What brand of Tx are you guys using?... - Page 4 - WattFlyer RC Electric Flight Forums - Discuss radio control eflight

ParkFlyers Talk about all backyard and parkflyer aircraft here

What brand of Tx are you guys using?...

Old 02-04-2015, 03:10 PM
  #76  
horsefly76
New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5
Default

Originally Posted by CHELLIE View Post
To be Very Honest IMHO, if your in the USA, get a 72 mhz JR Transmitter with a Berg Receiver, no brown out problems, its full range, no masking problems, a Berg receiver is the best to use with E Power, I learned about all the issues with 2.4Ghz and went back to 72 Mhz, IMHO, I am very happy I did , take care and have fun, Chellie
I know this is an old post but I was just given 8 various 72 MHz rx because "no one uses 72 MHz anymore its crap 2.4 is the only thing to use" lol
I am a general class ham also and understand the benefits of 72mhz. I love my now "old" Futaba 9C Super with a 1500mah li-fe battery I can operate for ever between charges
Case in point on my 440mhz radio I can expect 30 to 40 mile range line of sight in good conditions. On the 20m (14mhz) ham band I have conversations with people in Russia 6,800 miles away
horsefly76 is offline  
Old 02-04-2015, 06:31 PM
  #77  
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 6,121
Default

Extreme range is great for ham radio and talking to someone in Russia. On the other hand for RC hobby use, range much over half a mile is a waste of time because you cant see the model. Makes no difference if the radio has range or not, if you cant see it you cant fly it.
Even for FPV the regulations say you have to be within visual range (though many don't abide)

Last edited by JetPlaneFlyer; 02-04-2015 at 07:50 PM.
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
Old 02-04-2015, 07:37 PM
  #78  
xmech2k
Ya got any Beeman's?
 
xmech2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,099
Default

Yes. Unfortunately for some reason it's a matter of bragging rights among some fpv'ers. How far or how high they can go. Are those the regulations in Scotland?
xmech2k is offline  
Old 02-04-2015, 07:47 PM
  #79  
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 6,121
Default

Originally Posted by xmech2k View Post
Are those the regulations in Scotland?
It's FAA regulations:

Model Aircraft Operations Limits
According to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 as (1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use; (2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization; (3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization; (4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; (5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower…with prior notice of the operation; and (6) the aircraft is flown within visual line sight of the operator.
http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/...aft_operators/
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
Old 02-04-2015, 08:06 PM
  #80  
pizzano
Behold The Renaissance
 
pizzano's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: So. Calif
Posts: 2,316
Default

Got to believe in Scotland, air regulations and enforcement differ quite a bit.......given the overlapping UK requirements.....and lack of substantial conflicting air traffic other than Glosgow and Edinburgh.......RC conflicts being UAV/FVP or otherwise, considering density population of such, has to be much different then here in higher (U.S.) density locations........
pizzano is offline  
Old 02-04-2015, 10:08 PM
  #81  
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 6,121
Default

It's not all heather covered glens with tartan clad Groundskeeper Willie's herding flocks of haggis.
Aberdeen has an international airport and one of the busiest heliports in the world. FWIW I fly directly under the approach path of the helicopters to/from the North Sea offshore field, It's an almost constant steam of helis. Happily high enough not to be an issue but considerably lower than you would find with fixed wing aircraft. I do feel the need to fly low when they pass overhead even though i'm sure they are high enough not to have to be worry about. I'm about 5 miles from the airport so officially probably just out of the controlled area, but still....

