date:20050325

Ok, This is the problem. As Gordy earlier stated the Pike has a 
bellcrank with an unusually long arm at the pushrod side compared to the 
pivot side. The problem this has created, as well as putting more load 
on my 368 servo, is it doesn't allow for enough down mix to be generated 
at the end of the flap travel.It seems like it gets behind the mix 
curve. With every other glider I've owned I always had too much elevator 
at the end of Flap travel and this was easily adjusted out with the 2nd 
mix for elevator to flap.
Now, my understanding is the 2nd mix point is a % of the first mix so 
how do I get say a 120% of elevator travel for 2nd mix. I only run about 
75 degrees of flap travel and don't want to back that off any further. 
My elevator EPA is set at as much as is possible with out making the 
pitch sensitivity more than most would like to handle ( with the 
exception of Daryl barely move the stick Perkins.) I did try setting the 
EPA to 150% just to see what happened and it added only about a degree 
of addition el. travel at full flap. Hardly enough to solve the problem.
Also adding more compensation to the first mix may fix the end of travel 
problem but it has too much compensation for the first half of travel.
I hate having to thumb in down elevator ten feet from the LZ.
Stylus boy( Tom Hoopes ) or Old School Stylus Boy ( Gordon Jennings ) 
are you out there?

David Zucker
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

[RCSE] Re: Soaring V1 #5375 - Shadow 3

2005-03-25 Thread Dave Register

Not often I get to one-up Gordy. Here's a field report
Just came back from about two hours at the field trying to screw-up my
new Shadow 3. I can't do it.

I had 2 DLGs (XP3 and 4), one with the Shadow 3 and the other with a
Hitec Super Slim 8. Both were set up on the tailgate of my pickup (~ 4'
off the ground). Both had the antenna mounted identically - along the
top of the carbon boom and about 8 taped to the LE of the vertical fin.
Shadow had a 'Fail-Safe' setting programmed in last night.

Tx is a Fut 9CH on Ch 16 with a Rubber Ducky antenna. Turned on and
started walking away. At 300 yds I quit. Had to use binoculars to see if
the surfaces were moving. Yup, both still worked fine.

Took off the antenna - that's not the standard collapsed test, that's no
antenna. At the 300 yd position the Shadow went to fail safe. The Hitec
wandered around aimlessly. At ~ 50 yds, the Shadow resumed normal
operation. At about 20 yds, the Hitec came back.

Next, turned on a 7UGFS on ch 16 and placed it about 20 ft from the
planes. As long as the 9C was the closer Tx, the Shadow was fine. At
about equal distances, the Shadow went to fail safe. At no time did the
SuperSlim have any control.

Changed frequency modules to 19, re-programmed the Shadow and it all
checked out exacty the same.

Went DLG'ing - lousy day with solid overcast, 40 deg and NW wind about
7-10 mph so no decent thermal activitiy. This field is a little
'glitchy' between a couple of metal buildings. I occasionally get
'twitched' with the normal 8Ch Rx. The Shadow cruised around that region
frequently with no problems. Set up the 7UGFS on Ch 19 and flew on Ch
16. Flew all around the Ch 19 Tx and never saw a thing. An e-flier was
standing about 20 ft away on ch 54 and then later on ch 28. No problems
observed of any sort.

This is not a rigourous evaluation of behavior in a crowded RF
environment but the range and sensitivity seem to be better than what
I've been using. I've compared my M5s against the Hitec and the M5 is a
bit better on no-antenna range. But the Shadow just about doubled them both.

A disquieting feature - there was absolutely no servo noise in the plane
with the Shadow. I'm used to having a very slight buzz and maybe a
little servo chatter at launch. It goes away once the plane is out about
20 ft or so. This is with all my Rxs (Futaba, Hitec, FMA). There was
NONE of that with the Shadow 3 at any range. I had to pop the Tx stick
before each flight to convince myself everything was still turned on.
Servos in the fuse of both planes were HS55s.

I think only competition will tell if this Rx will stand up to hard
usage. But I tried everything I could reasonably do to mess it up today
and it just ignored my efforts completely.

Fail safe setup took about 5 minutes to do last night (OK, I had to read
the instructions. But after that it was pretty easy). Changing
frequencies takes all of about 10 seconds if your Rx is accessible.
Re-assigning channels for pin outs almost as easy as setting up fail
safe - just had to note that the process for re-assigning has to be
followed by actually calling up the user memory to activate it.

At this point, this sure looks like a winner. Time will tell. If Tower
can ever get off their butts and ship the synth module for the 9C, this
should be a terrific combination.

The 4 channel looks particularly intriguing for DLG. Pins will be end
mounted (low profile). Pinouts are re-assignable so you can get Ch7 out
on the Ch3 pins - MUCH easier for flaperon setup than messing with the
Ch5-6 coupling in the Tx.

After today's experience, I'm sending Barry a check for a second
7-channel and am on the waiting list for the 4 ch. I'm paying full fare
so this is an unsolicited note.

And yes, the 7 channel Rx does weigh only 8 grams.
Anxious to see how the contest season goes with these but so far so good.
- Dave R

[RCSE] Re: Horns

Michael Lachowski wrote:
Put a longer arm on the servo.  JR makes some extra long ones if needed.
Ignore Gordy's post about long servo arms.

Sorry Mike, I forgot to mention I already added the extra long servo 
arm. 5 holes out. Still can't quite get there.

David
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

Re: [RCSE] Stylus- Pike Flap to Elevator Mix Quandry

Jim Monaco wrote:
Dave, Go to the SPOILER menu in the MIX group (last one in the menu) and
increase the number there.  That seems to give more throw for the COMP.  Try
both + and - - I'm not sure which way you'll need to go.  Let me know if
this works out for you.
Jim
Jim Monaco
President - Rocky Mountain Soaring Association
Denver, CO
http://www.rmsadenver.com
-Original Message-
From: David Zucker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 12:11 PM
To: soaring@airage.com
Subject: [RCSE] Stylus- Pike Flap to Elevator Mix Quandry
Ok, This is the problem. As Gordy earlier stated the Pike has a
bellcrank with an unusually long arm at the pushrod side compared to the
pivot side. The problem this has created, as well as putting more load
on my 368 servo, is it doesn't allow for enough down mix to be generated
at the end of the flap travel.It seems like it gets behind the mix
curve. With every other glider I've owned I always had too much elevator
at the end of Flap travel and this was easily adjusted out with the 2nd
mix for elevator to flap.
Now, my understanding is the 2nd mix point is a % of the first mix so
how do I get say a 120% of elevator travel for 2nd mix. I only run about
75 degrees of flap travel and don't want to back that off any further.
My elevator EPA is set at as much as is possible with out making the
pitch sensitivity more than most would like to handle ( with the
exception of Daryl barely move the stick Perkins.) I did try setting the
EPA to 150% just to see what happened and it added only about a degree
of addition el. travel at full flap. Hardly enough to solve the problem.
Also adding more compensation to the first mix may fix the end of travel
problem but it has too much compensation for the first half of travel.
I hate having to thumb in down elevator ten feet from the LZ.
Stylus boy( Tom Hoopes ) or Old School Stylus Boy ( Gordon Jennings )
are you out there?
David Zucker
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that
subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with
MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL
are generally NOT in text format


Thanks Jim,
If the 2nd mix is a percentage of the 1st mix I don't know if that will 
help. But I'll try it and let you know.

David
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

RE: [RCSE] Re: Soaring V1 #5375 - Shadow 3

Gee, that is almost as good as a JR 10x with a standard PCM rx


JD



 -Original Message-
 From: Dave Register [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 2:17 PM
 To: Soaring@airage.com; Gordy Stahl; Barry Kennedy
 Subject: [RCSE] Re: Soaring V1 #5375 - Shadow 3
 
 Not often I get to one-up Gordy. Here's a field report
 
 Just came back from about two hours at the field trying to screw-up my
 new Shadow 3. I can't do it.
 
 I had 2 DLGs (XP3 and 4), one with the Shadow 3 and the other with a
 Hitec Super Slim 8. Both were set up on the tailgate of my pickup (~
4'
 off the ground). Both had the antenna mounted identically - along the
 top of the carbon boom and about 8 taped to the LE of the vertical
fin.
 Shadow had a 'Fail-Safe' setting programmed in last night.
 
 Tx is a Fut 9CH on Ch 16 with a Rubber Ducky antenna. Turned on and
 started walking away. At 300 yds I quit. Had to use binoculars to see
if
 the surfaces were moving. Yup, both still worked fine.
 
 Took off the antenna - that's not the standard collapsed test, that's
no
 antenna. At the 300 yd position the Shadow went to fail safe. The
Hitec
 wandered around aimlessly. At ~ 50 yds, the Shadow resumed normal
 operation. At about 20 yds, the Hitec came back.
 
 Next, turned on a 7UGFS on ch 16 and placed it about 20 ft from the
 planes. As long as the 9C was the closer Tx, the Shadow was fine. At
 about equal distances, the Shadow went to fail safe. At no time did
the
 SuperSlim have any control.
 
 Changed frequency modules to 19, re-programmed the Shadow and it all
 checked out exacty the same.
 
 Went DLG'ing - lousy day with solid overcast, 40 deg and NW wind about
 7-10 mph so no decent thermal activitiy. This field is a little
 'glitchy' between a couple of metal buildings. I occasionally get
 'twitched' with the normal 8Ch Rx. The Shadow cruised around that
region
 frequently with no problems. Set up the 7UGFS on Ch 19 and flew on Ch
 16. Flew all around the Ch 19 Tx and never saw a thing. An e-flier was
 standing about 20 ft away on ch 54 and then later on ch 28. No
problems
 observed of any sort.
 
 This is not a rigourous evaluation of behavior in a crowded RF
 environment but the range and sensitivity seem to be better than what
 I've been using. I've compared my M5s against the Hitec and the M5 is
a
 bit better on no-antenna range. But the Shadow just about doubled them
 both.
 
 A disquieting feature - there was absolutely no servo noise in the
plane
 with the Shadow. I'm used to having a very slight buzz and maybe a
 little servo chatter at launch. It goes away once the plane is out
about
 20 ft or so. This is with all my Rxs (Futaba, Hitec, FMA). There was
 NONE of that with the Shadow 3 at any range. I had to pop the Tx stick
 before each flight to convince myself everything was still turned on.
 Servos in the fuse of both planes were HS55s.
 
 I think only competition will tell if this Rx will stand up to hard
 usage. But I tried everything I could reasonably do to mess it up
today
 and it just ignored my efforts completely.
 
 Fail safe setup took about 5 minutes to do last night (OK, I had to
read
 the instructions. But after that it was pretty easy). Changing
 frequencies takes all of about 10 seconds if your Rx is accessible.
 Re-assigning channels for pin outs almost as easy as setting up fail
 safe - just had to note that the process for re-assigning has to be
 followed by actually calling up the user memory to activate it.
 
 At this point, this sure looks like a winner. Time will tell. If Tower
 can ever get off their butts and ship the synth module for the 9C,
this
 should be a terrific combination.
 
