2.4 GHz dead zones

[Ian Skeldon 1]

Hi Guys,

 

Yes yes yes, I agree that the technology available to peeps using 2.4 is far better and I think probably a lot cheaper, can I also point out that I currently use 2 x Spektrum 6dxi amongst my radio sets and have never experienced any problems with them or the receivers they use, in fact, if they had a better battery arrangement they would be very hard to pick fault with. I also own several other radio sets, some on 2.4 and others on 35Mhz so I clearly have no personal axe to grind about any particular make or RF usage.

 

I also agree that using 35 Mhz does prove difficult with electric models,  but, look at the various competitions for electric gliders, there is still a majority of pilots using 35Mhz , so either they accept the risk or they know something I don't (That's very likely).

 

I am also not saying that Spektrum Radio sets are bad, what I will say is that I have seen a lot more crashes than ever before, and there does very often, seem to be one thing in common, in fact even at the big shows we have seen some very well known demonstrator pilots loose their models, and guess what they ONE thing in common has been?

I'm not stupid I can see that the Spektrums offer far more usable features than some of the other makes and still cost less, if I was confident that there were no issues I would be ordering their latest offering, but until I see an improvement in the ratio of crashes/radio make, I'll hang on.

 

Tony good luck with whatever you decide to buy mate.

[Myron Beaumont]

In other words ,if you don't mind me summing up a rather contentious issue that has been talked about so much. I don't hear of any Futaba issues (apart from the one scare about 2 years ago)& I have never had any myself.I did think of going Spektrum a while back ,but for the extra £10'ish per Rx ,I'll stick to what I know won't let me down. Just my experience over many years & I don't have the most expensive combos .Just the basic first 2.4 set up made by Futaba . All I have done to it is change to NiMh "Instants" . Again -just loads more of flying time now.I value my models much more than the extra cost of Rx's .

If it wasn't an issue,it would never have arisen would it ?

Myron.

[Peter Beeney]

   Wingman and Ian - Thank you both for your answers. Sorry to be so long answering.

   Wingman,
          I only asked because I suspected as much and I’d tend to think that it’s not the BEC that’s the cause of your interference. I don’t know what is though, mind, so perhaps that doesn’t help a great deal. It’s just that UBEC’s have been known to sometimes give 35 rx’s a bit of a hard time.
   I wouldn’t have thought that 4.7 volts is particularly low, the BEC won’t drop very much below 5V, but that’s at it’s output point, on the printed circuit board. I assume the monitor for your vario is plugged into the rx? If so, then you might be measuring a bit of volts drop across the wiring as well. Also it’s dependant on the main power supply battery staying well up, to at least around 7 volts. I don’t know what you are using as motive power. I suspect your monitor is triggered at 4.7V, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not going even lower. But if the regulator, the BEC, is any good at all it won’t be. It’s only very momentarily. If the voltage drops to 4.7 and stays there you have a serious problem. Unlikely, I’d guess.
I always avoided glitching by using miniature receivers pushed down the back end of the fuz.
   One possible answer, if you have to get a new rx, is one of the DSP types. A colleague bought some, to try and cure the same problem as yourself, little glitches on his electric models. These were Corona, and I had one, 6 channel, a crystal type. I didn’t like the crystal sticking out so I soldered it at right angles to two pieces of copper wire and taped it flat to to the rx, and I also replaced the piece of spider’s web they’d used as an aerial with a decent piece of wire, gave it a real bashing and it’s 100% immaculate. I’d be prepared to put it in any model, anywhere! My mate had the same result, no more glitching. I think the price is mighty fine on these, too.      Good Luck!