Last edited by JetPlaneFlyer; 02-04-2015 at 10:32 PM.
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
Old 02-04-2015, 10:23 PM
  #82  
crxmanpat
Community Moderator
 
crxmanpat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,865
Default

Originally Posted by horsefly76 View Post
I know this is an old post but I was just given 8 various 72 MHz rx because "no one uses 72 MHz anymore its crap 2.4 is the only thing to use" lol
I am a general class ham also and understand the benefits of 72mhz. I love my now "old" Futaba 9C Super with a 1500mah li-fe battery I can operate for ever between charges
Case in point on my 440mhz radio I can expect 30 to 40 mile range line of sight in good conditions. On the 20m (14mhz) ham band I have conversations with people in Russia 6,800 miles away
Nothing at all wrong with the 72mHz radios and equipment. The advent of 2.4GHz did not make 72 suddenly stop working.

So many people talked about "glitching" on 72. But I bet the majority of that was either due to cheap equipment, or poor power supply to the RX. I say use what you got.

Me personally, I took my 72mHz JR XP9303 and converted it to 2.4GHz using the XPS module. Everything I have now is 2.4.
crxmanpat is offline  
Old 02-17-2015, 06:28 PM
  #83  
FlyWheel
Ochroma Pyramidale Tekton
 
FlyWheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blackstock, South Carolina
Posts: 3,029
Default

I agree, I never had any problems with 72MHz, and now with 'everyone else' using 2.4 having someone else firing up on the same frequency is pretty much a non-issue.

Finding any 72MHz radio equipment, however...
FlyWheel is offline  
Old 02-17-2015, 09:11 PM
  #84  
maxflyer
Member
 
maxflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Santa Fe, NM
Posts: 362
Default

Not exactly true. I offered this bundle some time back and got no responses at all:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2054701
maxflyer is offline  
Old 02-17-2015, 11:32 PM
  #85  
Wrench66
Ya' need to use mo rudda!
 
Wrench66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chino, Calif. aka Dairyland
Posts: 1,380
Default

That's a nice radio, Max......the Hitec Flash 5SX is a very under rated computer radio, I love mine (yes I am of the minority who still fly crystal radios )
--Ray
Wrench66 is offline  
Old 02-18-2015, 12:33 AM
  #86  
maxflyer
Member
 
maxflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Santa Fe, NM
Posts: 362
Default

Yes, I thought it was the cat's meow in 2004, when it helped me through my first 10-15 self-taught hours with a couple of converted foam chuck gliders, using the latest speed 280-400 brushed motors, Ni-cad batteries, and no more than 3 channels!

The only annoyance for me, and a minor one at that, was the long Rx antennas which trailed along outside the aircraft. Since I flew alone out in the country I never even had to consider stepping on other flyers. The radio itself far outstripped my needs and capabilities. Even now it would be a match for most any 2.4 radio out there.

I then moved to another property and didn't fly again for about 8 years, and by then 2.4 ghz and brushless were the rage. I thought, if I'm going to continue with this I should probably buy the newer technology. The most important reason for changing though, was that I realized I would soon need additional channels.
maxflyer is offline  
Old 02-18-2015, 03:04 PM
  #87  
FlyWheel
Ochroma Pyramidale Tekton
 
FlyWheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blackstock, South Carolina
Posts: 3,029
Default

Originally Posted by maxflyer View Post
Not exactly true. I offered this bundle some time back and got no responses at all:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2054701
I have a F5X myself, It meets my needs (both current and any predicted future) without having to work around a bundle of stuff I never will. I've looked at some of the more - ahem - 'basic' 6Ch. 2.4 TXs but they all seem like buying a palm sized computer when all you want to do is make phone calls.

I don't suppose you know of a suitable replacement for the Berg MicroStamp RX (both in size and reliability)?
FlyWheel is offline  
Old 02-18-2015, 05:10 PM
  #88  
FlyWheel
Ochroma Pyramidale Tekton
 
FlyWheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blackstock, South Carolina
Posts: 3,029
Red face me: extracting foot from mouth...

PS!

I take back my comment about complexity - I just stumbled upon a PDF of the Optic 5 manual. Now that's more like it (and no heli functions* to boot)! Anyone know if there is a 6 channel like this?
(Edit: Ironically, the 2.4 Optic 5 actually has fewer features than the 72Mhz Flash 5 did!)