 The 4 channel looks particularly intriguing for DLG. Pins will be end
 mounted (low profile). Pinouts are re-assignable so you can get Ch7
out
 on the Ch3 pins - MUCH easier for flaperon setup than messing with the
 Ch5-6 coupling in the Tx.
 
 After today's experience, I'm sending Barry a check for a second
 7-channel and am on the waiting list for the 4 ch. I'm paying full
fare
 so this is an unsolicited note.
 
 And yes,  the 7 channel Rx does weigh only 8 grams.
 
 Anxious to see how the contest season goes with these but so far so
good.
 
 - Dave R
 
 
 
 
 RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send
subscribe
 and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note
 that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only
format
 with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail
and
 AOL are generally NOT in text format

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and 
unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  
Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in 
text format

RE: [RCSE] Re: Soaring V1 #5375 - Shadow 3

2005-03-25 Thread George Gillburg

 Gee, that is almost as good as a JR 10x with a standard PCM
rx Yes, but is the JR standard PCM rx synthesized?  Does it
weigh 8 gms?  Somehow, I doubt it.George Gillburg Bakersfield, California 
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

Re: [RCSE] Shadow 3

2005-03-25 Thread Bill Swingle

So what's the URL to check it out or buy one?

Bill Swingle



RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and 
unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  
Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in 
text format

Re: [RCSE] Re: Soaring V1 #5375 - Shadow 3

2005-03-25 Thread brian

You must not fly DLG. :)  An 8 gram synth rx that behaves well
is worth it's (low) weight in gold.  My Shadow 3 should be arriving
any time now.  I'm looking forward to trying it out with my new 9C synth 
module.  Should be a good combination. 

..
brian r.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


On Friday, March 25, 2005, someone wrote all this stuff:
 Gee, that is almost as good as a JR 10x with a standard PCM rx


 JD


RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and 
unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  
Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in 
text format

Re: [RCSE] Shadow 3

2005-03-25 Thread brian

this is the url to the company, but doesn't have
any info on it:

http://www.sombralabs.com/

you can buy it at:

http://www.kennedycomposites.com

or read a bunch about it at:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314256

that thread has a bunch of stuff about the earlier
Shadow 1, upcoming 4 channel Shadow 2, and the
new Shadow 3 comes up later in the thread.

..
brian r.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


On Friday, March 25, 2005, someone wrote all this stuff:
 So what's the URL to check it out or buy one?

 Bill Swingle



 RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send
 subscribe and unsubscribe requests to
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and
 unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME
 turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL
 are generally NOT in text format

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and 
unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  
Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in 
text format

Re: [RCSE] Shadow 3

2005-03-25 Thread Barry Kennedy

Bill,


For a Shadow 3 go to   www.kennedycomposites.comWe have them in stock.


Best Regards,

Barry Kennedy
Kennedy Composites
www.kennedycomposites.com

1935 Highvalley Trail
Grand Prairie, TX 75052
972.602.3144


RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and 
unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  
Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in 
text format

Re: [RCSE] Antenna hanging out

2005-03-25 Thread Bill Swingle

Excellent question.

In general, Copper wire is fine. It just has to be durable enough. But I'd
advise against using bare wire. This makes incidental contact with anything
remotely conductive a non-issue.

Also, running two wires on top and bottom (or anywhere) is dicey. It could
be done but not reliably without more experience than I have.

Bill Swingle


RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and 
unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  
Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in 
text format

[RCSE] Shadow 3

2005-03-25 Thread Barry Kennedy

Brian,

I have all the information on the Shadow 3 including the operating
instructions on my web site. Just follow the link at Shadow 3 photo.


Best Regards,

Barry Kennedy
Kennedy Composites
www.kennedycomposites.com

1935 Highvalley Trail
Grand Prairie, TX 75052
972.602.3144


RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and 
unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  
Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in 
text format

Re: [RCSE] Did Anyone Notice Darwin Barrie is the New AMA Soaring Columnist?

2005-03-25 Thread Darwin N. Barrie




I'll be happy to review the Shadow 3 Gordy, if you can send me 
one

Darwin

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: soaring@airage.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 11:23 
  AM
  Subject: [RCSE] "Did Anyone Notice Darwin 
  Barrie is the New AMA Soaring Columnist?"
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  Make sure you send him lots of good stuff for his column!
  Okay at least make sure you read his column!
  
  The old guy is gone, long live the new guy :-)
  
  Gordy
  Still in Louisville in the rain ;-(

Re: [RCSE] Did Anyone Notice Darwin Barrie is the New AMA Soaring Columnist?

2005-03-25 Thread Darwin N. Barrie




I will be happy to review any and all molded ships that 
become available:)

Darwin

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Joe Rodriguez 
  To: soaring@airage.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 12:03 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [RCSE] "Did Anyone Notice 
  Darwin Barrie is the New AMA Soaring Columnist?"
  
  
  I thought he was going to review the new Skeeter II fully molded F3b mini 
  ship??
  
- Original Message - 
From: Bill's Email 
To: soaring@airage.com 
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 10:49 
AM
Subject: Re: [RCSE] "Did Anyone Notice 
Darwin Barrie is the New AMA Soaring Columnist?"
I hear his next article is how to modify the venerable 
Skeeter for a full pedal F3B launch.Can't 
waitBill[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Make sure you send him lots of good stuff for his column! 
Okay at least make sure you read his column!  The old 
guy is gone, long live the new guy :-)  Gordy 
Still in Louisville in the rain ;-(RCSE-List facilities provided by 
Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text 
only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such 
as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text 
format

Re: [RCSE] Did Anyone Notice Darwin Barrie is the New AMA Soaring Columnist?

2005-03-25 Thread Bill's Email

Magazine columnist slime ball. See how fast it starts?
Darwin N. Barrie wrote:
I'll be happy to review the Shadow 3 Gordy, if you can send me one
 
Darwin
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

[RCSE] Anyone still have have a 'Thermal Gromit Works' Gobin?

2005-03-25 Thread chris bayley

I know it's been a while since these were current, but I have recently 
shifted 10,000Km from my home to France, while my fleet stayed in the 
basement at home, I have gone cold turkey since leaving home about 10 
months ago, I find that the model I am missing the most is my TGW Goblin!

Therefore I would like to ask if anyone still has a Goblin they wish to 
part with ? Of course NIB would be best, but realistically I would be 
quite happy with a well built example, preferably with the two piece 
wing. Even a  Fuz and wing cores would be good start.

Alternatively I would be happy to hear of recommendations for a new 
substitute for the Goblin (EPP+DLG) as I haven't been following the 
market for a year or so...

Chris B
(with crossed fingers)
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

Re: [RCSE] Antenna hanging out

Try it. I doubt however the second parallel unit will be effective. It
runs a very high chance of double imaging at the RX front end (reduction
in range). The other issue is the antenna element and the distance it
sits relative the carbon, the closer (as in fractions of a millimeter)
the more energy loss.

The best solution, although cumbersome (transport to/from the field with
a 6 vertical can be a pain), is a base-loaded whip that stands
vertically out of the existing ground plane, that being the rest of the
ground side of the existing wiring harness. With proper placement, the
gains associated with the ability to be positioned 90 degrees to the
existing GND plane will equal or exceed the OEM antenna...which always
lies parallel to the GND plane (not optimum by any means).

With the element just aft of the wing TE, receiving losses in 3
dimensions (3D plots) shows the worst gain when the TX is 45 degees down
directly in front the aircraft (~6dB). Not enough to ruin your day be
any means.

Finally, parts of the antenna left to dangle are doing most of the
work...away from the dissipative CF...keep this in mind when sticking
with the OEM (of any length).

George Voss wrote:
To all of the double E's out there, I have an antenna question: Since a
large number of new sailplanes have copious amounts of carbon in the
fuselage, and leaving some of the antenna wire seems to solve nearly
everyone's issues, what about using a fine copper wire that runs parallel to
the fuselage on both the top and bottom, that is taped to the fuselage?
This will get rid of drag and make the antenna 'visible' to the transmitter
nearly 100% of the time. Is this a workable situation or is there some
electrical faux pas that this commits?

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe
messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email
such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
--
Simon Van Leeuwen
RADIUS SYSTEMS
PnP SYSTEMS - The E-Harness of Choice
Cogito Ergo Zooom
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

[RCSE] Re: Dremel tool

2005-03-25 Thread fly1milehi


Get the Foredom!
More tools, more power, more quality. Superb flexible shaft and runs
quiet!!!

The only thing my dremal does anymore is route holes in EPP foam 
Greg


-- 
fly1milehi

fly1milehi's Profile: 
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/member.php?action=getinfouserid=47296
View this thread: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=349007

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and 
unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  
Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in 
text format

[RCSE] WTB: CR Renegade

2005-03-25 Thread M. Martz

Hello,
I am looking to buy a CR Renegade in any condition if it has the slip on 
nose cone.  Damaged is fine..with or without wings.  Any help in locating 
one would be appreciated.

Thanks,
MM 

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

[RCSE] April 2005 RC Soaring Digest

2005-03-25 Thread RC Soaring Digest


The April 2005 issue of RC Soaring Digest (PDF) is now available for 
downloading from either the RCSD home page 
http://www.b2streamlines.com/RCSD.html or the current issue 
highlights page http://www.b2streamlines.com/highlights.html.
The download is free, as usual.

This issue is dedicated to the memory of Judy Slates, former Editor 
of RCSD and enthusiastic supporter of RC soaring.

The articles in this issue include:
- Plane Packs and Tube Socks
- The Multiplex Sailplane Balancer
- Wing shear loads by Dr. Mark Drela
- How to easily cut highly tapered foam cores
- California slopin' pictorial
- The Hobie Hawk
Plus two fantastic cover photos, a potential scale project, a bit 
about Reynolds numbers...

This issue has 40 pages and is 4.7 MB in size. Lots of information 
and color photos, no ads.

Questions and comments regarding RCSD can always be sent to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED].

Thanks for your readership!
--
B^2  RC Soaring Digest
Bill  Bunny Kuhlman  'the journal for R/C soaring enthusiasts'
P.O. Box 975 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Olalla WA 98359-0975 USAhttp://www.b2streamlines.com/RCSD.html
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe 
messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email 
such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

[RCSE] Re: Alternatives to winch launching

2005-03-25 Thread partoftheproblem


Break the mold, try F5J.


-- 
partoftheproblem

partoftheproblem's Profile: 
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/member.php?action=getinfouserid=36833
View this thread: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=350297

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and 
unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  
Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in 
text format

[RCSE] Re: Programming tricks help

2005-03-25 Thread regis


Your guru probably learned on reeds.  Ever wonder why early RCers
flew Mode One (or why it is called mode one)?  With reeds you put the
roll (or yaw) axis on one thumb and  pitch on the other.  Thus the
early propos followed suit - Mode One.  Of course, if you could
afford the Space Control brick (like $6,000 in today's dollars) then
you wanted Single Stick  available on most early U. S. systems
(climaxing with the Pro Line).  (My first propo was the Orbit 3+1 
an analog SS system but more compact then today's systems).   Like
Chuck, I had to re-learn on two sticks ... when FCC 1991 regs made my
Pro Line SS obsolete.  Actually, It was the availability of multi
mode programmable systems that finally forced me to give up my SS JR
propos.  Regis

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Randy Bullard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
   The thermal mode has about 3 degrees of camber, lots of ailrud
  coupling, a bit of up elevator preset, and about the same
differential as
  the speed mode.

