I don't believe component, or even manufacturing Q&A would be different
between the two technologies, especially from the same OEM. Both devices
would be manufactured to the same (company/industry-based) standard(s).
As far as tuning, the OEM who offers both share the same XTAL if I'm not
mistaken.
What this means is that there is a difference between sC or dC RX's to
assess and respond to commands at the same signal strength.
A list member sent me an email (rightly) pointing out OEM's see fit NOT
to put forth data that would allow anyone to hold them accountable to
any performance claims. It would be fascinating to take the current crop
of RX's and do back-to-back comparisons to see who talks and who walks
;^)
In reference to your staement below, my question to you would be: "How
do you know that you are flying in a noisy environment, and how
(exactly) do you know that your sC RX is not being hit like everyone
else??
People would be amazed and more concerned (safety conscious) if it were
demonstrated to them (eg: a pulse emission detector) just how often the
RF link they believe is 100%...is actually a something less. Observed
flight, and then concluding that the link is 100%...is blissfully
inaccurate.
"R. Tyson" wrote:
>
> I wonder if there was a difference in component quality and/or circuit
> design ? The DC receivers being somewhat dearer after all. All my
> different SC receivers work well for me.... never even been tempted to open
> them up out of curiosity, so can't comment on quality. I do know of one
> guy who was experiencing problems with a receiver, couldn't get any
> sense out of the manufacturer. In desperation he opened it up and set
> about retuning it himself. Result.... the problem was resolved and the
> range was far better.Makes me wonder how accurately some of the
> receivers are set up when they are despatched.
>
> > In the real world, if it works for you...great. I find it amusing that
> > people need to defend one particular "this" over "that", as neither gets
> > to the heart of the issue,
>
> Most of the knowledge/information imparted often seems to stem from
> repeating others views and or promoting personal preferences.
> Unfortunately once ideas are established in someones head it is often
> virtually impossible to alter their opinions. I try to "treat it as I
> find it". This was the case with the kit receiver I built. Comments from
> those who had never even seen the design or components used were very
> adverse ! Comments from those who had actually built one were very
> favourable.... most had gone on to buy and build several more. I built
> one and will certainly buy another one when I need my next receiver.
>
> A lot of people advocate using nothing but DC receivers. I use SC in
> a fairly noisy RF environment, I fly to the limit of my visibilty and
> experience no problems. I don't need the extra expense of DC, but
> neither would I insist that everyone should save money and only use SC.
> It boils down to..... use whatever does the job properly for you.
>
> > Your "particular" installation technique will have a greater impact
> > on RX efficiency than any other factor.
>
> Wholehearted agreement.
>
> > Here are some points to ponder:
> > - CF being dissipative by nature is an excellent EMI/RFI insulator,
> > using it as an antenna is silly
> > - installing the antenna lead in carbon booms will have an adverse
> > affect on sensitivity, therefore decreasing useable range. If you
> > wish to discover just how much, do a (rigorous) range test and
> > determine this for yourself. If you are interested in ensuring as much
> > RF headroom as possible, then install the antenna externally.
> > - any RX, sC or dC will work within the confines of a carbon boom,
> > however the losses will vary on every single installation. Therefore
> > any all-encompassing statements about any particular RX brand working
> > better (or worse) are misleading.
>
> Thats why I queried the SC doesn't work in a carbon fuse whereas a DC
> does statements. Too many variables between installations for a bald
> statement of "this works, but that doesn't".
>
> > - shortening (or lengthening) the RX antenna will affect range.
> > Again, depending on that A/C's unique installation, it may even
> > enhance usable range. It is more likely to reduce range
> > though.
>
> You know that, and I know that, but there's going to be those who don't
> believe us.....
>
> > Finally, heli pilots have long known NOT to utilize sC RX's, and have
> > proven to themselves over and over that dC RX's offer greater usable
> > range. How you choose to interprete this nugget is your choice.
>
> Know absolutely nothing about helicopters (saved myself a lot of
> expense there then) so can't comment or even guess why that should be.
>
> Reg
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Simon Van Leeuwen, Calgary, Alberta
RADIUS SYSTEMS
Cogito-Ergo-Zoom
IAC25233*MAAC12835*IMAC1756*LSF5953*IMAA20209
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
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.