*Nothing against helis or the people who fly them, they're just not my cup of tea!

Last edited by FlyWheel; 02-18-2015 at 09:43 PM. Reason: added features comment
FlyWheel is offline  
Old 02-18-2015, 09:41 PM
  #89  
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 6,121
Default

Originally Posted by FlyWheel View Post
I don't suppose you know of a suitable replacement for the Berg MicroStamp RX (both in size and reliability)?
Here you go.. smaller, lighter, cheaper, more reliable, two more channels, no big antenna: http://www.lemon-rx.com/shop/index.p...product_id=122

You just need a DSM2 / DSMX transmitter.
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
Old 02-18-2015, 11:41 PM
  #90  
FlyWheel
Ochroma Pyramidale Tekton
 
FlyWheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blackstock, South Carolina
Posts: 3,029
Default

Originally Posted by JetPlaneFlyer View Post
Here you go.. smaller, lighter, cheaper, more reliable, two more channels, no big antenna: http://www.lemon-rx.com/shop/index.p...product_id=122

You just need a DSM2 / DSMX transmitter.
Thanks, but I was referring to 72MHz recievers.

Chellie? You were the one to sound off about returning to 72MHz on page one of this thread...

Last edited by FlyWheel; 02-19-2015 at 03:39 PM.
FlyWheel is offline  
Old 02-19-2015, 05:43 AM
  #91  
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 6,121
Default

Originally Posted by FlyWheel View Post
Thanks, but I was referring to 72MHz recievers.
I did kinda guess that you meant 72MHZ, but all the manufacturers have moved to 2.4GHz,no one makes 72MHz anymore. If you want to buy 72MHz it's the classifieds and eBay.
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
Old 02-19-2015, 03:32 PM
  #92  
FlyWheel
Ochroma Pyramidale Tekton
 
FlyWheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blackstock, South Carolina
Posts: 3,029
Default

Originally Posted by JetPlaneFlyer View Post
I did kinda guess that you meant 72MHZ, but all the manufacturers have moved to 2.4GHz,no one makes 72MHz anymore. If you want to buy 72MHz it's the classifieds and eBay.
Which bring us right back to my comment in post #83.

The circle is now complete - now I am the master!
FlyWheel is offline  
Old 02-19-2015, 04:02 PM
  #93  
maxflyer
Member
 
maxflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Santa Fe, NM
Posts: 362
Default

Originally Posted by JetPlaneFlyer View Post
I did kinda guess that you meant 72MHZ, but all the manufacturers have moved to 2.4GHz,no one makes 72MHz anymore. If you want to buy 72MHz it's the classifieds and eBay.
This kind of makes MY point. I still feel a bit guilty that I have this almost-new, perfectly good 5-channel computer radio languishing in a box. Just didn't seem smart, when I decided to give RC flying another go, to start spending what was likely to be a substantial amount of money on yesterday's product.

These paradigm shifts in technology can be brutal, but are a fact of modern life. For example, I recently was inspired to try to sell off my large collection of computer chess games. Went to the "Bay" to see what typical prices were for these things, some of which are very rare now. I was shocked to see that my prized collection had practically no value at all! And why should it? Even I now play chess on my phone or my iPad.

The path of modern technology is strewn with bloody victims.
maxflyer is offline  
Old 02-19-2015, 09:30 PM
  #94  
time bandit
Member
Thread Starter
 
time bandit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: B'ham, Alabama
Posts: 229
Default

Technology can be a real beyotch.
time bandit is offline  
Old 02-20-2015, 01:04 AM
  #95  
Wrench66
Ya' need to use mo rudda!
 