 Now this is very interesting. Someone with a much lower AMA number
than mine
 used preach to me that real pilots don't us ailrud coupling. They
learn how
 to fly properly with both thumbs. So now I've wasted all those
years trying
 to learning how to fly with both thumbs for nothing? ;-)  In
reality, I
 suspect most of the best pilots use a combination of coupling and
two thumb
 flying.

 Randy

 RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.
Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in
text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based
email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format



RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and 
unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  
Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in 
text format

[RCSE] Temporary E-mail Change

2005-03-25 Thread jtprouty34655


Hi All,

Having some problems with my primary e-mail and wanted to pass my 
temporary one until we get relocated in Kansas in a week or two.  
Please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you need to contact me.  I can't 
check my regular e-mail right now and they can't track down the 
problem. :(

Thanks for the bandwidth, 

Jimmy 
http://www.jtmodels.com



RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and 
unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  
Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in 
text format

RE: [RCSE] Re: Soaring V1 #5375 - Shadow 3









Just a cheap shot, could not resist, blame Gordy for his endless
overstated hype about everything and anything.

Anything good,
and I assume the Shadow is, will out perform a Hitec or FMA rx,
apples to oranges indeed. That was the point of my comment not that it is tiny
or light.



The new technology available will be a great
advantage especially for the micro pilot, or someone looking for features like
this, as far as using two three or four ganged up for a giant scale ship
however,( as stated by some, and of interest to others who might use this rx.)
my communications with Mr. Arroosh Elahi have been inconclusive as to what if any range degradation
you might get putting two or more rxs in one plane. TOC
pilots tried this a long time ago with large aerobatic ships with the result
that there was often significant range reduction with using two rxs in one aircraft due to the antennas somehow interfering
with each other. This both with Futaba and JR rxs. I offered to test two in a plane but have not heard
back. If some one would kindly perform a simple range check with two rxs or more in a large aircraft, with antennas running parallel
inside the fuselage. or send me two to test, I will gladly pay for them ,and
send them back for a refund after testing on the ground, not flying, The
comment I got from Mr. Elahi was that tests were pretty
good, but they had not the chance yet to go out and fly much until the
weather improved...

If these little rxs
indeed perform with unhindered range (ganged up) as compared to a single 10
channel PCM rx (original
branded equipment) then it would be an interesting development for giant scale
applications.



Synth tuning is not a feature that is critical other than convenience, and for the
average pilot, not so necessary. I travel with several modules and xtals that serve my purposes very well, the real issue is
all the other performance data. The stuff that keeps your
plane in the air.





JD







-Original Message-
From: George Gillburg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 2:49
PM
To: John Derstine
Cc: 'Dave Register';
soaring@airage.com; 'Gordy Stahl'; 'Barry Kennedy'
Subject: RE: [RCSE] Re: Soaring V1
#5375 - Shadow 3




 Gee, that is almost as good as a JR 10x with a standard PCM rx 

Yes, but
is the JR standard PCM rx synthesized? Does it weigh 8 gms?
Somehow, I doubt it.



George Gillburg 
Bakersfield, California

Re: [RCSE] Stylus- Pike Flap to Elevator Mix Quandry

Jon Stone wrote:
David,
The spoiler suggestion is one good solution I have used before. Seems sometimes the radio just does not give you all the available throw.

The caveat of this approach is to make sure there is some down elevator throw
left over, so you are able to dork the plane in, if needed. On one of my
planes years ago, I had to pull the flap partially in, to get enough down
deflection to drive the plane to the nail on final.

Now, my understanding is the 2nd mix point is a % of the first mix so

Are you sure? I have never heard that one before. I thought the 2nd mix # was
independent of the first.
How about drilling another hole in the elevator horn, closer to the pivot
point? That would address all of the issues you discussed (force on servo,
enough throw, etc). I realize this may not be easy,
Regards,
Jon Stone

Lachowski suggested a longer horn at the servo. Since the Pike has a
full flying stab and can't be adjusted on the aft end.I'm already
running a long horn at the elevator but I might be able to fit another
1/8in.in the fuse.
I pretty sure I'm right about the % issue.
Spoiler comp may be the only solution. It's the last thing I was going
to try.
Since I only need a few degrees of additional down with full flap to
maintain a nice glide slope, I'll still have plenty of down for the
infamous dork, only if necessary of course :-)

Just tried additional spoiler mix and it gives me a greater endpoint
with full flaps.
I'll test it tomorrow. The problem is I have a perfect glide slope with
54% on the first mix, But now that I've increased the EP I'll have to
cut back on the first mix to maintain that same glide slope which, if my
assumption is correct about the % of 2nd mix to first, (and I'm not 100%
positive of that assumption)will also affect the 2nd mix. Whew! too much
splainin'

Let you know tomorrow how it turns out.
Thanks,
David

Single Stick was; Re: [RCSE] Re: Programming tricks help

2005-03-25 Thread Michael Neverdosky

regis wrote:
you wanted Single Stick  available on most early U. S. systems 
(climaxing with the Pro Line).  (My first propo was the Orbit 3+1  
an analog SS system but more compact then today's systems).   Like 
Chuck, I had to re-learn on two sticks ... when FCC 1991 regs made my 
Pro Line SS obsolete.  Actually, It was the availability of multi 
mode programmable systems that finally forced me to give up my SS JR 
propos.  Regis
In the range of single stick radios, I have a variety of uses for these.
If anyone has any old SS radios around they want to get rid of I may be 
able to use them.

Basically, I use the case and stick/s and put all custom electronics in 
them.

thanks
michael n6chv AMA 77292
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

Re: [RCSE] 51 MHz base loaded antenna for 9303

Try it Tom. To get decent feedback while rigorous range-testing you must
first locate an open area with as few metalic obstructions as possible.
The reason is quite a bit of reflective energy is seen by the RX which
significantly skews your results. Even your vehicle parked nearby has
enough influence (electrically) to make the range test invalid.

Given the unique nature of your particular fuselage, don't rely on
increasing be 1/4 lengths of Lambda (one complete wavelength - at 72MHz
~4 meters).

What will dictate successful (or not) application will be the length
outside the insulator, the carbon fuselage length itself (the fuselage
length is is most likely not 1/4 lambda).

Head out to the open area you have chosen that is free of fences,
powerlines, buildings etc., set your aircraft on a non-conductive
surface at least 1/4 wavelength off the ground (not critical) with say
1/4 wavelength of extra antenna sticking out the back. Use a plastic
tube so it is straight off the back of the fuse (important - use
drinking straws).

The reason for this is to minimize as many variables while tuning,
keeping it straight helps this. Now have someone walk directly away from
the tail of the aircraft holding the TX (with the antenna totally
collapsed) looking for maximum range, moving a single control (eg:
RUDD). With the both antenna elements in the same plane (pointing at
each other), this offers probably the worst (at least what we can
achieve on the ground) range. The advantage of having someone else
wlaking with the TX, is you get to see, and more importantly hear whats
going on at the aircraft.

At the point where the RX no longer reliably responds (failsafe,
whatever), have your helper walk back just enough to regain control.

Now cut off 6 of antenna (and the tube) and repeat and look for
adequate control. Repaeat the range check to see if you gained range. If
you did repeat and cut off another 6 a the new limit of range. continue
until you lose range, than add back the last 6. You can repeat and add
back only 3, but your results may be too hard to discern.

The whole idea is to tune the antenna length to maximum range. MAke sure
that each time your helper walks away (backwards - looking at you) he
takes the very same path away from the aircraft. The idea is to do
everything precisely the same way for each test to have meaningful results.

You can remove the plastic tube now. You may be surprised at just how
much antenna is actually floating freely behind the aircraft when you
are done...

Tom Watson wrote:
Well now,
In fiddling with a 72MHz RX in a particular plane (Pike), there were
only two solutions that gave an adequate ground range-check:

1. Stock length antenna dangling straight out of the cabin, 90 degrees
to the fuse. Quite impractical. Any other solution involving the
standard antenna length gave frighteningly short range.

2. Exactly doubling the antenna length, exiting the fuse halfway down
the boom, taped to the bottom of the boom all the way back, leaving the
excess dangling. Invisible from more than six feet away and glitch-free
ranging to vision limits.

I had read earlier that as long as one kept the antenna in multiples of
its own length, it should work.

Tom

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excellent post! Lots of good information, Doug.
Here's a minor nit-pick:

(Now, if you add another 1/4 wavelength, or a multiple of
that, you'll probably slightly improve range. But only slightly.)

I'll bet you were really talking about adding another 1/2 wavelength or
multiple of that. Adding another 1/4 wavelength would create a 1/2 wave
end-fed antenna, which would have a much higher input impedance. On
the other
hand, converting a 1/4 wave antenna into a 3/4 wave antenna would make
sense.

--
Simon Van Leeuwen
RADIUS SYSTEMS
PnP SYSTEMS - The E-Harness of Choice
Cogito Ergo Zooom
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

Re: [RCSE] Re: Programming tricks help

2005-03-25 Thread Chuck Anderson

At 10:15 PM 3/24/2005, you wrote:
I hope you guys are not just skim reading this stuff, these guys appear to 
be in quite a sharing mood in this thread.
I am.  Just before saving it to a file for later reference.  We need more 
good stuff like this.

Chuck Anderson 

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

Re: [RCSE] Re: Soaring V1 #5375 - Shadow 3

The problem on dual RX setups is not the antennas, but co-interference 
between the IF's within each of the RX's. This is what reduces 
sensitivity. This problem is solved easily by shielding one or both RX's.

The shielding can be as simple as a 6 x 6 conductive plate that is 
strategically place between the two RX's, or could mean literally 
wrapping one RX with a highly conductive shielding material (eg: 
permeable copper).

John Derstine wrote:
Just a cheap shot, could not resist, blame Gordy for his endless 
overstated hype about everything and anything.

Anything good, and I assume the Shadow is, will out perform a Hitec or 
FMA rx, apples to oranges indeed. That was the point of my comment not 
that it is tiny or light.

 

The new technology available will be a great advantage especially for 
the micro pilot, or someone looking for features like this, as far as 
using two three or four ganged up for a giant scale ship however,( as 
stated by some, and of interest to others who might use this rx.) my 
communications with Mr. Arroosh Elahi have been inconclusive as to what 
if any range degradation you might get putting two or more rxs in one 
plane. TOC pilots tried this a long time ago with large aerobatic ships 
with the result that there was often significant range reduction with 
using two rxs in one aircraft due to the antennas somehow interfering 
with each other. This both with Futaba and JR rxs. I offered to test two 
in a plane but have not heard back. If some one would kindly perform a 
simple range check with two rxs or more in a large aircraft, with 
antennas running parallel inside the fuselage. or send me two to test, I 
will gladly pay for them ,and send them back for a refund after testing 
on the ground, not flying, The comment I got from Mr. Elahi was that 
tests were pretty good, but they had not the chance yet to go out and 
fly much until the weather improved...

