[RCSE] Evolution XL's FS
Guys, Change in plans makes 2 Evolution XL's available. One is yellow top with blue tip swoosh and yellow with blue stripes on the bottom. The other is the same pattern but white tops with blue trim. Both are carbon D-Box wing layup. $1,300.00 plus shipping. You can get information on my website. Mark Miller www.isthmusmodels.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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
[RCSE] Evolution XL Announcement
Guys, I am proud to announce that Isthmus Models has been named the exclusive importer for Paul Schneider Modellbau products into North and South America. Paul Schneider Modellbau just released an improved version of the popular Evolution called the Evolution XL. With more span and an airfoil blend by Phillip Kolb, European F3J champion. It is available in GFK, Carbon D-Tube and all carbon layups. More information is on my website. More of his fine products will be added shortly. Mark Miller www.isthmusmodels.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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] Evolution of RC RF
In a message dated 2/23/2006 8:13:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But it is clear that we need more power/range than what current 802.11x can offer. Hence we will need to use another band and since we are peripheral RF users, being assigned more bandwidth or a new spectrum from the FCC will not happen. Not really. The data bandwidth needed to control a model airplane at least as well as we do today is tiny, as is the RF power over therelatively short line of sight ranges involved. You are quite right that a low population/priority user such as hobby RC is not going to get any dedicated piece ofthe very precious/fixed available RF spectrum (and we may very well lose the shared 72MHz use we now have). The good news is that advancing technology to get the most out of that spectrum makes such unnecessary. Current capabilityto dump a little data signal into the ether and pull it out of the grass at the other end is awesome. Compatible other user populations in the 10s to 100s of millions make it readily available and cheap. RC on 802.11x is the first example, and we haven't even begun tofind the limits/optimize our use of it. Horizon's DX6 offering and subsequent initial hobbyist experimentation show that it's an easy modular upgrade to most our existing Tx (never mind the unhelpful twit who has already forceda preliminary CYA position by the AMA thatsuch experimentationis "Illegal"!!?).The next 6 mos - yearcould be pretty exciting, I think. The price of admission is new Tx modules and Rxs, (and they shouldn't cost any more than the same items today if the RC industry isn't too greedy!). Good Lift!
Re: [RCSE] Evolution of RC RF
Doug McLaren wrote: (I'm pretty sure that Futaba already sells industrial R/C equipment that uses spread spectrum, but I don't know the specifics.) Indeed they do: http://www.futaba.com/products/irc/introduction/index.asp There is no magic to this stuff and it is certainly not like the Spektrum radio folks invented this technology. They were simply the first to implement it for model use. I suspect that any radio company that cares to can fairly easily implement their own version. But as is being said in this thread there are a couple of hurdles that need to be cleared before it can be fully brought to th model market. Another little factoid about SS is that if you ever go out of range, your link is toast. Once it is broken your TX and RX cannot reacquire it. That would be bad. Definitely want to stay within range. Although the current stated range is getting close to what my eyes can see!! WEM 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] Evolution of RC RF
In a message dated 2/24/2006 8:24:46 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Another little factoid about SS is that if you ever go out of range, your link is toast. Once it is broken your TX and RX cannot reacquire it. Not so! DX6 users have confirmed re-acquisition does occur, even if the Tx is turned off and back on again. Good Lift!
Re: [RCSE] Evolution of RC RF
Then I was given bad information which I repeated without confirming. My Bad. Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/24/2006 8:24:46 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Another little factoid about SS is that if you ever go out of range, your link is toast. Once it is broken your TX and RX cannot reacquire it. Not so! DX6 users have confirmed re-acquisition does occur, even if the Tx is turned off and back on again. Good Lift! 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] Evolution of RC RF
In a message dated 02/23/2006 11:28:34 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now that governments have discovered that there's a cash cow to be milked auctioning off the spectrum -- one of the reasons for the move to digital TV is to free up half the old UHF TV band and the VHF TV bands for sale -- so the chances of us getting a slice for free is, I'd guess, relatively slim. __ Free?! Government confiscates nearly half of everything I earn! Then they sell freedom, protection, service for every vote and now we have to buy our radio frequencies back at inflated prices so they can waste more money...:-) Arrghhh! Bill Wingstedt 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] Evolution of RC RF