   Ian,
      You forgot one brand, - Assan! One club mate, normally Futaba 2.4, is also now using it as well and he’s really impressed. Range seems to be unlimited.
   Seriously though, I’m impressed by your tests but not much by the results. Out of radio range before losing visual range doesn’t exactly inspire total confidence. I’m sure you’re not particularly elated by this either. I take it the model became tangled up and thence hors de combat?
   I’ve played about with 35 in the past, but for completely different reasons and it is surprising what gets thrown up. I think these type of tests do at least give you a ‘real life’ result. After all, as you said, this is exactly the conditions in which the kit is supposed to perform.
   If there is an overall problem going on, and at the moment there seems to be far too many incidents to be purely coincidental, to me anyway, then hopefully someone will latch on to it and do a proper investigation. The BMFA might be in a good position, if necessary.
   Re the batteries, as I’ve said before, I’ve been testing these for many years and there certainly are some discrepancies. I’ve always used a charger with a graphical readout, which instantly sorts out the duff cells. Sometimes they are just a rip off. Recently, just to see exactly what they were made of, I bought some super-duper very high capacity cells, with a very impressive specification, and they tested, at best, one notch down from mediocre. A dead loss, really. I’ve also suggested for years that new packs should always be checked out before using. They do come with dud cells as new, I’ve proved that in the past. I’ve tried to flag this up with the suppliers, and the BMFA, in the past, but to no avail. Having said all this, there are some good Ni-MH’s lurking about, I use them, they get fairly regular heath checks and they go on and on, with never an issue. Many fellow modellers also use them, again with complete impunity.
                        I’m still considering converting my MPX to 2.4.       PB

[flytilbroke]

I do say sorry that Tony thinks I stated it was HIS setup at fault.

 

I was refuting the misinformed claims that had been put forward. I did not say that ALL mishaps were Pilot responsibilty. Merely most.

 

Radio equipment can and does fail, starting with the power source and out to the Aerials. I will re-state that most mishaps are modeler caused.

[TonyS]

No worries FTB.

As I said, I'm really not precious about what people think of my abilities as an RC pilot/model builder. Just concerned about my recent experiences.

I hope to splash out on an alternative. I may simply substitute my DX7 for a DX6i that came with a Blade 400 that I have and see how that fares.

 

Can I ask a different question of everyone please..

 

What sort of maximum range have people flown reliably at with Spektrum sets and AR7000 AR 6200  and AR 500 receivers?

 

I appreciate that this is a bit of a "how long is a piece of string kind" of question and please don't feel the need to baffle with technical issues re atmos interference etc etc etc - some simple musings / observations etc would be appreciated though.. 

 

Cheers chaps. 

[Tim Mackey]

OK with no techno baffle as requested

AR7000 a 60 " span composite model almost out of sight

AR6200 a 46 " model ------------Ditto ------------------

AR500 a 63" IC model -----------Ditto ------------------

 

I have several of all these types of rx - and others too such as the 6100 and 6000 DSM so called park fly receivers....all regularly fly at very great distances ( far more than any normal club power model would ever go ) whilst slope soaring.

All of these are via either my DX7 or DX6i

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Hi Tony, can't answer for Spektrum but I expect any full spec RC Tx/Rx combination I use to give me full control right up to, and by implication beyond, the limits of vision - in my view anything less is unsatisfactory.

 

Given the minimum separation distances between clubs recommended by the BMFA I would say you should expect to have control up to something like 2 miles - maybe a little more.

 

BEB

[Pete B]

Dx6i Tx with AR6200 and Ar500 Rx's regularly for 2 years, flying to a distance that some might not think prudent, in a variety of models up to 2.3m span..............so I head for home before they get too small! AR6100 in an E-Flite Sea Fury flown to club, not park-fly, distances. Never had a problem so far as I am aware.

 

Having said that, I also fly on 41Mhz here with a Hitec Optic 6 and a variety of Hitec and Corona Rx's and, in the same Tx, a Frsky module with the Rx in an Easyglider, and no combination has ever caused me an interference problem, either.

 

That said, I'm a long way out in the country, so there'll be few other users in the area.

 

Pete 

[flytilbroke]

I have used AR7000 and AR500 out to at least 800yds (confirmed/later measured on OS maps). Won't do this often unless I get Much bigger models.

[Ian Skeldon 1]

Hi,

I have flown various models and at some point used all of my radio equipment under normal flying conditions and as far as I am aware, non have given a range issue. The simple range test that we carried out, did produce a crash due to loss of control, I will share with you all that it was using a frsky 2.4 module in a JR  PCM9x11. Spektrum rx's used include, AR6200 with sat rx and the ar500.

 

In my own mind the re-connection test that we carried out proved the most  surprising results. You wouldn't expect such a difference between a local ground test and a real in-flight test.

 

I would like to ask the more technical people out there, is there a technical reason why cheaper 35Mhz sets don't have the amount of useful features that the cheaper 2.4 sets do?

 

Also is it possible that 35Mhz radios have a greater range ? Reason I ask, is that a lot of glider guiders still use 35Mhz sets, and gliding does often see your model as far away from you as it is ever likely to get.