If these little rxs indeed perform with unhindered range (ganged up) as 
compared to a single 10 channel PCM rx (original branded equipment) then 
it would be an interesting development for giant scale applications.

 

Synth tuning is not a feature that is critical other than convenience, 
and  for the average pilot, not so necessary. I travel with several 
modules and xtals that serve my purposes very well, the real issue is 
all the other performance data. The stuff that keeps your plane in the air.

 

JD
 

-Original Message-
From: George Gillburg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 2:49 PM
To: John Derstine
Cc: 'Dave Register'; soaring@airage.com; 'Gordy Stahl'; 'Barry Kennedy'
Subject: RE: [RCSE] Re: Soaring V1 #5375 - Shadow 3
 


 Gee, that is almost as good as a JR 10x with a standard PCM rx
Yes, but is the JR standard PCM rx synthesized?  Does it weigh 8 gms?  
Somehow, I doubt it.


George Gillburg
Bakersfield, California
--
Simon Van Leeuwen
RADIUS SYSTEMS
PnP SYSTEMS - The E-Harness of Choice
Cogito Ergo Zooom
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

[RCSE] fuses radio range

2005-03-25 Thread Jon Stone




I have had carbon fuses in the past. Antenna completely 
inside, and no range problems. I've also owned carbon/kevlar weave fuses 
that were horrible with range. I also know of others planes 
known for having radio range problems that have the fuse made from a 
carbon-kevlar weave cloth. My point is not 
to bash any particular plane, so none were mentioned.

I'm thinking the carbon/kevlar weave might besimilar to 
the grating that keeps certain frequency RF from escaping microwave ovens. I'm guessing the weave may somehow be different, RF wise, 
than a carbon only cloth fuse.


Is the type of cloth a fuselage is made of, even an 
issue? 

Regards,

Jon

[RCSE] Re: Shadow 3

2005-03-25 Thread Dave Register

Interesting comments all around. There are always complexities when a
new or different technology starts to go commercial. The challenge of
ganging these things is not something with which I'm familiar.
Interesting problem. Hope it's resolvable.

My interest is primarily for the synth function. When traveling to out
of town events (the only ones available to me), the host pilots are used
to flying on their normal frequencies so if I can hop out of the way
(safely, reliably and without a significant chance of doing it wrong),
it's a plus for everyone. In all of my cases, a 7 channel will do the
trick. The 4 channel will be superb for DLG if it works as advertised.
The end mount plugs are a real advantage there as well (low profile).

That said, I'll retain several of my 'tried and true' Rxs with a set of
different Rx Xtals - to use whenever the 9C Tx synth module is finally
released (glad to hear some of them are leaking out).

What has surprised me is that this package seems to have a bunch of
interesting things going for it beyond the base functionality (and at
what I consider a competitive price). PPM has not generally had a
fail-safe option. I'm not sure how to use it effectively in a DLG (maybe
full flaps and down elevator). But it's a neat feature. The ground test
range is impressive - as compared to Rx's that I know will do the job in
both DLG and open class. The ability to re-assign channels to different
pinouts is significant, especially in the 4ch version. And the size and
weight are impressive for a full range, full feature Rx.

Again, I'm keeping a bunch of my old equipment. We won't know how good
this is until it's been through a contest season, especially large
contests with many channels in simultaneous use.

But so far so good.
- Dave R
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe
messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email
such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

[RCSE] fuses radio range

2005-03-25 Thread Barry Kennedy

Jon,

The type of cloth is an interesting question. We sent Sombra Labs 2
fuselages for testing.

First type being the Kevlar/carbon weave that many European planes are
using. This material is used in most of the planes we distribute and does
cause problems with antennas run internally. We were curious why and is
there a simple fix.

The second fuse is a Kevlar pod with carbon boom.

As soon as the test results are in we will let you know.

Best Regards,

Barry Kennedy
Kennedy Composites
www.kennedycomposites.com

1935 Highvalley Trail
Grand Prairie, TX 75052
972.602.3144


RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and 
unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  
Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in 
text format

Re: [RCSE] Re: Shadow 3

2005-03-25 Thread brian

That said, I'll retain several of my 'tried and true' 
Rxs with a set of different Rx Xtals - to use whenever 
the 9C Tx synth module is finally released (glad to 
hear some of them are leaking out).

I just got my 9C synth module in the mail today, so 
they are indeed out and about.  Best bet is to order
from Tower, I know they say they are out of stock, 
but I think they're just backordered and would then
be shipped out as soon as they arrive.  

My LHS said they would not be keeping them in stock,
but could get one into the store in a couple days.

..
brian r.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and 
unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  
Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in 
text format

[RCSE] John Derstines Shadow Post...is a good one!

2005-03-25 Thread GordySoar




Excellent post John and good stuff from Simon too! That's the 
spirit! Lets work with Aroosh to help the Shadow series get even 
better.

Of course the idea is to promote new developers, not tear them down. 
andJohndid a good job in his post about the Shadow.

The Shadow IS new, But even if some quirks develop, there's only amazingly 
good benefits ahead.

The argument of a 10x PCM being a 'better' way to go doesn't hold too much 
water in this comparison...first PCM is still the fastest recovery system out 
there...but again lets keep this in the context of the Shadow and its intended 
market.

This is a tiny RX with soo many features and functions that nothing in 
the entire hobby is even closein features or in the least case ...in value 
per dollar.

No special TX needed, it matches all of them. Will it have challenges with 
some synth TX's coming? Who knows, who cares. This is about today 
and tomorrow's possibilities.

What Aroosh has done is rock the industry in a tiny way. Raised the 
bench mark for the other companies to step up and beat. Very American for 
a Canadian :-)

Do we 'need' channel select? Well lets look at the CURRENT number one 
reason for shoot downs at contestsshared frequencies. Imagine not having to 
ask for a pin so that you could do a fix on your sailplane during a 
contest.

I may be the only person in the world who actually 'needs' all the freqs 
available because of my travels, but I can tell you that there is no feeling 
quite like having your channel not shared.

Whether the Shadow is 'good' or 'not good' is yet to be tested on flying 
sites all over the countriessame as any new product. But lab tests 
show its good. And from the leap made in litterally months from the 
Shadow1 to the Shadow3, even more exciting things are likely ahead.

Do I sound excited about the Shadow3tell me why I shouldn't be? 
Should we all be excited about it? I can tell you $15 times the count of 
all your RX's times the 50 YOU all should be!

Cascadability is not all the interesting to us TD guys cuz the 7 servo 
function of a single Shadow3 is enough for 6 servos and a Picolario. So I 
hope it doesn't work out...then you guys with giant scale stuff who need 14 ish 
servo functions will have to keep buying big fat regular xtal RX's :-)

Aroosh thought up and designed the Shadow series, but is it likely he ain't 
smart enough to do it right ... I think he is andI am interested him 
continuing his development. If a quirk comes up, I'll do everything I can to 
help him wash it out. You? :-)

Good or bad, its time for us to celebrate! We have something 
potentially very exciting for our hobby. One RX for Plane, Boats, Cars, 
Turbines, Electrics, Giant Scale, Dhlgs and park flyers even !

The Shadow series deserves some hype and Aroosh deserves a huge atta boy or 
what ever it is they say in Canada :-)
Gordy
I have two Shadow 3's and you don't :-)

Re: [RCSE] Re: Soaring V1 #5375 - Shadow 3

2005-03-25 Thread Chuck Anderson

At 05:19 PM 3/25/2005, you wrote:
The problem on dual RX setups is not the antennas, but co-interference 
between the IF's within each of the RX's. This is what reduces 
sensitivity. This problem is solved easily by shielding one or both RX's.

The shielding can be as simple as a 6 x 6 conductive plate that is 
strategically place between the two RX's, or could mean literally wrapping 
one RX with a highly conductive shielding material (eg: permeable copper).
Why not just put the receiver in a metal case as was done with the Proline 
receivers I used for so manyyears.  I have not been 
impressed with the packaging of most modern receivers anyway.  An extra 
ounce in the nose of my sailplane just means that I can take more lead out 
of the nose.

Chuck Anderson  

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

RE: [RCSE] Re: Soaring V1 #5375 - Shadow 3

I have also heard of other approaches including de tuning one rx
slightly from the other, the bottom line is who wants to do that, or
wrap your rx in the hopes that it works? I do know some TOC level pilots
who still choose to use two rx's in their planes but three or four? Is
this feasible?

JD

Endless Mountain Models
http://www.scalesoaring.com
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Simon Van Leeuwen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 6:20 PM
 To: John Derstine
 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Dave Register'; soaring@airage.com;
'Gordy
 Stahl'; 'Barry Kennedy'
 Subject: Re: [RCSE] Re: Soaring V1 #5375 - Shadow 3
 
 The problem on dual RX setups is not the antennas, but co-interference
 between the IF's within each of the RX's. This is what reduces
 sensitivity. This problem is solved easily by shielding one or both
RX's.
 
 The shielding can be as simple as a 6 x 6 conductive plate that is
 strategically place between the two RX's, or could mean literally
 wrapping one RX with a highly conductive shielding material (eg:
 permeable copper).
 
 John Derstine wrote:
 
  Just a cheap shot, could not resist, blame Gordy for his endless
  overstated hype about everything and anything.
 
  Anything good, and I assume the Shadow is, will out perform a Hitec
or
  FMA rx, apples to oranges indeed. That was the point of my comment
not
  that it is tiny or light.
 
 
 
  The new technology available will be a great advantage especially
for
  the micro pilot, or someone looking for features like this, as far
as
  using two three or four ganged up for a giant scale ship however,(
as
  stated by some, and of interest to others who might use this rx.) my
  communications with Mr. Arroosh Elahi have been inconclusive as to
what
  if any range degradation you might get putting two or more rxs in
one
  plane. TOC pilots tried this a long time ago with large aerobatic
ships
  with the result that there was often significant range reduction
with
  using two rxs in one aircraft due to the antennas somehow
interfering
  with each other. This both with Futaba and JR rxs. I offered to test
two
  in a plane but have not heard back. If some one would kindly perform
a
  simple range check with two rxs or more in a large aircraft, with
  antennas running parallel inside the fuselage. or send me two to
test, I
  will gladly pay for them ,and send them back for a refund after
testing
  on the ground, not flying, The comment I got from Mr. Elahi was that
  tests were pretty good, but they had not the chance yet to go out
and
  fly much until the weather improved...
 
  If these little rxs indeed perform with unhindered range (ganged up)
as
  compared to a single 10 channel PCM rx (original branded equipment)
then
  it would be an interesting development for giant scale applications.
 
 
 
  Synth tuning is not a feature that is critical other than
convenience,
  and  for the average pilot, not so necessary. I travel with several
  modules and xtals that serve my purposes very well, the real issue
is
  all the other performance data. The stuff that keeps your plane in
the
 air.
 
 
 
  JD
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: George Gillburg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 2:49 PM
  To: John Derstine
  Cc: 'Dave Register'; soaring@airage.com; 'Gordy Stahl'; 'Barry
Kennedy'
  Subject: RE: [RCSE] Re: Soaring V1 #5375 - Shadow 3
 
 
 
 
   Gee, that is almost as good as a JR 10x with a standard PCM rx
 
  Yes, but is the JR standard PCM rx synthesized?  Does it weigh 8
gms?
  Somehow, I doubt it.
 
 
 
  George Gillburg
  Bakersfield, California
 
 
 --
 Simon Van Leeuwen
 RADIUS SYSTEMS
 PnP SYSTEMS - The E-Harness of Choice
 Cogito Ergo Zooom
 
 RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send
subscribe
 and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note
 that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only
format
 with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail
and
 AOL are generally NOT in text format

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and 
unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  
Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in 
text format

[RCSE] fuselages radio range

2005-03-25 Thread GordySoar




They say that common sense is uncommon and I am as guilty as everyone else 
in this department, so like everyone else..I went in search of 'excaliber' the 
'better' brand RX for use in my Pikes.

The Pikes have the Carbon Kevlar burlap weave fuse that has become so 
popular and causes us to have to get our antenna's away from the fuse, not just 
outside of it.

I was searching and trying all sorts of RX's... Some said, oh this brand 
PCM has no problemswhich of course means that the servos don't move when the 
RX is not getting a signallike non PCM RXs...the condition is masked...and 
that works well enough to win contests and keep the model safe for the most 
part...but it doesn't 'fix' the fuselage from blocking the signal.

I stopped searching when our number one radio guy said to meGordy 
regardless of the components and how they are glued to the board in a trick 
receiverif they don't 'see' a signal they don't have nuthin to work 
with.

The Fuselage blocks the signal, the fuse doesn't interfere with the 
RX. No signal no movey :-)

The three choices which include 'hold' and programmable hold in the Shadow 
are a BIG deal.
When I had 14mins left on my New Zealand LSF4 one hour task and my Tranny 
started beeping, we attempted to do a quick charge, hoping the model would just 
float around for 10 seconds or so...but no dice as soon as I turned off it would 
go into a total death spiral. Hold function would have been a nice feature 
there :-)

No receiver can think things up by itself, it just follows orders and if no 
orders get to it...well you get the point. 
:-)Gordy

RE: [RCSE] Re: Programming tricks help

2005-03-25 Thread George Voss

I was privy to a discussion between Joe Wurts and Jim Frickie a few years
ago.  The discussion concerned the position of flaps and ailerons during
launch.  Joe stated the flaps and ailerons should droop the same amount to
reduce the drag between the interfering surfaces.  It seems the same would
hold true for the thermal mode.  Shouldn't the flap and ailerons move the
same amount to keep drag to a minimum where the flap and aileron meet?
George

-Original Message-
From: Michael Lachowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Re: Programming tricks help


The other mix I often find missing is using the flaps as ailerons. The
flaps should be moving with the ailerons at 30-50% of the aileron travel.

If you get the ailerons and flaps moving together and put in elevator to
camber mixing, you will be amazed at how much nicer your model flies.


RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and 
unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  
Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in 
text format

[RCSE] Becker antenna

2005-03-25 Thread glide









I just got my Becker antenna from Jochen
Luetke for my Multiplex Royal Evo transmitter. I was wondering if other
Becker antenna owners could respond regarding their use of this antenna.
Mainly, I was concerned about there is any kind of range reduction when using
this antenna. Obviously, you would have full range with the OEM antenna
but if there was some reduction with range using when using the Becker antenna
I was wondering if they could give their real world estimate.



Best regards,



Al Battad  WH6VE

AMA #506981

RE: [RCSE] Re: Programming tricks help

With all due respect to Mr. Wurts, on some full scale competition
planes, the ASW-27 for example, it is not available to have full span
camber, but thermal flaps only, cruise, and full trailing edge reflex
(ailerons and flaps deflecting the same amount up). In the ASW-27 in
addition to thermal flaps you have a two position landing flap setting.
Also on unlimited class sailplanes it is often the practice to have tip
ailerons, (tiperons) coordinate with rudder, not aileron deflection
which will often put them in opposite direction deflections from the
rest of the wings trailing edge. Model R/C planes should not then have
their performance degraded by any perceivable amount by having
differential throws in flaps and aileron. I often couple ailerons and
flaps 30-40% as is also an option on several full scale ships.

Launch mode as described by Wurts may have different dynamics at play.


JD
Endless Mountain Models
http://www.scalesoaring.com
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

 -Original Message-
 From: George Voss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 6:24 PM
 To: 'Michael Lachowski'; Soaring@airage.com
 Subject: RE: [RCSE] Re: Programming tricks help
 
 I was privy to a discussion between Joe Wurts and Jim Frickie a few
years
 ago.  The discussion concerned the position of flaps and ailerons
during
 launch.  Joe stated the flaps and ailerons should droop the same
amount to
 reduce the drag between the interfering surfaces.  It seems the same
would
 hold true for the thermal mode.  Shouldn't the flap and ailerons move
the
 same amount to keep drag to a minimum where the flap and aileron meet?
 George
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Michael Lachowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Re: Programming tricks help
 
 
 The other mix I often find missing is using the flaps as ailerons. The
 flaps should be moving with the ailerons at 30-50% of the aileron
travel.
 
 If you get the ailerons and flaps moving together and put in elevator
to
 camber mixing, you will be amazed at how much nicer your model flies.
 
 
 RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send
subscribe
 and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note
 that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only
format
 with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail
and
 AOL are generally NOT in text format

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and 
unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  
Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in 
text format

[RCSE] fuselages radio range, Antenna Stuff




 What has been discussed here is the Antenna. If you look at 
different Receivers, you will find that they will have different length wire for 
a Antenna. Some receiver have coils on the board going into the matching stage 
of the receiver. This is where they match up the Antenna to the first stage of 
Amplification. Some just go into the matching input and there they are 
compensated for. So just looking at the wire and adding 1/2 or 1/4 the length to 
the wire onto it and thinking your doing things correctly, your wrong in that 
respect. But just the fact that you are adding wire, that is a good thing. The 
better the receiver can see the Tx Ant. the better it works. Just like what 
Gordy say's. "No signal no movey :-)"
If your Fuselage is made up with carbon tube or a fuse that has 
carbon weaved in with Kevlar or Fiberglass its going to bock the receive signal 
by some degree. Just think of it as sliding your receive Ant. wire down a copper 
tube. It won't receive much, but if you have some that dangles out the end it 
will get more signalmaybe enough to do the job. Its not at a certain wave 
length that has to be there to work. We are talking Receiver now. Transmitters 
is another story. The RF signal from a Transmitter travels at the speed of 
light. It is crossing the receiver wire Antenna and is creating a small AC 
voltage. The more wire you have the more voltage is being created on that 
wire.(SIGNAL!!!)
 You will get to a point that the resisents will be to hi to be 
over come by the voltage created. We are now talking Long wire!! 
Transmitters on the other hand have a different type of problem with the length 
of the wire. If its not tuned correctly to the proper length there is a 
reflected signal going back to the electronics from where it came from. This 
reduces the over all output power to the Transmitting Ant. The bouncing back 
signal is out of phase with the onecoming out of the electronics. It 
cancels it out by a small amount or and can damage the output of the transmitter 
if its a large amount. Most people remember about the Tuning of aAntenna 
andabout the reflected part back when CB radios were the in thing " Good 
Buddy" A bad Ant,open or shortedcoax would burn up the output 
circuit. 
I just add wire to the receiverAntenna and just let it extended out 
the back. Longer is better. Problem solved with carbon fuselage Free info here 
no Lab expense required. Just my 45 years of experience working in Radios for a 
living with some EE Collage studies, Trade School Grad from Devry, and a FCC 
license to work on High Power radios,Military Ground and Aircraft schooling. I'm 
still working in it. 
Larry Taylor KF6JBGCD for the Visalia Fall Soaring 
Festival2005 Oct 1st  2ndHome: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: soaring@airage.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 3:26 
PM
  Subject: [RCSE] fuselages  radio 
  range
  
  They say that common sense is uncommon and I am as guilty as everyone 
  else in this department, so like everyone else..I went in search of 
  'excaliber' the 'better' brand RX for use in my Pikes.
  
  The Pikes have the Carbon Kevlar burlap weave fuse that has become so 
  popular and causes us to have to get our antenna's away from the fuse, not 
  just outside of it.
  
  I was searching and trying all sorts of RX's... Some said, oh this brand 
  PCM has no problemswhich of course means that the servos don't move when 
  the RX is not getting a signallike non PCM RXs...the condition is 
  masked...and that works well enough to win contests and keep the model safe 
  for the most part...but it doesn't 'fix' the fuselage from blocking the 
  signal.
  
  I stopped searching when our number one radio guy said to meGordy 
  regardless of the components and how they are glued to the board in a trick 
  receiverif they don't 'see' a signal they don't have nuthin to work 
  with.
  
  The Fuselage blocks the signal, the fuse doesn't interfere with the 
  RX. No signal no movey :-)
  
  The three choices which include 'hold' and programmable hold in the 
  Shadow are a BIG deal.
  When I had 14mins left on my New Zealand LSF4 one hour task and my Tranny 
  started beeping, we attempted to do a quick charge, hoping the model would 
  just float around for 10 seconds or so...but no dice as soon as I turned off 
  it would go into a total death spiral. Hold function would have been a 
  nice feature there :-)
  
  No receiver can think things up by itself, it just follows orders and if 
  no orders get to it...well you get the point. 
:-)Gordy

[RCSE] Check out Samba Model, Antenna

2005-03-25 Thread DENDKN

 Click here: Samba Model, Antenna

All, 

Samba Model is a very good supplier to report and recommend solutions to the use of antennas with carbon fuselage sailplanes.

With my sub-rudder type sailplanes, I have had very good results with the antenna directed down from the pod fuselage below the carbon boom to the sub-rudder with a rubber band tensioner.

Dale Nutter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[RCSE] Re: Stylus- Pike Flap to Elevator Mix Quandry

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh yeah,
 
Now I know what you mean.

I call it the Pike landing /hump/.
 
When you push the elevator to stick the nose on the spot, the flaps 
being down, get lifty when you push the nose over, causing about a 3' 
over shoot on the spot.
 
Most guys talk about pulling the flap off just prior to landing, I find 
that too hard to think about. I hear the same thing from Icon and Sharon 
owners.
 
Is that what you mean?
Gordy

Sorry Gordy,
I dump the flaps off when I push elevator. My minor ballooning problem 
occurs about 10 to 15 ft out when I go to add the last bit of flap to 
slow the glider to it's min stall speed.

I knew I was going to have a hard time explaining this one.
David
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

Re: [RCSE] Stylus- Pike Flap to Elevator Mix Quandry

2005-03-25 Thread Tom Watson

Not possible.  The horn is long for a reason...the stab sit a ways up on 
the fin.

Tom

How about drilling another hole in the elevator horn, closer to the 
pivot point?  That would address all of the issues you discussed 
(force on servo, enough throw, etc).  I realize this may not be easy,

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

Re: [RCSE] RX antenna tuning (Was: 51 MHz base loaded antenna for 9303)

2005-03-25 Thread Tom Watson

Already tried it...been working fine for almost two years.  I will try 
the expanded test you describe below with the new ships I'm building.

Tom
Simon Van Leeuwen wrote:
Try it Tom. To get decent feedback while rigorous range-testing you must 
first locate an open area with as few metalic obstructions as possible. 
The reason is quite a bit of reflective energy is seen by the RX which 
significantly skews your results. ambda).

Head out to the open area you have chosen that is free of fences, 
powerlines, buildings etc., set your aircraft on a non-conductive 
surface at least 1/4 wavelength off the ground (not critical) with say 
1/4 wavelength of extra antenna sticking out the back. Use a plastic 
tube so it is straight off the back of the fuse (important - use 
drinking straws).

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

[RCSE] Schulze chargers?

2005-03-25 Thread Tom Watson

Somebody talk me out of the Schulze charger I've been 
connoitering...these things will do just about any type of battery out 
there.  Only thing I don't like (besides the price) is the OEM demand 
that it only be powered from a car battery.

isl6-430d or 636+...that is the remaining question.
Tom
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

Re: [RCSE] Schulze chargers?

2005-03-25 Thread Joe Nave

I have a Schulze 636+ and am powering it from a quality bench power supply
that provides the required Amps in the manual without any problems or
issues.  It is a great charger.

Joe

- Original Message - 
From: Tom Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Soaring Exchange soaring@airage.com
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 7:36 PM
Subject: [RCSE] Schulze chargers?

 Somebody talk me out of the Schulze charger I've been
 connoitering...these things will do just about any type of battery out
 there.  Only thing I don't like (besides the price) is the OEM demand
 that it only be powered from a car battery.

 isl6-430d or 636+...that is the remaining question.

 Tom

 RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe
and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that
subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with
MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL
are generally NOT in text format

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and 
unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  
Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in 
text format

RE: [RCSE] Becker antenna

2005-03-25 Thread Winch




I've 
been using one for about 4 months on my 3030. While I haven't done 
anydetailed testing, I also haven't had any range problems, even with a 
"Feather" Rx at significant distances. The Becker certainly make launching 
easierthan the original antenna.

Phil 
in Vancouver

  -Original Message-From: glide 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: March 25, 2005 4:45 
  PMTo: soaring@airage.comSubject: [RCSE] Becker 
  antenna
  
  I just got my Becker antenna from 
  Jochen Luetke for my Multiplex Royal Evo transmitter. I was wondering if 
  other Becker antenna owners could respond regarding their use of this 
  antenna. Mainly, I was concerned about there is any kind of range 
  reduction when using this antenna. Obviously, you would have full range 
  with the OEM antenna but if there was some reduction with range using when 
  using the Becker antenna I was wondering if they could give their real world 
  estimate.
  
  Best 
  regards,
  
  Al Battad  
  WH6VE
  AMA #506981

Re: [RCSE] Re: Soaring V1 #5375 - Shadow 3

Do-able Chuck, but the black plastic cases use what is called carbon
black to create the color black. This, in itself, is somewhat of a shield.

The OEM's never anticipated the idea of running more than one RX, hence
I'm sure do not see the need, nor the expense of considering such a
case. Cost-wise it would be more money.

regards
Chuck Anderson wrote:
At 05:19 PM 3/25/2005, you wrote:
The problem on dual RX setups is not the antennas, but co-interference
between the IF's within each of the RX's. This is what reduces
sensitivity. This problem is solved easily by shielding one or both RX's.

The shielding can be as simple as a 6 x 6 conductive plate that is
strategically place between the two RX's, or could mean literally
wrapping one RX with a highly conductive shielding material (eg:
permeable copper).

Why not just put the receiver in a metal case as was done with the
Proline receivers I used for so manyyears. I
have not been impressed with the packaging of most modern receivers
anyway. An extra ounce in the nose of my sailplane just means that I
can take more lead out of the nose.

Chuck Anderson

Re: [RCSE] Schulze chargers?

2005-03-25 Thread Ben Diss

Tom-  If you any problem, you are screwed.  I sent my charger to Schulze 
for a warrenty repair in Aug 2003.  I finally gave up on the warrenty 
claim and gave them a credit card after about 8 months.  Now, 2005 
having faxed them no less than 20 times, three different credit card 
numbers I got a letter in the mail threatening to sell my charger if I 
don't pay.

Deal with Schulze at your own risk.
-Ben
Tom Watson wrote:
Somebody talk me out of the Schulze charger I've been 
connoitering...these things will do just about any type of battery out 
there.  Only thing I don't like (besides the price) is the OEM demand 
that it only be powered from a car battery.

isl6-430d or 636+...that is the remaining question.
Tom
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe 
and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note 
that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format 
with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail 
and AOL are generally NOT in text format

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

Re: [RCSE] Schulze chargers?

2005-03-25 Thread Michael Conte

What about the Orbit Microlader Pro?  I think it does the same things 
as the Schulze only cheaper.  The only drawback I can see is only 
having one output vs the two on the Schulze.

My 2cents
Mike
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

Re: [RCSE] fuses radio range

KEVLAR is invisible to EM/RF, so is fiberglass. Carbon is like a big fat
honking resistor, therefore an important (negative) issue. The size of
the apertures between the weave on a typical fuselage utilizing carbon
and/or KEVLAR are much smaller than any resonant portions of a
wavelength @ 72MHz. This means the weave will restrict RF (not stop -
carbon is dissaptive and still able to transmit energy).

The microwave oven door has apertures that indeed disallow transmission
of energy through the small holes, but still allow you to see that
weiner explode. This is because the hole diameter is not a mutliple @
lambda, AND the screen is metal (conductive). Then again...you would be
well-advised to really keep the the rugrats away from watching food burn
no matter what, if folks only knew...chack that door gasket for
integrity.

Jon Stone wrote:
I have had carbon fuses in the past. Antenna completely inside, and no
range problems. I've also owned carbon/kevlar weave fuses that were
horrible with range.I also know of others planes known for having
radio range problems that have the fuse made from a carbon-kevlar weave
cloth.My point is not to bash any particular plane, so none were
mentioned.

I'm thinking the carbon/kevlar weave might be similar to the grating
that keeps certain frequency RF from escaping microwave ovens. I'm
guessing the weave may somehow be different, RF wise, than a carbon only
cloth fuse.

Is the type of cloth a fuselage is made of, even an issue?

Regards,

Jon

Re: [RCSE] fuselages radio range, Antenna Stuff

2005-03-25 Thread Paul Emerson

friendly curiosity

I thought RX antennas were tuned to a frequency by being a specific
length. So wouldn't adding wire put it out of tune? Or is more wire
always better because it has more surface area to receive?

Not even remotely an engineer, Paul


On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:22:35 -0800, Larry  Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   What has been discussed here is the Antenna. If you look at different
 Receivers, you will find that they will have different length wire for a
 Antenna. Some receiver have coils on the board going into the matching stage
 of the receiver. This is where they match up the Antenna to the first stage
 of Amplification. Some just go into the matching input and there they are
 compensated for. So just looking at the wire and adding 1/2 or 1/4 the
 length to the wire onto it and thinking your doing things correctly, your
 wrong in that respect. But just the fact that you are adding wire, that is a
 good thing. The better the receiver can see the Tx Ant. the better it works.
 Just like what Gordy say's. No signal no movey :-)  
   If your Fuselage is made up with carbon tube or a fuse that has carbon
 weaved in with Kevlar or Fiberglass its going to bock the receive signal by
 some degree. Just think of it as sliding your receive Ant. wire down a
 copper tube. It won't receive much, but if you have some that dangles out
 the end it will get more signal maybe enough to do the job. Its not at a
 certain wave length that has to be there to work. We are talking Receiver
 now. Transmitters is another story.  The RF signal from a Transmitter
 travels at the speed of light. It is crossing the receiver wire Antenna and
 is creating a small AC voltage. The more wire you have the more voltage is
 being created on that wire.(SIGNAL!!!) 
You will get to a point that the resisents will be to hi to be over come
 by the voltage created. We are now talking Long wire!!  Transmitters on the
 other hand have a different type of problem with the length of the wire. If
 its not tuned correctly to the proper length there is a reflected signal
 going back to the electronics from where it came from. This reduces the over
 all output power to the Transmitting Ant. The bouncing back signal is out of
 phase with the one coming out of the electronics. It cancels it out by a
 small amount or and can damage the output of the transmitter if its a large
 amount. Most people remember about the Tuning of a Antenna and about the
 reflected part back when CB radios were the in thing  Good Buddy  A bad
 Ant, open or shorted coax would burn up the output circuit. 
 I just add wire to the receiver Antenna and just let it extended out the
 back. Longer is better. Problem solved with carbon fuselage Free info here
 no Lab expense required. Just my 45 years of experience working in Radios
 for a living with some EE Collage studies, Trade School Grad from Devry, and
 a FCC license to work on High Power radios,Military Ground and Aircraft
 schooling. I'm still working in it. 
 Larry Taylor KF6JBG
 CD for the Visalia Fall Soaring Festival
 2005  Oct 1st  2nd
 Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
 - Original Message - 
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 To: soaring@airage.com 
 Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 3:26 PM 
 Subject: [RCSE] fuselages  radio range 
 
  
 They say that common sense is uncommon and I am as guilty as everyone else
 in this department, so like everyone else..I went in search of 'excaliber'
 the 'better' brand RX for use in my Pikes. 
   
 The Pikes have the Carbon Kevlar burlap weave fuse that has become so
 popular and causes us to have to get our antenna's away from the fuse, not
 just outside of it. 
   
 I was searching and trying all sorts of RX's... Some said, oh this brand PCM
 has no problemswhich of course means that the servos don't move when the
 RX is not getting a signallike non PCM RXs...the condition is
 masked...and that works well enough to win contests and keep the model safe
 for the most part...but it doesn't 'fix' the fuselage from blocking the
 signal. 
   
 I stopped searching when our number one radio guy said to meGordy
 regardless of the components and how they are glued to the board in a trick
 receiverif they don't 'see' a signal they don't have nuthin to work
 with. 
   
 The Fuselage blocks the signal, the fuse doesn't interfere with the RX.  No
 signal no movey :-) 
   
 The three choices which include 'hold' and programmable hold in the Shadow
 are a BIG deal. 
 When I had 14mins left on my New Zealand LSF4 one hour task and my Tranny
 started beeping, we attempted to do a quick charge, hoping the model would
 just float around for 10 seconds or so...but no dice as soon as I turned off
 it would go into a total death spiral.  Hold function would have been a nice
 feature there :-) 
   
 No receiver can think things up by itself, it just follows orders and if no
 orders get to it...well you get the point. :-)
 Gordy
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane

Re: [RCSE] fuselages radio range, Antenna Stuff

This is incorrect and misleading...adding wire to an antenna for the 
sake of it does not result in better gain! Longer is NOT better! More 
wire does not equate to more voltage at the antenna element no matter 
what the condition...

Larry Taylor wrote:
  What has been discussed here is the Antenna. If you look at different 
Receivers, you will find that they will have different length wire for a 
Antenna. Some receiver have coils on the board going into the matching 
stage of the receiver. This is where they match up the Antenna to the 
first stage of Amplification. Some just go into the matching input and 
there they are compensated for. So just looking at the wire and adding 
1/2 or 1/4 the length to the wire onto it and thinking your doing things 
correctly, your wrong in that respect. But just the fact that you are 
adding wire, that is a good thing. The better the receiver can see the 
Tx Ant. the better it works. Just like what Gordy say's. No signal no 
movey :-) 
  If your Fuselage is made up with carbon tube or a fuse that has carbon 
weaved in with Kevlar or Fiberglass its going to bock the receive signal 
by some degree. Just think of it as sliding your receive Ant. wire down 
a copper tube. It won't receive much, but if you have some that dangles 
out the end it will get more signal maybe enough to do the job. Its not 
at a certain wave length that has to be there to work. We are talking 
Receiver now. Transmitters is another story.  The RF signal from a 
Transmitter travels at the speed of light. It is crossing the receiver 
wire Antenna and is creating a small AC voltage. The more wire you have 
the more voltage is being created on that wire.(SIGNAL!!!)
   You will get to a point that the resisents will be to hi to be over 
come by the voltage created. We are now talking Long wire!!  
Transmitters on the other hand have a different type of problem with the 
length of the wire. If its not tuned correctly to the proper length 
there is a reflected signal going back to the electronics from where it 
came from. This reduces the over all output power to the Transmitting 
Ant. The bouncing back signal is out of phase with the one coming out of 
the electronics. It cancels it out by a small amount or and can damage 
the output of the transmitter if its a large amount. Most people 
remember about the Tuning of a Antenna and about the reflected part back 
when CB radios were the in thing  Good Buddy  A bad Ant, open or 
shorted coax would burn up the output circuit.
I just add wire to the receiver Antenna and just let it extended out the 
back. Longer is better. Problem solved with carbon fuselage Free info 
here no Lab expense required. Just my 45 years of experience working in 
Radios for a living with some EE Collage studies, Trade School Grad from 
Devry, and a FCC license to work on High Power radios,Military Ground 
and Aircraft schooling. I'm still working in it.
Larry Taylor KF6JBG
CD for the Visalia Fall Soaring Festival
2005  Oct 1st  2nd
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: soaring@airage.com mailto:soaring@airage.com
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 3:26 PM
Subject: [RCSE] fuselages  radio range
They say that common sense is uncommon and I am as guilty as
everyone else in this department, so like everyone else..I went in
search of 'excaliber' the 'better' brand RX for use in my Pikes.
 
The Pikes have the Carbon Kevlar burlap weave fuse that has become
so popular and causes us to have to get our antenna's away from the
fuse, not just outside of it.
 
I was searching and trying all sorts of RX's... Some said, oh this
brand PCM has no problemswhich of course means that the servos
don't move when the RX is not getting a signallike non PCM
RXs...the condition is masked...and that works well enough to win
contests and keep the model safe for the most part...but it doesn't
'fix' the fuselage from blocking the signal.
 
I stopped searching when our number one radio guy said to
meGordy regardless of the components and how they are glued to
the board in a trick receiverif they don't 'see' a signal they
don't have nuthin to work with.
 
The Fuselage blocks the signal, the fuse doesn't interfere with the
RX.  No signal no movey :-)
 
The three choices which include 'hold' and programmable hold in the
Shadow are a BIG deal.
When I had 14mins left on my New Zealand LSF4 one hour task and my
Tranny started beeping, we attempted to do a quick charge, hoping
the model would just float around for 10 seconds or so...but no dice
as soon as I turned off it would go into a total death spiral.  Hold
function would have been a nice feature there :-)
 
No receiver can think things up by itself, it just follows orders
and if no orders get to it...well you

Re: [RCSE] Check out Samba Model, Antenna

keep in mind these recomendations are squarely based on 35-40MHz 
experiences...the Y thing is an absolutely useless feature.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Click here: Samba Model, Antenna http://www.modely.cz/samba/antenna.htm
All, 

Samba Model is a very good supplier to report and recommend solutions to 
the use of antennas with carbon fuselage sailplanes.

With my sub-rudder type sailplanes, I have had very good results with 
the antenna directed down from the pod fuselage below the carbon boom to 
the sub-rudder with a rubber band tensioner.

Dale Nutter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Simon Van Leeuwen
RADIUS SYSTEMS
PnP SYSTEMS - The E-Harness of Choice
Cogito Ergo Zooom
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

Re: [RCSE] Re: Soaring V1 #5375 - Shadow 3

No hopes required John...rigorous range testing will show whether 
there is any shortcomings when operating multiple RX's. It's as simple 
as operating one RX at a time under similar test conditions I just 
eluded to, then the other RX, then both simultaneously. If there are 
issues...they will show.

I forgot to add in my previous post a very important detail, when 
attempting to tune a RX antenna, or look for any anomolies it pays to 
have some sort of a baseline.

To achieve this requires setting the RX up as if it was in an aircraft 
that has no RF issues (like carbon). What you want is to determine how 
many feet you can achieve under ideal conditions. With this information, 
deciding what you will accept as a result of degradation due to things 
like carbon become much clearer

John Derstine wrote:
I have also heard of other approaches including de tuning one rx
slightly from the other, the bottom line is who wants to do that, or
wrap your rx in the hopes that it works? I do know some TOC level pilots
who still choose to use two rx's in their planes but three or four? Is
this feasible?
JD
Endless Mountain Models
http://www.scalesoaring.com
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 


-Original Message-
From: Simon Van Leeuwen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 6:20 PM
To: John Derstine
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Dave Register'; soaring@airage.com;
'Gordy
Stahl'; 'Barry Kennedy'
Subject: Re: [RCSE] Re: Soaring V1 #5375 - Shadow 3
The problem on dual RX setups is not the antennas, but co-interference
between the IF's within each of the RX's. This is what reduces
sensitivity. This problem is solved easily by shielding one or both
RX's.
The shielding can be as simple as a 6 x 6 conductive plate that is
strategically place between the two RX's, or could mean literally
wrapping one RX with a highly conductive shielding material (eg:
permeable copper).
John Derstine wrote:

Just a cheap shot, could not resist, blame Gordy for his endless
overstated hype about everything and anything.
Anything good, and I assume the Shadow is, will out perform a Hitec
or
FMA rx, apples to oranges indeed. That was the point of my comment
not
that it is tiny or light.

The new technology available will be a great advantage especially
for
the micro pilot, or someone looking for features like this, as far
as
using two three or four ganged up for a giant scale ship however,(
as
stated by some, and of interest to others who might use this rx.) my
communications with Mr. Arroosh Elahi have been inconclusive as to
what
if any range degradation you might get putting two or more rxs in
one
plane. TOC pilots tried this a long time ago with large aerobatic
ships
with the result that there was often significant range reduction
with
using two rxs in one aircraft due to the antennas somehow
interfering
with each other. This both with Futaba and JR rxs. I offered to test
two
in a plane but have not heard back. If some one would kindly perform
a
simple range check with two rxs or more in a large aircraft, with
antennas running parallel inside the fuselage. or send me two to
test, I
will gladly pay for them ,and send them back for a refund after
testing
on the ground, not flying, The comment I got from Mr. Elahi was that
tests were pretty good, but they had not the chance yet to go out
and
fly much until the weather improved...
If these little rxs indeed perform with unhindered range (ganged up)
as
compared to a single 10 channel PCM rx (original branded equipment)
then
it would be an interesting development for giant scale applications.

Synth tuning is not a feature that is critical other than
convenience,
and  for the average pilot, not so necessary. I travel with several
modules and xtals that serve my purposes very well, the real issue
is
all the other performance data. The stuff that keeps your plane in
the
air.

JD

-Original Message-
From: George Gillburg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 2:49 PM
To: John Derstine
Cc: 'Dave Register'; soaring@airage.com; 'Gordy Stahl'; 'Barry
Kennedy'
Subject: RE: [RCSE] Re: Soaring V1 #5375 - Shadow 3


Gee, that is almost as good as a JR 10x with a standard PCM rx
Yes, but is the JR standard PCM rx synthesized?  Does it weigh 8
gms?
Somehow, I doubt it.

George Gillburg
Bakersfield, California
--
Simon Van Leeuwen
RADIUS SYSTEMS
PnP SYSTEMS - The E-Harness of Choice
Cogito Ergo Zooom
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send
subscribe
and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note
that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only
format
with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail
and
AOL are generally NOT in text format

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe 
messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email 
such as

Re: [RCSE] fuselages radio range, Antenna Stuff

  Do you change your car radio Antenna lenght when your are listening to a 
FM station and change channel/stations?  When you change to a AM station is 
there a long Antenna some where that you switch into??
 It is not that critical for a receiver.
 Do a range check when you can something before and after. That will give 
you peace of mind.
 If you just can't see yourself adding on to the Receiver wire than run it 
in the wing.
Just don't fold it up,coil it up,shorten it up,or run it along other wires. 
Its so easy to just add on and use alittle shrink tubing to cover up the 
solder joint. You don't need to have 4 feet hanging out.   Rang Check, Rang 
Check Range Check.  You will be happy than.
Wire: Use a highly stranded wire. The more strands it has the more it can 
flex, like servo wire. You can cut the Antenna wire closer to the receiver 
and add and extend it there. So that the factory wire can dangle out the 
fuse.