Since this thread has drifted into the future of RC RF, how about this scenario. Eventually all the car guys will graduate to using 2.4G SS, (if not force them), thus allowing 75Mhz to be utilized for RC spread spectrum. Then allow the exclusive use to aircraft. If some old non compliant car radio happens to be in use it will still not cause a crash. Steve Meyer SOAR, LSF IV At 05:41 PM 2/22/2006, Doug McLaren wrote: On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 09:49:41PM -0800, Martin Usher wrote: | Those rotary switches on the synth modules are not designed for | continuous use. They're similar to the old circuit board mounted DIP | switches (the ones that you had to flip with the tip of a pencil), | they're great for occasional configuration changes but the contacts and | detents wear out quite fast if you use them repeatedly Not only that, but the Hitec Spectra module has the switches on the inside -- so you have to remove the module from the radio for every change, and it also encourages not actually looking at the dials and just remembering what channel the radio is on. Which is fine, as long as your memory is perfect. And the only person I know with a perfect memory is my wife -- and even then it's only perfect for times when I screwed up :) And every time you remove the module, you risk breaking it, either the plugs that it goes into, the clips that hold it in, or you could drop it and break it that way. At least the Futaba module for the 9C, while almost identical, has the switches on the outside, so you can change and inspect them easily without removing it. And then the rotary switches are TINY. It's very easy to make a mistake there -- my eyes are reasonably good, and I have to double and triple check my work there. Personally, I'd much rather see the synthesized modules built in, controlled via the computer radio interface itself, ideally with a scanner. The higher end radios seem to do it just fine, and even the Polk Tracker radio has it, and for only $200. The Futaba 14MZ -- doesn't it have some sort of 2.4 GHz setup to tell the RX what 72 MHz channel to use? (They call it `WFSS'.) Talk about a Rube-Goldberg machine -- it's like they got half of a spread spectrum setup going, and then couldn't finish it or something. I bought a pair of FRS transceivers (i.e. walkie talkies, 460 MHz or so) recently at Fry's for $10 _for the pair_, with no rebate. These things each have a TX and a RX, and are fully synthesized and can do all 14 channels with no crystal swapping. You'd think *all* our R/C gear would be synthesized by now. Though what we *really* need is the successor to the Spektrum DX6, with full range, at least 9 channels, and somewhat more programming options. (No exponential on the rudder? What were they thinking?) If they can get that out, it'll be like a license to print money for them ... And that's enough random `state of our radio systems' rants for now :) -- Doug McLaren, [EMAIL PROTECTED] To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer. 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] Evolution of RC RF
Interesting idea Steve. I think I like it. However, SS may require more bandwidth than is available on 70ish MHz. Don't know... (hey Simon?) Besides that it would be a radical change and difficult to force down their throats. ;-) Bill Swingle Janesville, CA 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] Evolution of RC RF
Maybe John would care to give us an overview of what to expect from JR reegarding this very interesting prospect? Or maybe some snippets? :^) Bill Swingle wrote: Interesting idea Steve. I think I like it. However, SS may require more bandwidth than is available on 70ish MHz. Don't know... (hey Simon?) Besides that it would be a radical change and difficult to force down their throats. ;-) Bill Swingle Janesville, CA 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
Re: [RCSE] Evolution of RC RF
At 09:33 AM 2/23/2006, Bill Swingle wrote: Interesting idea Steve. I think I like it. However, SS may require more bandwidth than is available on 70ish MHz. Don't know... (hey Simon?) Besides that it would be a radical change and difficult to force down their throats. ;-) Narrow band was forced on RC users. And in the end it was a good thing. I would think most would believe that SS is a good idea. We need to move towards it. I did not consider the limitation of the bandwidth, that will be a hurdle to overcome. But it is clear that we need more power/range than what current 802.11x can offer. Hence we will need to use another band and since we are peripheral RF users, being assigned more bandwidth or a new spectrum from the FCC will not happen. Steven Meyer SOAR, LSF IV 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] Evolution of RC RF
But it is clear that we need more power/range than what current 802.11x can offer. Apart from range (limited) the real killer with something like 802.11 is latency. You probably won't notice it with just one or two people flying but if you had a contest with a couple of dozen then the transmitters would share the bandwidth by waiting their turn. (An individual transmitter could wait quite a long time before getting use of the medium, in the order of many tens of milliseconds.)(Actually, I've found that in practice a handful of transmitters get to dominate the medium and the rest rarely, if ever, get out.) The present PCM system works extremely well for what it is -- its cheap, its quite reliable and its economical on spectrum. The problem is that there are lots of other users contending for band space who could easily move to modern radio technologies but are reluctant to give up their slice of spectrum. So the public uses like R/C and wireless networking tend to be crammed into little corners of the spectrum that nobody else wants (the 2.4GHz band used by most wireless network equipment is open because its a set of frequencies that are absorbed by water molecules -- not that good for communication but excellent for microwave ovens). Now that governments have discovered that there's a cash cow to be milked auctioning off the spectrum -- one of the reasons for the move to digital TV is to free up half the old UHF TV band and the VHF TV bands for sale -- so the chances of us getting a slice for free is, I'd guess, relatively slim. I'd love to move to spread spectrum. Just not at microwave frequencies. If we could get our hands on just one redundant UHF TV channel that would keep us happy for a very long time. Martin Usher 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] Evolution of RC RF
