New Spektrum Receiver, the AR500
04-26-2009, 12:10 PM
#51
Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NE England
Posts: 86
Hi Travis! the 'whisper' was because I don't want to set up an 'off-topic' discussion 
However as it was a valid question you posed about it being a correct comment, I agree there are times when it may be appropriate.
The boat people have a reservation about using 2.4ghz gear as they think it will have no range over water. Especially with spray around. Small boats may be unable to get the antenna high enough to operate at a good distance and still be in 'line of sight'. However the distance involved with small boats in my experience is very close when compared with what the limits are likely to be. My belief is that the worry is unfounded but it's not difficult to arrange a higher antenna whatever the situation. If that is applied to water planes of any sort, once in the air they will be as normal, and who will be flying at water level hundreds of feet away? It's a topic open for experimentation with repeatable results so that all this sort of 'here be dragons' unsubstantiated allegations can be refuted and killed off (or corroborated?) once and for all. There seem to be reservations about spray, wet leaves(?) and foliage between the transmitter and receiver. Spray may be a problem, but operating radio gear when flying/sailing behind some obstacle seems a bit of a daft exercise anyway. Do we do that regularly or occasionally? I am quite happy to fly behind something as long as the failsafe works and recovers very quickly, but I doubt I've actually done that more then two or three times in 50 years of using RC gear. Even then it was not a voluntary thing and was due to pilot error or misreading the situation.
However as it was a valid question you posed about it being a correct comment, I agree there are times when it may be appropriate.
The boat people have a reservation about using 2.4ghz gear as they think it will have no range over water. Especially with spray around. Small boats may be unable to get the antenna high enough to operate at a good distance and still be in 'line of sight'. However the distance involved with small boats in my experience is very close when compared with what the limits are likely to be. My belief is that the worry is unfounded but it's not difficult to arrange a higher antenna whatever the situation. If that is applied to water planes of any sort, once in the air they will be as normal, and who will be flying at water level hundreds of feet away? It's a topic open for experimentation with repeatable results so that all this sort of 'here be dragons' unsubstantiated allegations can be refuted and killed off (or corroborated?) once and for all. There seem to be reservations about spray, wet leaves(?) and foliage between the transmitter and receiver. Spray may be a problem, but operating radio gear when flying/sailing behind some obstacle seems a bit of a daft exercise anyway. Do we do that regularly or occasionally? I am quite happy to fly behind something as long as the failsafe works and recovers very quickly, but I doubt I've actually done that more then two or three times in 50 years of using RC gear. Even then it was not a voluntary thing and was due to pilot error or misreading the situation.
09-03-2009, 12:37 PM
#52
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Park Ridge, NJ
Posts: 42
5 channel? 4 channel? 3 is just right for me, and for sure ymmv.
i prefer flying speck high and speck wide with old timers and glider types - so a full range rx is what's required - and my dx5e and ar500's get the job done perfectly.
i prefer flying speck high and speck wide with old timers and glider types - so a full range rx is what's required - and my dx5e and ar500's get the job done perfectly.