 

Thanks, Ian

[Geoff N]

"Also is it possible that 35Mhz radios have a greater range ? Reason I ask, is that a lot of glider guiders still use 35Mhz sets, and gliding does often see your model as far away from you as it is ever likely to get."

 

Being a sloper I think the reason  there are still a lot of 35mg sets in use on the slope is not because of range, more  a question of pilot density . In a club situation there can easily be over 20 pilots and consequently a number of frequency clashes. On the slope the numbers of pilots are usually a lot fewer (but of course not always).
So there is no waiting  to get the peg to fly .
In fact I have seen more shoot downs on on the slope and some very expensive ones than in a club situation . An example two pilots were not aware of each others presence, and the only flyers on the ridge half a mile apart with a rise in-between ,on the same channel ,all OK until one flew along the ridge ............... strike one Tragi.
That is the reason I've changed to 2.4 . If you see another flyer on the slope he maybe a mile away, you have to walk over to see what channel he's flying. He may not bother to walk over to you because he is on 2.4 but you don't know till you get there .Orange aerial ribbons are scarce on the slope as they tend to bend aerials in winds above 35 mph. and it can be difficult to see a plain aerial.

[David Turner 5]

My 35 Meg multiplex cockpit'  range was measured by me at 2,200 yards.

 

This was with both model and transmitter held at waist height.

 

I reckon that's about 5 times further than the range at which I can safely fly the model.

[Ajohnw]

I'm away for a week so can't get at a pc so often. Interesting reading the more recent posts but a few points.

 

If you look at the ofcom web site you will see certain comments about the 2.4ghz band and their attitude to it. You will also find an number of other bands allocated to model control. Could be that one day one of these may be offered with the same degree of protection that the 35mhz band enjoys but who knows this may involve buying a licence these days.

 

Aerials. Think back about the evolution of mobile phones. Model control in this respect has always been ultra cheap and nasty. All bands just use wire at the receiver end. Some may have spent time pointing their TV aerial in the correct direction and noticed how different it performs when they are near it. Stick bits of bent wire in a model and proximity effects are beyond the control of any manufacturer.

 

Pick Spektrum or Futaba etc? If one brand is more prevalent in the field than the other which I believe it is - very much so in this case - comparisons are pointless. Spektrum caught the others napping and there are far more of them about so if  problems do exist they are more likely to experience them.

 

Cost is another interesting aspect as is the opportunity to have all people world wide using the same band. In my view 2.4ghz gear should be cheaper than 35mhz.

 

John

 

 

Edited By Ajohnw on 04/08/2010 11:32:48

[Ian Skeldon 1]

Thank you,

 

The point about slope soraing is a very accurat reflection of the  problems likely to be encountered, luckily my slope models are using 2.4.

 

I agree, Spektrum have done a fantastic job in providing very functional equipment at very affordable prices, I can't think of any other radio that matches the dx6i for features at that price (although please let 's not start another debate about that).

 

I hope Tony can find a set that will match his requiremments and provide many years of trouble free service.

 

Ian

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Peter Beeney]

   John,
          With the greatest respect, there may also be another way of considering the points you’ve raised. I afraid I haven’t looked at the Ofcom site yet so I can’t comment there, but I assume by protection on the 35MHz band you mean that it won’t be given over to other users? As I understand it, this is a chunk of frequencies, right at the lower end of the VHF band, (30 - 300MHz), long abandoned by the Military, which nobody else wants to use for the foreseeable future anyway. Would there be enough users to justify a licence? If there were such a license requirement, I think it could be very expensive indeed!

   Aerials. In the main, I’d have thought that the existing aerials are well fit for purpose. I’m not exactly sure about cheap and nasty. Overall, it seems to me that modern radio control works very well indeed. Ideally, it would be nice to have the aerial one wavelength long, but that’s a bit impracticable, so what are they now, at 35 megahertz, about one eighth wavelength long?
The television aerial is directional, and has director and reflector elements I believe, which might help explain the proximity effect, I don’t think models suffer much with this, other than perhaps with carbon fibre, which I believe in some cases can attenuate the signal considerably.

