dont cost that much more, and they will lock onto your transmitter, its almost like having a 2.4 radio system, why Chance a Crash ? you have your time and money into a plane, Insure it with the best receiver around for 72 Mhz, Ok I will get off my soap Box now Take care, Chellie

http://www.castlecreations.com/suppo...user_guide.pdf


http://www.bphobbies.com/view.asp?id=V457587

i like the 4L Receiver for my foamies

dbcisco

I know it's risky going with cheaper electronics. Problem is, I can build planes easier than coming up with the money for electronics to go in them.
I think I might have to start building them with removable ESC and RX. I remove batteries, why not the whole kit? That would justify the expense for better stuff. Darn you folks, making me think all the time

Laggard

Can't agree with you on this Chellie. Been using Liteflight receivers for a while now with no failures or glitching. And for $20 you can't go wrong.

Bill G

It really is an application issue, and I agree that I too am not quick to call something cheap, if it can work well for a person.

I'm convinced that the low cost GWS Pico and Naro receivers are dependable and function well, as I have had no defects and use over 20 of them often. I have been told that with other flyers on adjacent channels I may have issues. That said, since I fly in the middle of nowhere by myself, I have no reason to think that a Berg is any better than a GWS Pico for me. I have both, and they both work equally well, after extending some of the Pico antennas to the same lenght as the Bergs. Now if I were to bring planes I really care about to an rc field with other flyers, I'd probably swap the Bergs in those planes for the day.

I have many planes that will only fly in the local park, and therefore see no reason to spend the extra money on Bergs for seemingly no benefit. For my faster, larger, higher dollar and higher work effort planes that may also go to club fields, I spend the extra money on the Bergs, as it makes sense in that case.

dbcisco

I'm of the same mind Bill. I fly them in the Church parking lot behind my house or one of the many parks and hay-fields around here. I don't go to any club fields because I have (yet) to see any major reason to do so. I have yet to have any RX's give me problems, even the cheap 2ch Radio shack planes have no radio issues so far. I also haven't paid more than $15 for a RX, I just want to see how cheap I get parts (=more toys )

cyclops2

The older Hitec Featherlites had a bad habit of creating cold solder intermittant servo action. I had 3 that all went bad.
Newer Hitecs are OK, same with Blue bird and some others I have.

ALL the receivers have a VERY BAD problem.

The dam thin antenna wire flapping around will always flex enough times to break, sometime. It is a real bugger to identify as the problem is affected by RANGE, VIOLENT TURNS & wind forces. It is a intermittant high resistance connection. Sensitive recv. today hide the problem very often.

EDIT>>>>>> Checking for a break is just a matter of holding the wire FIRMLY at each end on a flat surface and pulling with about 5# of pull for 5 seconds in warm air. The plastic starts to stretch. The break is clear.

dbcisco

My distances are so short that I have no problems with the antena coiled around a soda straw inside the fuselage. Electronic theory (yeah I teach this stuff) claims that as long as the coils don't cross each other it is identical in properties to a straight line antena. However, if it makes you feel better (or the electronics interfere (nore likely)) then hang it out the tail. I have yet to have problems except with the 4in1's on small heli's. I think the 4in1 ESC circuits are not sheilded well.

Bill G

The older Hitec Feather was a flop. Not as good as a GWS Naro, but was 10 bucks more. When I first got into rc, I did some research to get an idea which was better. The posts were about 100:1 in favor of the Naro over the Feather. Yep, cheaper is better.

I have 1 Feather, that actually does work. I was terrified to use it, as it is in a Guillows DC3 conversion that has a lot of work in it. Flew very well, but should have had something better in it, considering the work put in.