Thread Tools
Jun 13, 2014, 07:14 AM
So I'M meant to be in control?
Colonel Blink's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by pookielips1954
I've flown my vintage models for years with mid 60s to early 70s digital proportional transmitters, using modern Futaba R114 receivers and servos. All on 27mhz without perfect reliability without a glitch.
I don't know what it's like in the US, but here in the crowded UK I'd be very nervous about flying on 27MHz these days. Every radio controlled Chinese toy be it a boat, car, dog or doll uses 27MHz. There are even fisherman's bait-lobbing boats using it. All these will be operated by people who won't even think about checking whether anyone else is operating anything before switching on and waggling sticks. Even if you checked their frequency, those Chinese Txs tend to bleed across into several adjacent slots, so there is still a risk of a shoot down.

I suppose it depends upon the 'local' environment - if you can be sure that there is no likelihood of anyone within a mile or so then it will be as safe now as it was then. But it's not for me!
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Jun 13, 2014, 09:26 AM
I like real wooden aeroplanes!
Sundancer's Avatar
Out in the sticks in rural France you could probably get away with 27, but why make life difficult. I am too adept at crashing models to require any assistance from interference!
Jun 13, 2014, 04:23 PM
Bellanca Kruesair
epoxyearl's Avatar
If you're gonna crash 'em anyway, why is the "correct" frequency so important ?

He says he's been doing it for YEARS, with reliability...or didn't you see that ?

maybe he has the perfect spot......if it's working for him-

Aren't those 'indoor' toys good for like 100' of range, if that much ?
Jun 14, 2014, 12:40 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Blink
I don't know what it's like in the US, but here in the crowded UK I'd be very nervous about flying on 27MHz these days. Every radio controlled Chinese toy be it a boat, car, dog or doll uses 27MHz. There are even fisherman's bait-lobbing boats using it. All these will be operated by people who won't even think about checking whether anyone else is operating anything before switching on and waggling sticks. Even if you checked their frequency, those Chinese Txs tend to bleed across into several adjacent slots, so there is still a risk of a shoot down.

I suppose it depends upon the 'local' environment - if you can be sure that there is no likelihood of anyone within a mile or so then it will be as safe now as it was then. But it's not for me!
The toy transmitters on 27mhz are so low powered that even on the same frequency, 3-5 feet from the test model had no effect whatsoever. The 500 to 750 milliwatt output of vintage transmitters simply overwhelms the estimated 25 to 30 MW of the toys.

Another test involved a friend's 5 watt CB rig with an illegal (don't tell the FCC) booster to an estimated 10-12 watts. Even at max power on the adjacent CB channels - 15 and 16 to 27.145 - you had to get the model within 5-6 feet of his antenna to even get a twitch. At two to three feet the 10-15 watts finally swamped it. The flight test portion using a Kavan Wingo had no effect whatsoever.

Modern receivers like the R-114 are tremendously selective. I seriously doubt the original RXs would have passed these tests.

But even back in the 1970s, at the height of the CB craze in the U.S. I never had one hit, and my flying site was within 1/4 mile of U.S. 1 in the Florida Keys, full of truckers blasting away on the 27 band. Just lucky I guess!

Russ Farris
Jun 14, 2014, 12:43 AM
I like real wooden aeroplanes!
Sundancer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by epoxyearl
If you're gonna crash 'em anyway, why is the "correct" frequency so important ?
That was meant to be ironic - a concept that maybe doesn't translate so well?
Jun 14, 2014, 01:21 AM
So I'M meant to be in control?
Colonel Blink's Avatar
Russ - that is very interesting, as that is the first time I have actually seen some very definite 'test results'. I'll admit that my post was based upon gut feel and not upon observed or tested hypotheses - which isn't very scientific. Based upon your investigations, I can see why you have the confidence to continue using the 27MHz gear. Thanks for sharing that, I have learnt something!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancer
That was meant to be ironic - a concept that maybe doesn't translate so well?
We are two countries separated by a single language!
Jun 14, 2014, 02:05 AM
Sticks, Tissue & old Diesels
brokenenglish's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Blink
We are two countries separated by a single language!
Three if you count Yorkshire
Jun 14, 2014, 03:59 AM
Bellanca Kruesair
epoxyearl's Avatar
=Sorry- I had a rough day, with someone telling me a Volkswagen flat four wasn't "dependable" enough to be used as an airplane engine !!