Wrench66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chino, Calif. aka Dairyland
Posts: 1,380
Default 72

You know Max, there is really no good reason to not put that Flash 5SX back into service. As you mentioned, it's fully capable of flying nearly anything and would be the least expensive route as you already own it
As far as receivers go, the Bergs ARE about the nicest but they are getting a bit scarce....these here from Jeff at Headsuphobby are very good....I use and trust them for most any of my small and medium sized planes.
http://www.headsuphobby.com/Corona-R...iver-D-515.htm
2.4 IS the modern tech but that doesn't mean you have to use it immediately...I still use my 72meg stuff as primary, the Flash 5 is always charged and ready
--Ray
Wrench66 is offline  
Old 02-20-2015, 01:45 AM
  #96  
FlyWheel
Ochroma Pyramidale Tekton
 
FlyWheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blackstock, South Carolina
Posts: 3,029
Smile

Thanks for the link, Ray. I knew there were other brands of receivers out there, but having only used Bergs I was wary to try anything without some user reviews first.

I have been looking for a simple 2.4 replacement for my Flash, and have gotten pretty close with the Optic 5. However the lack of a three position switch and limited end point adjustment capability has me still looking. Does anyone else find it odd that a modern 2.4GHz transmitter should have less than a 72MHz transmitter of a decade ago?
FlyWheel is offline  
Old 02-20-2015, 02:23 AM
  #97  
fhhuber
Super Contributor
 
fhhuber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,786
Default

The limited programmability and lack of other features on the 6 ch and less radios is mostly to drive you toward buying the higher channel count radios.

If you had all the mixes you needed on the 5 or 6 then why get the 8, 9 or ...18? There are actually few models that need more than 6 channels and the vast majority are just fine using 4.
fhhuber is offline  
Old 02-20-2015, 02:47 AM
  #98  
jcstalls
Member
 
jcstalls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 57
Default

Yes, I find it odd too so I am still using my JRXP9303 with various 2.4 module's.

Jared
jcstalls is offline  
Old 02-20-2015, 05:44 AM
  #99  
maxflyer
Member
 
maxflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Santa Fe, NM
Posts: 362
Default

I'm well beyond 72mhz at this point. I started with an Eclipse7 Pro, a really nice Tx with a fabulous screen, but very quickly discovered the problems of having pre-programmed solutions to things (now...another great Tx sitting in a box!).

I now use a Taranis and couldn't go back. It even allowed me to use my extensive collection of Hitec Rx's. And since I now use separate UBEC's in almost everything, the 7 channels of the Hitec would not be enough if using flaps and retracts.
maxflyer is offline  
Old 02-20-2015, 03:07 PM
  #100  
FlyWheel
Ochroma Pyramidale Tekton
 
FlyWheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blackstock, South Carolina
Posts: 3,029
Default

Originally Posted by fhhuber View Post
The limited programmability and lack of other features on the 6 ch and less radios is mostly to drive you toward buying the higher channel count radios.

If you had all the mixes you needed on the 5 or 6 then why get the 8, 9 or ...18? There are actually few models that need more than 6 channels and the vast majority are just fine using 4.
I never said I wanted a 7, 8, or more channel radio. I can barely see any need for a six channel, let alone more. Now if I were to tempt the fates with a full house bird (aileron, elevator, throttle, rudder, flap, spoiler) maybe. More than that I will never need, I'm into gliders and slow flyers, not 3-D and warplanes! And even the six channel transmitters I have seen are way more complex to learn and operate than I wish to deal with.

Now, if someone were to come up with a 6+ channel TX that had the straightforward simplicity ( and MAGNFICENTLY written operating manual! ) of the HiTec Optic five, then sure. But as you said, it's all about forcing us to spend the bucko bucks for the Lamborghinis when all we need is a Ford.

<sigh> I wonder how many potential flyers never get off the ground because of this?

Last edited by FlyWheel; 02-20-2015 at 03:23 PM.
FlyWheel is offline  

Quick Reply: What brand of Tx are you guys using?...


Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.

Page generated in 0.10275 seconds with 13 queries