   Spektrum or Futaba? If this was about 2.4 in general then perhaps comparisons might be pointless but this seems to be rather more a comparison between brands. Then the ratio might not be so significant. I’m not a particular fan of Spektrum or Futaba, but neither would I want to criticise them in any way. However, from the evidence that I’ve seen so far, these incidents are only ever related to Spektrum. There are anomalies, I think many people have not experienced any problems or even seen any of the incidents that have been experienced by other pilots, so is there a geographical effect here? On the other hand, even our little club has seen a disproportionate number of incidents with Spektrum. Whilst Spektrum may have been the first to produce 2.4 equipment, I think these troubles may have a bearing on future sales. We are already advising newcomers to seriously consider Futaba, on the basis that Spektrum might give them some inconvenience, to say the least, but this might be difficult too, from what I’m hearing the model shops are really promoting Spektrum. Probably I wouldn’t view all this as such a contentious issue if it wasn’t for the fact that I wrote off someone’s nice new aerobatic model because of a total loss of control, and one of the learners has already had to send his new kit back for a replacement; because of an unknown fault, ( and another breakage!). I don’t remember this ever happening before.

   Regarding the cost, I’m not sure that any of this gear is really expensive. In real terms, I’m sure it’s never been as cheap. One relatively inexpensive way into 2.4 was taken by a club mate. He bought a fairly new FF9 from someone that was going 2.4 at the right price, this is a first class tx, with many facilities, and fitted it with an Assan module. He did some serious research on this beforehand, but it seems there are no complaints anywhere. His combo has performed faultlessly up to now. I think the Assan 4 channel rx, which has one little short aerial sticking straight out, weighs in the region of 3.6 grams, has an ‘on the ground’ range of at least 700 metres and costs around £13, may be rather good value for money, too.
If you write a couple of models off because of a radio that persistently goes faulty, then that initially cheaper radio might start to appear a little expensive!

   I’n sure (or hoping, perhaps!) that eventually someone will crack this, one way or another!                PB

[Chris Channon]

Hi all,

at work today we had a new radio system installed ( mod ) as the relay station is located in my workshop i started chatting to the technician about all things ( as you do ) including our radio.

 

I did not realise that 2.4 Gig is very close to mobile phone company " 3 mobile " and is used by other communications equipment as used by the MoD. Also he was telling me, ( very intelligent chap, by all accounts ) that if you have something transmitting on 2.4 gig OR a multiple thereoff, then you can get " harmonic interaction" ie something with a multiple can affect the 2.4 .

 

Also that the lower the wave length ie 35 megs the futher the range, the higher the wave length 2.4, the shorter the range.

 

Just thought i would let you know,

 

Regards

 

Chris.

 

P.S.  i wonder if some of the radio failures we are having is due to poor instalation of our

equipment ? i have seen Rx's ( 2.4 ) left loose in the airframe, some fitted with a dollop of silicone to hold it, and some fitted with nicely fitting foam padding all round, lots to think about ?

 

Chris.

 

 

 

 

[Ajohnw]

I think my comments on the ratio of those 2 systems out there stands for some time. No doubt more people will buy other brands as time goes on and then we will see.

 

Yes TV aerials are directional and just illustrate an affect that many may have experienced. This does make them more sensitive to near by things but this affect gets worse as the frequency goes up. All aerials are affected by nearby objects due to capacitive effects. These appear as shorts to the aerial that drop in resistance as the frequency goes up. The wavelength of 2.4ghz is only 125mms if a quick web source is correct so all of the 2.4ghz model aerials I have seen are moderately tuned to this frequency. I believe they are bent/use 2 to try and get round directional affects. The space around them in a model is likely affect their performance. Compare them to things that have stuck out of mobile phones. These aren't direction, don't cost much and are likely to offer better performance in a number of respects. They would need designing for 2.4ghz though. These days nothing sticks out at all. Hence my comments about cheap and nasty. Many models for instance could have lighter versions of the transmitter aerials fitted externally - even these look like 1/2 wave wire in plastic - more cheap etc.

 

Ofcom's comments about 2.4ghz are that equipment must be able to cope with interference from IMS (Industrial, Medical and Scientific use). It's a relatively open band that can have some relatively powerful signals on it that need not be point to point as some one mentioned earlier. I've seen 2w video/audio transmitters on offer for instance, stick aerial which will tend to radiates equally in all directions unless some one stands in the way or is rather near it. I posted a link that mentioned 500w amateur transmissions. Have one of those nearby and it's likely to totally overload a model's receiver just as hospital etc transmitter some times break through on car radio's tuned to an entirely different frequency.