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 08:42:32PM -0800, Martin Usher wrote: | But it is clear that we need more power/range than what current | 802.11x can offer. For the record, 802.11x is just one (or a few, to be more accurate) implementations of spread spectrum. There are many others. The Spektrum stuff is the only commercial SS recreational R/C implementation out that there that I'm aware of, and it doesn't use any of the 802.11x standards. (I'm pretty sure that Futaba already sells industrial R/C equipment that uses spread spectrum, but I don't know the specifics.) As for power/range, the power limit in the 2.4 GHz band is 1 watt in the US. That is more than enough to get two miles of range, especially if we use a somewhat directional antenna on the TX. (A dipole with a screen behind it to shield the operator would be a nice start, and at 2.4 GHz wouldn't even be too large.) (The Spektrum DX6 TX only uses 0.1 watt if I recall correctly, and the antenna provides very little gain.) | Apart from range (limited) the real killer with something like 802.11 is | latency. You probably won't notice it with just one or two people flying | but if you had a contest with a couple of dozen then the transmitters | would share the bandwidth by waiting their turn. There are multiple implementations of spread spectrum. Not all involve `waiting their turn'. Many, including the one used by the Spektrum DX6 stuff, can transmit all at once and the RX can pick it's signal out of the resulting mash of noise. And even if we were using 802.11b (the WiFi standard, 11 Mb), the latency would probably be unnoticible by even the best pilots, even with dozens of planes using it at once. (As long as people weren't trying to steam video back from their planes over the same WiFi connections, I guess.) | The present PCM system works extremely well for what it is -- its cheap, | its quite reliable and its economical on spectrum. ... but it can be completely knocked out by another TX on the same channel. Or a pager 10 signal KHz away could desense your RX so much that it can't hear yours. It's only reliable if there's no interference. PCM handles interfence as well as can be expected, via appropriate use of keep-position and failsafes, but either way, when there's interfence, *you don't have control*, PPM or PCM. | The problem is that there are lots of other users contending for band | space who could easily move to modern radio technologies but are | reluctant to give up their slice of spectrum. `Easily' is relative. Buying new hardware is expensive. How would you like it if the FCC said we were losing the 27, 72 and 75 MHz R/C bands in two years, and we were all to migrate to something else, probably 2.4 GHz spread spectrum? And a lot of these places that would give up their spectrum would migrate to ... cell phones. Which would provide some beneifts over their current systems, but they'd have to pay per minute to use it. They're not going to go easily. | So the public uses like R/C and wireless networking tend to be | crammed into little corners of the spectrum that nobody else wants Nobody else wants? You're kidding, right? Spectrum is gold. Some is more golden than others, but it's all gold. And as for the 2.4 GHz band, the only reason it's not pure gold is that it's already very popular, and even if the government outlawed it's use tomorrow, it's use wouldn't stop. | (the 2.4GHz band used by most wireless network equipment is open | because its a set of frequencies that are absorbed by water | molecules -- not that good for communication but excellent for | microwave ovens). Yes, microwave ovens use 2.45 GHz, and yes, water will absorb radiation at this wavelength. However, this does not mean that 2.4 GHz is not that good for communication, unless you're trying to communicate to a submarine (and they use megawatts and ELF signals for that -- 76 Hz or so. Not KHz, not MHz, but Hz.) Attenuation due to the atmosphere at 2.4 GHz is *negligible* -- about 0.01 dB/mile. (Citation? http://www.syngress.com/book_catalog/283_CSWAN/sample.pdf.) Even in heavy rain (4 inches/hour), the attenuation is only 0.08 dB/mile -- utterly insignifigant to us, and how often do you fly in heavy rain anyways? In fact, 2.45 GHz was chosen because it's *not* the frequency where water absorbs the most of the signal. This is a benefit because you want your food cooked all the way through, not just at the surface. (Citation: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/microwave.html.) | TV band and the VHF TV bands for sale -- so the chances of us getting a | slice for free is, I'd guess, relatively slim. True, on both accounts. Big bucks. | I'd love to move to spread spectrum. Just not at microwave frequencies. Microwave frequencies would be great. 3.25 cm antennas? What's not to love? At that size, you could even have a RX that has multiple antennas, and it just uses the one with the best signal at any instant. Yes, getting the
[RCSE] Evolution NIB For Sale
I am posting this for Steve Martinez. If interested please contact Steve at his phone as listed below. Dave would you be so kind as to post this on the RCSE for me. Thanks, Steve N.I.B. Evolution for sale. This is a 'light' version ( not a full carbon wing lay-up) that is fully F3J capable with a full carbon spar. The 'light' lay-up is about 5-7oz's lighter than the standard full carbon lay-up. Color: Yellow/Blue (see pictures at website). Thought I would advertise locally first (Michigan area), maybe avoid shipping if possible. Asking $1200 + shipping if necessary. Visit http://www.picolario-usa.com/2.%20Ebene%20High%20End%20Sailplanes/High%20End%20S ailplanes1_page.htm for more info. Steve Martinez (248) 379-2857 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] Evolution
Just received my Evolution order from Picolario-usa (Hartmut Claus). Wow: very high quality, shiny, very strong, and mighty good looking. All the parts fit, and very little sanding will be necessary to get things together. Better hurry, I cannot wait to go flying. Rense Lange
