MAJOR 2.4 Ghz Spread Spectrum Release! A FlyingGiants Exclusive!

[Judge]

What it comes down to is that if you want to retro fit a system built for 72 MHz to SS you will have to make a compromise regardless of which system you ultimately decide to use.

With Spektrum you will have a small protrusion off the back and the cable to the antenna. The antenna is removable for easy storage when not flying.

With XPS you will either have a non-removeable antenna sticking out the back of the TX that will require you to remove the module to put it in a TX case, or you will have an external module with a cable and the same antenna that you plug into your trainer port.

Neither one is optimal. Both will work. And both are the type of compromises we will have to live with until the change over to ground up SS systems in complete.

For me it still comes down to the real choice being between a company with an established track record of reliability and customer service versus a company that nobody had heard of before last October and who has an unknown performance record. The antenna issue and such is not the major criteria I am focusing on.

[coloradoz]

I'm not sure I completely agree with you - it's not a matter of compromising, it is a matter of design packaging. The basic issue is that of choice - do I want to routinely interchange to 72 or not. My answer is no. The technical option does exist to completely make an 8103 look like a DX6/7 from the outside - that is, everything neatly tucked away - with a very simple relocation of the antenna receptacle. I've seen, as I'm sure you have, the way this equipment gets used on a daily basis. I do lay my TX on the ground or table when I fiddle with my engine, etc - so therefore it does, in practical use gets 'manhandled'. In my mind it is a practical matter of increasing the overall reliability of the equipment, and not moving the problem from one area to another. I really don't want to worry about whether I'm laying my TX on its antenna or antenna connection. I do agree with you regarding the comment of the small stub antenna out of back of the XL module. That does limit the use of the XL based modules to strickly hand-held situations (not TX trays).

[Judge]

	Quote: Originally Posted by coloradoz
	I'm not sure I completely agree with you - it's not a matter of compromising, it is a matter of design packaging.

That is exactly what I mean. Once we have dedicated SS systems this type of decision will no longer need to be made. So you look at your situation and decide which of the interim solutions works best for you.

[Kitman]

	Quote: Originally Posted by spektrumrc
	The two ports are "BATT/BIND" and "DATA". They are used for binding, data and/or redundant power. If two power sources are used they must be the same chemistry and # cells. Paul

Paul,

Thanks for bringing your knowledge and technology to our site!!

[Shakes]

	Quote: Originally Posted by coloradoz
	I'm not sure I completely agree with you - it's not a matter of compromising, it is a matter of design packaging. The basic issue is that of choice - do I want to routinely interchange to 72 or not. My answer is no. The technical option does exist to completely make an 8103 look like a DX6/7 from the outside - that is, everything neatly tucked away - with a very simple relocation of the antenna receptacle. I've seen, as I'm sure you have, the way this equipment gets used on a daily basis. I do lay my TX on the ground or table when I fiddle with my engine, etc - so therefore it does, in practical use gets 'manhandled'. In my mind it is a practical matter of increasing the overall reliability of the equipment, and not moving the problem from one area to another. I really don't want to worry about whether I'm laying my TX on its antenna or antenna connection. I do agree with you regarding the comment of the small stub antenna out of back of the XL module. That does limit the use of the XL based modules to strickly hand-held situations (not TX trays).

20 years ago, I could have easily used the same argument against a flimsy, telescoping piece of the metal used as the antenna now on current systems.

[KrisW]

[quote=Judge;187152]What it comes down to is that if you want to RETRO (note: authors enhancement) fit a system built for 72 MHz to SS you will have to make a compromise regardless of which system you ultimately decide to use.

quote]

If I may make a correction here. .not aimed at the person making the post, but in a general sort of way. . . . . .

RETRO fit means going BACK to what it had before. . like going from a modifed item (with Spektrum technology) back to 72mhz. .

RE-fit means to change UP, or ro modernize. . from 72mhz to Spektrum

Aircraft Carriers do not go into DryDock for a RETROfit .. .otherwise they'd be equipped with WW2 era aircraft when they went back to sea.

The fact that this nomenclature is lost on some of the best and brightest in our society is strong evidence that we ALL need to do a RE-think (not Retro-think) on what we are saying.

So. . folks. . . . please.

Upgrading to a Spektrum or 2.4G transmitter/receiver system, on your old junky 10X radio, is a Refit to the better, more modern stuff, not a retrofit to AM (does the 10X even DO AM?????)

Thank you all for your attention to this glaring, poignant, and irritating thorn in my side.

[madmax]

Danny, could you please share with us how the modules will interact with multiple models, and handle failsafe? There is also some great new technology built into the new Spektrums with the way they handle frequency hopping and locking. Pardon highly untechnical verbage, I forgot the correct terms.