 

All interesting in a way but personally apart from a micro helicopter complete with a 4channel 2.4ghz transmitter gyro etc for £50 I intend staying away from it for a while. The same things could have been done for 27mhz there is nothing magical about 2.4ghz other than the parts needed are very much in use all over the place and as a consequence rather cheap.  Personally I hope that 2.4ghz goes the same way as 27mhz. It was moved because other sources caused problems. All it will take is a few of the right kind of accidents and I don't mean smashed up planes either.

 

John

 

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

If you have been following the thread you will know that I've stated that I've not seen problems with 2.4 at our field - well I've seen them now!

 

Tonight there were only two of us at the field - enjoying some quiet flights and a chat. Bit windy, but nothing too severe. John (my club mate) had set up his model and carried out a careful range check - very diligent I thought. Anyway John had his first flight, we had a chat, I had a flight. No sign of any problem whatsoever so far.

 

John goes for another flight. All is well until he starts his landing circuit. As he turns cross wind on the last leg - that's it. He never makes the turn onto finals. Watching I call out "Where are you going John" as he crosses the extension of the back of the flight line - still going cross wind. The model just carries on straight ahead, in the state of steady decent he had set it on, until it hits the trees. He had no control whatsoever in my view.

 

Retreiving the bits - the battery had come disconnected on imapact. The undercarriage and wing had broken free. The fuselage was very severely damaged - probably termnal. Reconnecting the battery - everything seems to be fine - full control. A range test reveals nothing.

 

What radio was he using? Specktrum DX6i. Well, I've seen it now. No obvious explanation. This was a model John had flown many times - his regular hack. Everything seemed fine beforehand, everything seemd fine afterwards. Strange.

 

BEB

[Peter Beeney]

    John,
          Yes, I must say that I agree with what you say. Also I was thinking about the 2.4 aerials and the physical length and a little calculation I did also gave me 125 mm as the wavelength so I’m glad I got something right at least.    My problem is this. I watch my club mates flying around on 2.4, I’m still on 35, too, and quite often I’m invited to have a pole around on 2.4 as well. We’ve had five Futaba sets flying at the strip for quite a while now and these behave immaculately. Big models, petrol models, models flown with a view ‘as to can we provoke this radio into misbehaving?’ We’ve never had a negative result here. All these guys are more than happy with the radio performance. But, we’ve had a number of incidents with Spektrum, and, as I’ve related, it’s even happened to me.
    This may well be completely coincidental, but read any forum pages for a while and you soon begin to sense there is some sort of pattern beginning to emerge. I cannot imagine that our club members own the only five Futaba sets ever sold.  

    I don’t know much about mobile phones, never owned one or even used one, but I take your point about the 2.4 aerials. This may well be an area that could be improved. Hence my little wavelength calculation. But, once again, aerials are common to all 2.4 radios, it’s just the name plate that’s not the same, and that makes all the difference.

    I’m not quite sure about your comparison between 27 and 2.4. Back in those days we did try and prove some of the stories about CB radio and 27 megs but we never able to do this either. I think if the 2.4GHz band becomes untenable for radio control then this might imply that other operators might be in trouble, too. I gather the bandwidth, from 2.400GHz to 2.483GHz, 83MHz wide, is used from GPS systems to garage door openers. The car radio and hospital transmitter is IF breakthrough, as I remember from a long time ago; but from experience you have to be really, really close and a well designed radio might not be affected anyway. I know nothing of 2.4, can they be affected in the same way? As far as the expense is concerned, I understand that all the 2.4 devices use the same chipsets and they need little in the way of external components.        

    Regarding the safety, and given that there may be a problem, which for stated reasons I think is local, I still feel that 2.4 is much more secure than 35. At the moment I might find it difficult to shoot down a 2.4 rx but I could do it in a few seconds on 35. And that’s always made me consider that 35 is very vulnerable. As in model flying shows, etc.  One reason I’m still considering 2.4.

    As you say, time will tell on this one, I think!             PB

[Pete B]

I'm not sure that this demonstrates a problem with Spektrum per se, BEB.

 

Is there irrefutable proof that the battery plug could not have become disconnected  on the crosswind leg? - that would have the same effect.

 

Reconnecting the battery would naturally restore power and resolve the problem.

 

How often do we dismantle our model to check whether all the plugs are fully home before we fly? - I for one admit to not doing it before every flight.

 

Commiserations to John for losing the model but, as I had to remind myself often in my working life - suspicion isn't proof!

 

Pete.