Larry Taylor KF6JBG
CD for the Visalia Fall Soaring Festival
2005  Oct 1st  2nd
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message - 
From: Paul Emerson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: soaring@airage.com
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: [RCSE] fuselages  radio range, Antenna Stuff


friendly curiosity
I thought RX antennas were tuned to a frequency by being a specific
length. So wouldn't adding wire put it out of tune? Or is more wire
always better because it has more surface area to receive?
Not even remotely an engineer, Paul
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:22:35 -0800, Larry  Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  What has been discussed here is the Antenna. If you look at different
Receivers, you will find that they will have different length wire for a
Antenna. Some receiver have coils on the board going into the matching 
stage
of the receiver. This is where they match up the Antenna to the first 
stage
of Amplification. Some just go into the matching input and there they are
compensated for. So just looking at the wire and adding 1/2 or 1/4 the
length to the wire onto it and thinking your doing things correctly, your
wrong in that respect. But just the fact that you are adding wire, that 
is a
good thing. The better the receiver can see the Tx Ant. the better it 
works.
Just like what Gordy say's. No signal no movey :-)
  If your Fuselage is made up with carbon tube or a fuse that has carbon
weaved in with Kevlar or Fiberglass its going to bock the receive signal 
by
some degree. Just think of it as sliding your receive Ant. wire down a
copper tube. It won't receive much, but if you have some that dangles out
the end it will get more signal maybe enough to do the job. Its not at a
certain wave length that has to be there to work. We are talking Receiver
now. Transmitters is another story.  The RF signal from a Transmitter
travels at the speed of light. It is crossing the receiver wire Antenna 
and
is creating a small AC voltage. The more wire you have the more voltage 
is
being created on that wire.(SIGNAL!!!)
   You will get to a point that the resisents will be to hi to be over 
come
by the voltage created. We are now talking Long wire!!  Transmitters on 
the
other hand have a different type of problem with the length of the wire. 
If
its not tuned correctly to the proper length there is a reflected signal
going back to the electronics from where it came from. This reduces the 
over
all output power to the Transmitting Ant. The bouncing back signal is out 
of
phase with the one coming out of the electronics. It cancels it out by a
small amount or and can damage the output of the transmitter if its a 
large
amount. Most people remember about the Tuning of a Antenna and about the
reflected part back when CB radios were the in thing  Good Buddy  A bad
Ant, open or shorted coax would burn up the output circuit.
I just add wire to the receiver Antenna and just let it extended out the
back. Longer is better. Problem solved with carbon fuselage Free info 
here
no Lab expense required. Just my 45 years of experience working in Radios
for a living with some EE Collage studies, Trade School Grad from Devry, 
and
a FCC license to work on High Power radios,Military Ground and Aircraft
schooling. I'm still working in it.
Larry Taylor KF6JBG
CD for the Visalia Fall Soaring Festival
2005  Oct 1st  2nd
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: soaring@airage.com
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 3:26 PM
Subject: [RCSE] fuselages  radio range

They say that common sense is uncommon and I am as guilty as everyone 
else
in this department, so like everyone else..I went in search of 
'excaliber'
the 'better' brand RX for use in my Pikes.

The Pikes have the Carbon Kevlar burlap weave fuse that has become so
popular and causes us to have to get our antenna's away from the fuse, 
not
just outside of it.

I was searching and trying all sorts of RX's... Some said, oh this brand 
PCM
has no problemswhich of course means that the servos don't move when 
the
RX is not

RE: [RCSE] Becker antenna and Schulze charger

2005-03-25 Thread glide









Aloha and mahalo to all that responded to
my inquiry about the Becker. Looks like I will be able to use the antenna
with confidence from all the positive response Ive gotten. In
fact, I was able to find some time today to fly my 3D parkflyer today with no
problems. BTW, Jochen Luetke is a real gentleman and I highly suggest
acquiring the Becker from him. He is quick to ship and answered all my
messages regarding ordering and shipping.



BTW, I have an Orbit Charger and would
suggest this as an alternative to the Schulze charger. If there are any
problems with it, you can have it serviced by Dave at Radical R/C here in the USA.
There are also periodic software upgrades that you can receive from vendors on
the web. Ive had mine for almost a couple years now and never had
a problem with it and upgraded the software a couple times now. It can do
all my charging and battery maintenance needs including lipo batteries.
Only drawback is that it has only one battery port unlike the Schulze and the
Alpha 4.



Best regards,



Al Battad  WH6VE

AMA #506981











From: glide
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 2:45
PM
To: soaring@airage.com
Subject: [RCSE] Becker antenna





I just got my Becker antenna from
Jochen Luetke for my Multiplex Royal Evo transmitter. I was wondering if
other Becker antenna owners could respond regarding their use of this
antenna. Mainly, I was concerned about there is any kind of range
reduction when using this antenna. Obviously, you would have full range
with the OEM antenna but if there was some reduction with range using when
using the Becker antenna I was wondering if they could give their real world
estimate.



Best regards,



Al Battad  WH6VE

AMA #506981

Re: [RCSE] fuselages radio range, Antenna Stuff

2005-03-25 Thread James V. Bacus

I cut my antenna down to 8 on my Vette so it looks cool and flows with the 
lines of the car. 8-)

At 01:14 AM 3/26/2005, Larry  Taylor wrote:
Do you change your car radio Antenna lenght when your are listening to a 
FM station and change channel/stations?
Jim
Downers Grove, IL
Member of the Chicago SOAR club, and Team JR
AMA 592537LSF 7560 Level IV   R/C Soaring blog at www.jimbacus.net
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

Re: [RCSE] fuselages radio range, Antenna Stuff

Simon
So your saying that no Antenna is Better than having some Antenna. ..
I think you are missing the point here. What we are talking about is making 
a poor receive problem work better. I'm just trying to keep thing low key so 
most can understand with out getting into math and equations and physical 
properties. Simple English is all that most people need. I have always 
believed in the KISS principal.

Larry Taylor KF6JBG
CD for the Visalia Fall Soaring Festival
2005  Oct 1st  2nd
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message - 
From: Simon Van Leeuwen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Larry Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: soaring@airage.com
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: [RCSE] fuselages  radio range, Antenna Stuff


This is incorrect and misleading...adding wire to an antenna for the sake 
of it does not result in better gain! Longer is NOT better! More wire does 
not equate to more voltage at the antenna element no matter what the 
condition...

Larry Taylor wrote:
  What has been discussed here is the Antenna. If you look at different 
Receivers, you will find that they will have different length wire for a 
Antenna. Some receiver have coils on the board going into the matching 
stage of the receiver. This is where they match up the Antenna to the 
first stage of Amplification. Some just go into the matching input and 
there they are compensated for. So just looking at the wire and adding 
1/2 or 1/4 the length to the wire onto it and thinking your doing things 
correctly, your wrong in that respect. But just the fact that you are 
adding wire, that is a good thing. The better the receiver can see the Tx 
Ant. the better it works. Just like what Gordy say's. No signal no movey 
:-) If your Fuselage is made up with carbon tube or a fuse that has 
carbon weaved in with Kevlar or Fiberglass its going to bock the receive 
signal by some degree. Just think of it as sliding your receive Ant. wire 
down a copper tube. It won't receive much, but if you have some that 
dangles out the end it will get more signal maybe enough to do the job. 
Its not at a certain wave length that has to be there to work. We are 
talking Receiver now. Transmitters is another story.  The RF signal from 
a Transmitter travels at the speed of light. It is crossing the receiver 
wire Antenna and is creating a small AC voltage. The more wire you have 
the more voltage is being created on that wire.(SIGNAL!!!)
   You will get to a point that the resisents will be to hi to be over 
come by the voltage created. We are now talking Long wire!!  Transmitters 
on the other hand have a different type of problem with the length of the 
wire. If its not tuned correctly to the proper length there is a 
reflected signal going back to the electronics from where it came from. 
This reduces the over all output power to the Transmitting Ant. The 
bouncing back signal is out of phase with the one coming out of the 
electronics. It cancels it out by a small amount or and can damage the 
output of the transmitter if its a large amount. Most people remember 
about the Tuning of a Antenna and about the reflected part back when CB 
radios were the in thing  Good Buddy  A bad Ant, open or shorted coax 
would burn up the output circuit.
I just add wire to the receiver Antenna and just let it extended out the 
back. Longer is better. Problem solved with carbon fuselage Free info 
here no Lab expense required. Just my 45 years of experience working in 
Radios for a living with some EE Collage studies, Trade School Grad from 
Devry, and a FCC license to work on High Power radios,Military Ground and 
Aircraft schooling. I'm still working in it.
Larry Taylor KF6JBG
CD for the Visalia Fall Soaring Festival
2005  Oct 1st  2nd
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: soaring@airage.com mailto:soaring@airage.com
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 3:26 PM
Subject: [RCSE] fuselages  radio range
They say that common sense is uncommon and I am as guilty as
everyone else in this department, so like everyone else..I went in
search of 'excaliber' the 'better' brand RX for use in my Pikes.
 The Pikes have the Carbon Kevlar burlap weave fuse that has become
so popular and causes us to have to get our antenna's away from the
fuse, not just outside of it.
 I was searching and trying all sorts of RX's... Some said, oh this
brand PCM has no problemswhich of course means that the servos
don't move when the RX is not getting a signallike non PCM
RXs...the condition is masked...and that works well enough to win
contests and keep the model safe for the most part...but it doesn't
'fix' the fuselage from blocking the signal.
 I stopped searching when our number one radio guy said to
meGordy regardless of the components and how they are glued to
the board in a trick receiverif they don't 'see'

Re: [RCSE] fuselages radio range, Antenna Stuff

How much range did you lose. My son and I try to keep it up and straight 
when we are racing. Thats the last place you won't to lose control. My son 
wanted it shorter also. He drove it up and down the block and when he made 
it shorter he could not go as far as he did before. Now its back to being 
long and tall.
Larry Taylor KF6JBG
CD for the Visalia Fall Soaring Festival
2005  Oct 1st  2nd
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

- Original Message - 
From: James V. Bacus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: soaring@airage.com
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 11:26 PM
Subject: Re: [RCSE] fuselages  radio range, Antenna Stuff


I cut my antenna down to 8 on my Vette so it looks cool and flows with the 
lines of the car. 8-)

At 01:14 AM 3/26/2005, Larry  Taylor wrote:
Do you change your car radio Antenna lenght when your are listening to a 
FM station and change channel/stations?
Jim
Downers Grove, IL
Member of the Chicago SOAR club, and Team JR
AMA 592537LSF 7560 Level IV   R/C Soaring blog at www.jimbacus.net
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe 
and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note 
that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format 
with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and 
AOL are generally NOT in text format 
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

Re: [RCSE] fuselages radio range, Antenna Stuff

2005-03-25 Thread James V. Bacus

You mentioned car radios and FM, just got me thinking.  I was talking about 
my 1:1 scale Z06 and just trying to be a little light hearted this 
evening...  8-)

(I did cut down the antenna, and I still can receive more ChicagoLand 
stations than I need, YMMV.)

Sorry to disrupt the antenna thread.
At 01:36 AM 3/26/2005, Larry  Taylor wrote:
How much range did you lose. My son and I try to keep it up and straight 
when we are racing. Thats the last place you won't to lose control. My son 
wanted it shorter also. He drove it up and down the block and when he made 
it shorter he could not go as far as he did before. Now its back to being 
long and tall.
Larry Taylor KF6JBG
CD for the Visalia Fall Soaring Festival
2005  Oct 1st  2nd
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

- Original Message - From: James V. Bacus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: soaring@airage.com
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 11:26 PM
Subject: Re: [RCSE] fuselages  radio range, Antenna Stuff

I cut my antenna down to 8 on my Vette so it looks cool and flows with 
the lines of the car. 8-)

At 01:14 AM 3/26/2005, Larry  Taylor wrote:
Do you change your car radio Antenna lenght when your are listening to a 
FM station and change channel/stations?
Jim
Downers Grove, IL
Member of the Chicago SOAR club, and Team JR
AMA 592537LSF 7560 Level IV   R/C Soaring blog at www.jimbacus.net
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe 
and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note 
that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format 
with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail 
and AOL are generally NOT in text format
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe 
and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note 
that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format 
with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and 
AOL are generally NOT in text format
Jim
Downers Grove, IL
Member of the Chicago SOAR club, and Team JR
AMA 592537LSF 7560 Level IV   R/C Soaring blog at www.jimbacus.net
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.  Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format

RE: [RCSE] Re: Soaring V1 #5375 - Shadow 3