Thanks guys!!

[Judge]

Let's see:

retrofit |ˌretrōˈfit| verb ( -fitted , -fitting ) [ trans. ] add (a component or accessory) to something that did not have it when manufactured : drivers who retrofit catalysts to older cars. • provide (something) with a component or accessory not fitted to it during manufacture : buses have been retrofitted with easy-access features. noun an act of adding a component or accessory to something that did not have it when manufactured. • a component or accessory added to something after manufacture. ORIGIN 1950s: blend of retroactive and refit .

On the other hand here is what an actual dictionary has to say for refit:

refit verb |rēˈfit| ( -fitted , -fitting ) [ trans. ] replace or repair machinery, equipment, and fittings in (a ship, building, etc.) : a lucrative contract to refit a submarine fleet. noun |ˈrēˌfit; rēˈfit| a restoration or repair of machinery, equipment, or fittings.

Just correcting the incorrect correction.

[madmax]

Not in here guys.

[coloradoz]

You'd have to go back a LOT further than 20 years - the telescoping antenna has been around at least 50 or more years. For R/C use - as we kind of know it now - the telescoping antenna was already a tried and true technology. My issue is not with technology. The problem I see is with the packaging and in this particular case, the issue is that small SMA connector to wire connection - wasn't designed to withstand mechanical stress no matter how much heat shrink you put on it. Simple repackaging makes the previously referred to "interim solution" more usable than a stop gap - in fact quite usable and durable.

[Shakes]

50 year, 20 years, my point still stands.
If mishandled, as you propose with your scenario in which the module packaging is inadequate, a telescoping antenna will bend and potentially break by being sat on, collision with other objects, collision with propeller (who hasn't almost done that?!), and in some case even bent while extending or collapsing. After all, it makes a great lightning rod as well.

Another downside is that a collapsable antenna can lend itself to be problematic if the user/operator does not remember to extend the antenna - which can result in a dangerous crash.

[dsnyder]

I was just going to talk about the fail safe on another thread so I'll talk about that here too. For the AR7000 receiver (which is what comes with the DX7) it is set so that the throttle channel fail safe position is stored during the binding process and all other channels are set to hold last position in the event of signal loss. This we call Smart Safe.

The new AR9000 receiver has 2 modes available. It has the Smart Safe as one option, which to set this you bind the receiver normally (leaving the bind plug in the receiver until it completes the binding process). It also has a 'conventional' mode where all channels will be set to fail safe and the positions are stored during binding. To get into this mode, after you power up the receiver with the bind plug installed, the light begins to flash. Before you turn on the TX in bind mode, you remove the bind plug from the receiver and then power up the TX in bind mode. In both cases you will need to hold the channels in the fail safe positions desired through the whole binding procedure. In Smart Safe mode, only the throttle channel will be set to fail safe, in conventional mode all channels will be set to fail safe. And that applies only to the AR9000 receiver.

The system will work with multiple models (as far as setting up multiple aircraft) the same as the system you are currently using.

In regards to using Spektrum systems with other frequency hopping systems together, the Spektrum system uses a wide band channel and locks on to 2 frequencies. Frequency hopping systems use very narrow band channels and only 'hop' on to a channel for a very brief moment (4ms or so). Because frequency hopping systems use such a narrow band in relation to the Spektrum system, and only for a very brief time, it will only occupy a very slim portion of a Spektrum channel (if there is a collision) and the Spektrum system will easily ignore that and work as if nothing happened. Also with the GUID code of the Spektrum system, if there is another signal on the same channel, the other signals will be ignored.

I hope that answers the questions.

[Judge]

So how many Spektrum radios, XLS/XPS equipped radios, and Futaba FASST radios can we have flying at one time??

Most flying fields limit the number to 5 or 6 at a time. This seems not to be a problem. How many do the IRCHA Jamboree or the Joe Nall allow at a time? More than 10?? 20?

At the very largest glider contests I have seen 25 to 30 planes in the air at a time. This gets limited by launches and available landing zones.

It still seems like this is within the max SS allows.

But what is the theoretical maximum???? Be kind of interesting to know.

[madmax]

Mr. Judge, if memory serves me well, I believe the recommended limit is 40. It is my understanding the published limit is set with an incredible safety buffer in place, and I do not think we're going to see anyone from HH or Spektrum recommending otherwise. I have heard that the theoretical maximum is far beyond 40.

[dsnyder]

There are 80 channels that Spektrum uses, and each Spektrum aircraft system uses 2 channels, so the maximum is 40 users using Spektrum. I don't know what other brands might have as limitations.