[Ajohnw]

I suppose I am a little reactionary on this subject as I have been in and out of models of one sort or another for many years. 2.4ghz came as a bit of a surprise especially after I looked at the equipment that is available. Receivers with 1 wire bent or not, others with 1 or 2 V's. Then there is the aerial on the transmitter itself. In theory point the stick at the model and it will receive no signal at all or if it's vertical none if the model flies directly over head. That aspect would lead me to expect maybe a horizontal T shaped aerial on the transmitter, more self contained and less dependent on the surroundings. Might even make a decent carrying handle. All this and the other points I've mentioned make me wonder about the whole thing. Basically cheapness and excess distributor profits gone to far.

 

  anyway just bought an ff8 and that will meet my more recent helicopter needs and my old digi fleet suited me for my occasional use of a glider while I await further developments. I do believe there will be some changes eventually. I've toyed with the ideal of a small self designed powered glider for some time and would have thought rather basic screening and filtering techniques would rule out any interference, Even that 2,4ghz micro heli has the usual small capacitor on the motor terminals just as they always have had. Motor brushes can create a lot of very high rf interference. Maybe the receiver power also needs some added capacitance.

 

 

John

 

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Oh, I totally agree Pete. It isn't proof - and I wasn't putting it forward as such. And yes it is possible that the battery lost contact before the crash and that was the cause. I merely relate the facts. But equally in many crashes we all know that one of the first things to detach is the battery pack - because its a relatively high density object with lots of inertia. So its at least as likely that it wasn't detached before the crash? What then?

 

Putting pilot error aside (which I agree is probably the single biggest reason for all crashes) its often difficult to be sure of the cause - especially if the damage is extensive. But I relate this event becuase I'd stated earlier in the thread there had been no probs at my club with 2.4 at all - from either Futaba or Skektrum. Now this happens - I agree it might not be radio caused - but it has to be a possibility. So now I'm putting the record upto date - there's been one and it happened to be a Specktrum one!

 

BEB

[Peter Beeney]

   John,
        I’m sure that what you say is all true but you do have to agree that in general it all works ok, at least as far as the average modeller is concerned. For years I had the same concerns about crystals, as to how delicate they might be; and then just plugged into the rx, usually with nothing to hold them in! But, eventually my fears were totally unfounded!
The aerial orientation I suspect is also perfectly true but years ago I noticed a small anomaly. A range check with three rx’s, home made Micron, Futaba and Skyleader. The tx - a MPX, flat on the ground, aerial vertical, set to servo test, the servo sweeping to and fro. Full range check across an old airfield, way out of eyesight range, to the edge of radio range, I held the rx aerials vertical, horizontal and end-on to the tx aerial. And every other polarisation angle in between. The best result, with all three receivers, was the end-on test. I was indeed surprised by this, it tends to fly in the face of all the theoretical teachings. But there’s nothing like a good practical result.
   Is the motor capacitor just a relic that’s been forgotten? Surely the harmonics at 2.4 must be pretty thin? And, anyway, the pulsed code will prevent any standard type interference, will it not? As it happens, there is an old thread about power borne interference on 2.4, this definitely happens. I think we mentioned about a bit of capacitance on the power supply then. Your note about cheapness and excess distributor profits plus in some cases a possible ‘unfit for use’ is similar to what I’ve been trying to flag up for years concerning batteries but it makes no difference. For the moment we are all stuck with what we’ve got, I guess.

   BEB,
        You describe the symptoms which we have also seen. It’s not always a total disaster though, in one classic case the pupil and instructor had virtually given up on an i/c trainer that had lost all control and were just about to start walking toward the inevitable crash when they suddenly found that the radio had woken up again and they were able to land it. There is no doubt that these cases are a definite loss of control. This may be down to a brown-out or a black-out, a lock-out or a cop-out, even a drop-out or in my opinion, an unequivocal out-of-order, to me this is not really the point. I reckon the point is that someone ought be looking carefully at this and saying “ What steps can we take to improve this?” Or, better still, eliminate this. The ‘Everything is ok‘ after the event is very much par for the course, too!

   Commiseration's to John for his crash, after recent events I know exactly how that feels!            PB

[Stephen Grigg]

Last year I had my 3rd Trandmitter,and had problems with all 3,Being fairly inexperienced at the time I could not conclude a reason.This year I had a major problem with my favorite model doin things I was in capable of as it took off.Very impressive but nothing to do with me,resulting in my model being totalled.I changed makes of 2.4 and since have had no problems.Ive always flown 2.4.