MAJOR 2.4 Ghz Spread Spectrum Release! A FlyingGiants Exclusive!

[Cracky]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Bunky F. Knuckle
	peace of mind.

thats the main thing

[toprudder]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Bunky F. Knuckle
	Once my Spektrum system arrives, I still plan on using the i4c Isolator in my Carden. Ensures me still the peace of mind.

Well, the isolators, besides keeping noise out of the receiver, can also boost the signal going to the servo. A good thing, regardless of whether you might have interference or not.

Bob R.

[airriley]

Was reading the manual for a futaba 9z ran across this, what do you guys think ?


Can I use an aftermarket transmitter module? Does this affect my warranty?
There are many aftermarket items that fit specific needs and are terrific products to use. However, the
use of a non-stock transmitter module in Futaba modular radios is not one of these circumstances. Based
upon FCC regulation 95.645(b), a modeler is in violation of the FCC regulations when using a non-Futaba
module in a Futaba transmitter. Therefore we cannot service a radio which is using any after-market
transmitter module, and its use voids the radio's warranty. Please also note that making modifications to
your radio system or using non-certified equipment may void any AMA insurance coverage.

[Judge]

	Quote: Originally Posted by airriley
	Was reading the manual for a futaba 9z ran across this, what do you guys think ? Can I use an aftermarket transmitter module? Does this affect my warranty? There are many aftermarket items that fit specific needs and are terrific products to use. However, the use of a non-stock transmitter module in Futaba modular radios is not one of these circumstances. Based upon FCC regulation 95.645(b), a modeler is in violation of the FCC regulations when using a non-Futaba module in a Futaba transmitter. Therefore we cannot service a radio which is using any after-market transmitter module, and its use voids the radio's warranty. Please also note that making modifications to your radio system or using non-certified equipment may void any AMA insurance coverage.

Doesn't apply to the 2.4 SS stuff. This is because the 2.4 is an entire self contained unit complete with RF deck and antenna.

The 72 modules that this question deals with were modules only and made use of the existing antenna. Small point but very important. The RF section receives FCC certification for the whole deal right up through the antenna. Changing one without the other violates the FCC rules.

Since 2.4SS does the whole deal there is not issue.

AMA confirmed this with their FCC liaison folks as well before anyone wants to start a long rebuttal.

[fun_fly_3d]

that is also just for futaba to cover their @$$es with

[airriley]

Good news to me since I have already pre-ordered and also picked up a used 9z.

[toprudder]

Along those same lines, as I read the FCC regs, it is also against the regs to replace the antenna with a third-party antenna, aka rubber ducky types.

(flame suit on...)

Bob R.

[bosshoss]

Can we expect another announcment at Toledo for the embedded Spektrum faithful?? AR9000 receiver......we need a FAST 9ch radio. I think the writing is on the wall. eh?

It will happen, just when?

I am sure someone with the module setup and access to a DX7 will compare side by side on the bench, and the difference wont be dramatic, maybe you wont be able to "see" it without test equipment, I don't know. If it can clean up the two elevator latency a bit, worse on some model of radio than others, the Giant Scale guys with high end radio will be very happy, with the added bonus of security.

The 9c had terrible two elevator latency, at least mine did, it would be coup if the module helped that out for those who have them. I know my buddies that have more than afew of them are watching this, and will be buying if it can. THe latency issue is more important than the secure link to them.

Otherwise from lessons learned , they will wait for the 9ch Spektrum. I went to a 9303 to get away from two elev latency, it got better.

DX7.....fixed it. You know what I am waiting for.

[Judge]

	Quote: Originally Posted by fun_fly_3d
	that is also just for futaba to cover their @$$es with

AMA also had a policy that you could not fly using the Hitec module in a Futaba radio for the reason that it violated FCC regulations. Therefore it was not allowed by AMA since the Safety Code requires you to follow all applicable FCC regulations.

CYA?? Perhaps, but then again, it IS the law according to the FCC so I guess if acting in accordance with the laws and rules that govern your actions is CYA, then so be it.

[Judge]

	Quote: Originally Posted by toprudder
	Along those same lines, as I read the FCC regs, it is also against the regs to replace the antenna with a third-party antenna, aka rubber ducky types. (flame suit on...) Bob R.

Yes, and No. JR has some flexible antennas that they certified for use with their module/radios. There are other aftermarket antennas that do not comply with the FCC regs however. Technically, they are not legal and should not be allowed when operating in accordance with the AMA Safety code.

[paffy]

I'm wondering - did all the latency freaks fly a non-computer PPM radio up until now, avoiding anything else ?? PCM encoding and computer mixing introduce huge additional latency ...

Having servos moving in sync is one thing, but latency ??? I have never heard of a model going down due to pilot induced oscillation, which is pretty much a result of latency.

P.

[toprudder]

	Quote: Originally Posted by paffy
	Having servos moving in sync is one thing, but latency ??? I have never heard of a model going down due to pilot induced oscillation, which is pretty much a result of latency.

Yeah, the first shuttle landing (launched from the 747) had bad PIO due to control lag.

[toprudder]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Judge
	Yes, and No. JR has some flexible antennas that they certified for use with their module/radios. There are other aftermarket antennas that do not comply with the FCC regs however. Technically, they are not legal and should not be allowed when operating in accordance with the AMA Safety code.

We are both correct. Notice I said "third party". It is ok for the original manufacturer to come out with a replacement antenna for their product, that has been tested to the specs. It is not ok for a third party to make a replacement antenna, at least that is the way I read the regs. So, it is ok for JR to make replacement antenna for JR radios.

[BuzzardChaser]

I wonder if the spectrum people would consider modelers to ship them there 9303's and they would convert them to "ground up" 2.4 transmitters? Can someone comment on the possibility to convert them internally? Can it be done? I would rather do that instead of adding a module and having a wire routed around the back and having to deal with the lag associated with that set-up.

[Cracky]

	Quote: Originally Posted by BuzzardChaser
	I wonder if the spectrum people would consider modelers to ship them there 9303's and they would convert them to "ground up" 2.4 transmitters? Can someone comment on the possibility to convert them internally? Can it be done? I would rather do that instead of adding a module and having a wire routed around the back and having to deal with the lag associated with that set-up.

I'm thinking that probably if it were that simple it would already be done and released. I'm thiinking that the module is to give people the opportunity to keep their existing radios and that some ground up 9+ channel radios are on the way from Spektrum.