My earlier remark was intended to convey that the 27 band was working very well for the user, and I saw the irony in the other comment...

With a clearer mind this morning, I'd like to say those low powered transmitters rarely work outside a small area, and don't seem to project a major hazard to the higher powered airborne receivers/transmitters.

I have an issue with the majority of clubs taking it upon themselves to require 2.4 only, currently, while I have 10 'top of the line' 72 mhz radios installed in as many models. Luckily, my Club isn't one of them.

To the topic at hand, there will always be contention as to what constitutes a "Vintage" airplane.......It's as the man said "I can't DESCRIBE them, but I know 'em when I see 'em."
I firmly believe a vintage airplane can be designed and built today, within the parameters of the '40 technology....why not ?
Jun 14, 2014, 04:44 PM
B for Bruce
BMatthews's Avatar
To be fair to the idea of Vintage I'm of the opinion that as soon as I put RC into a free flight model then it's a vintage like sport model. It doesn't matter what I do along the way. As soon as I provide for outboard control it's no longer being flown in the originally intended manner.

On the other hand I'm actually OK with the idea of modern glow or diesel or electric replacing the spark engines. There's extra bonus coolness points for using a sparker but to me it's the way the model is flown. This means that to be faithful to the original intent of the model that the power should be similar to the amount put out by the engines of that time period.

I'm even OK with using plastic or other modern reasonably similar to the original style coverings instead of tissue or silk.

Of course I break this rule all the time by putting RC into lots of my SAM legal models. But I do so knowing that I'm creating a model to fit a set of rules. Or that I'm creating a really interesting looking model for sport flying that happens to have its roots in the vintage era.
Jun 14, 2014, 11:26 PM
Registered User
E-Challenged's Avatar
I'll bet that people will be building Flying Quakers 60 years from now. There won't be much nostalgia about currently popular foamie ARF "models" from Hobby King.
Jun 15, 2014, 02:19 AM
So I'M meant to be in control?
Colonel Blink's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Challenged
There won't be much nostalgia about currently popular foamie ARF "models" from Hobby King.
I bet there will....... people said exactly the same about Japanese motorcycles, and how much for a Kawasaki 750H2 now?
Jun 15, 2014, 02:29 AM
Registered User
Monza Red's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Blink
I bet there will....... people said exactly the same about Japanese motorcycles, and how much for a Kawasaki 750H2 now?
Ah but will they have the skills to repair their foamies in 60 years time?
Jun 15, 2014, 04:30 AM
Bellanca Kruesair
epoxyearl's Avatar
I believe that in 60 years, you'll be seated in a controlled environment, flying models that are constructed to individual tastes, by computer...All you'll need to do is 'imagine' what maneuver you want to perform next, and it'll be accomplished , with no effort on your part, whatsoever.

And still nobody'll be using the rudder!!

But, on my death bed, I'm gonna glue together two pieces of balsa, with the CYA that 'killed' me..
Jun 15, 2014, 04:48 AM
Registered User
DeeBee1's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Challenged
There won't be much nostalgia about currently popular foamie ARF "models" from Hobby King.
Have to disagree. The folk who learned to fly on those foamies and who mended and modded them will look back at them as 'vintage' in just the same way as we see models from earlier in our lives. Nostalgia is just so personal.
Jun 15, 2014, 05:52 AM
Registered User
Captain Dunsel's Avatar
I have to agree with DeeBee1. I had a Midwest Cessna Cardinal ARF circa 1974/5. Very nice model with a delightful floating glide. I could easily see assembling another, but with Electric power.

CD


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools