Today I was using a 9303 2.4 system thermaling a Supra at the Syosset NY
field, the systems reaction speed didn't help much when my batteries ran
out :-(. Lucked out with just a ding or two...but the worse part was I
didn't get one of the two last 30 minute flights I need to complete the
Silver l
One more thing that I discovered yesterday trying to make that 30 all
day.
My elevator servo stopped working in flight, and I managed to 'land' it
three times using flaps to loop it down to flat tall grass landings and
once to a soft dirt dork. That Supra is one tough airframe.
But in all that,
Gordysoar Wrote:
> If you'd all just start using your Talking Timers wheny you 'practice'
> and have a landing task set up like the zone that will be at your next
> contest.
>
> Its interesting when an RES wooden RES ship like the Big Birdy,
> Marauder, Grand Esprit or the like, whips up on the
If you'd all just start using your Talking Timers wheny you 'practice'
and have a landing task set up like the zone that will be at your next
contest.
Its interesting when an RES wooden RES ship like the Big Birdy,
Marauder, Grand Esprit or the like, whips up on the entire field of
super moldies.
webbsolution Wrote:
> I think SmokinJoe101 has the most relevant statement here actually. This
> detail escaped me. A true 2.4 system has been recorded as faster. Your
> test hardware represents only those systems that are upgraded to 2.4
>
> Even with a full 2.4 system the differences may be o
Quacker Wrote:
> My reference was strictly a comment about the time between pilot input
> and the start of observable control movement. It was not a comment on
> data rate or bandwidth.
I think SmokinJoe101 has the most relevant statement here actually.
This detail escaped me. A true 2.4 system
JKos has an awesome thread with a ton of testing here
http://runryder.com/helicopter/t172571p1/
Rob
--
onemetre
onemetre's Profile: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/member.php?u=38271
View this thread: http://www.rcgroups.c
Am I reading this post correctly? I was under the impression that 2.4
was faster not slower than 72mhz and yet you are posting a lower MS
latency for 72 tested scenarios which implies faster respnses.
Also, the difference between say 35 MS and 69 MS is not something I
would easily pass off as un
webbsolution Wrote:
> Am I reading this post correctly? I was under the impression that 2.4
> was faster not slower than 72mhz and yet you are posting a lower MS
> latency for 72 tested scenarios which implies faster respnses.
>
>
> Also, the difference between say 35 MS and 69 MS is not someth
rhelgeson Wrote:
> Very interesting, Ira. Did you happen to do the same test running the
> 8103 in PCM mode instead of PPM?
>
> The other question that everyone has is the latency of the 2.4 module
> vs the integrated 2.4 system. Do you have any way to test this?
>
> Rick
I don't have a PC
webbsolution Wrote:
> Am I reading this post correctly? I was under the impression that 2.4
> was faster not slower than 72mhz and yet you are posting a lower MS
> latency for 72 tested scenarios which implies faster respnses.
If you notice that the test equipment used is a stock JR8103 72 mhz
w
Very interesting, Ira. Did you happen to do the same test running the
8103 in PCM mode instead of PPM?
The other question that everyone has is the latency of the 2.4 module
vs the integrated 2.4 system. Do you have any way to test this?
Rick
--
rhelgeson
--
12 matches
Mail list logo
