| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1018.1 | What does 1991 do to 53 MHz | CRVAX1::KAPLOW | There is no 'N' in TURNKEY | Wed Apr 15 1987 20:04 | 10 |
| I've got a question about the 1991 transition that I haven't seen
addressed anywhere. Most of my RC gear is on the 53 MHz band, as I
have the ham license to use it and it was much less crowded than
the old 72 MHz channels. Do I have to replace any of that gear, or
is the conversion only for those units on 72/75 MHz? Since it is a
ham band, I think I can do anything I want, but I'm not sure if
the AMA expects me to change anyway.
If 53 doesn't become obsolete, maybe folks would sell their old
gear REAL cheap, for me to convert to 53 :-)
|
| 1018.2 | | CLOSUS::TAVARES | John--Stay low, keep moving | Thu Apr 16 1987 11:23 | 13 |
| Bob, I'm not positive about this, but I think that you hams get
moved a few khz. I don't recall reading that your bandwidth is
required to change, now that you mention it. But the rc service
does get switched, or at least moved, to allow another service to
occupy the rc space. George Meyers in MA has talked about this
in the last year; since I'm not a ham, I didn't pay much
attention.
Might also check back with Eloy Marez in MB, and Bob Aberle in
Flying Models -- they're all hams, and they mention the 53 Mhz
band frequently.
Did you home brew any of your stuff?
|
| 1018.3 | late lamented Kraft | CRVAX1::KAPLOW | There is no 'N' in TURNKEY | Thu Apr 16 1987 21:03 | 32 |
| Re: .5
My only TX is a 79 series Kraft 5 channel. I've got modules for
53.2 and 53.4 as well as a soon to be obsolete 72. I have 1 Kraft
5ch RX, and 2 Royal 1/2A (Dorffler) RXs, both built from kits.
While that RX isn't too bad, I can't really recommend Royal kits.
Their instructions are poor at best, incomplete or wrong in some
cases. I guess my 53 RX was a special order, because I had to
write to get the differences between 72 and 53, and then write
again to get the right parts for 53 (some were incorrect or
missing). The Royal TX kit I had was so bad I unloaded it. Amongst
the steps not in the instructions was connect the RF output to the
antenna!
As you may have gathered from the battery notes, most of my
chargers are hacked from what is lying around my junk box. I do
have an Ace metered vari-charger, a hacked Royal charger (from the
TX), and a Kraft field charger as well.
My old 12V slot car transformer, and a huge cap from a power
supply make up my nicad zapper.
BTW, anyone know if I can get my Kraft 72 module converted or
replaced for use on the new frequencies? Even with a ham license,
I can't legally hack that part. Converting the RX to a different
frequncy is easy, but it won't be narrow band. Considering I use
it at model rocket fields and not aircraft fields, I don't care
too much about that restriction; it's my problem if I get shot
down. Is there any source for Kraft parts today? If I can't do
anything else, I'd consider picking up another 53.x or 50.x
module, and converting the 72 RX to 53.
|
| 1018.9 | informal frequency control | LEDS::HUGHES | Dave Hughes (LEDS::HUGHES) NKS1-1/E3 291-7214 | Tue May 23 1989 22:15 | 31 |
|
re: .-1
Sorry if this is getting off topic (actually, no IF about it, it is
off topic a lot!).
>So Dave - in 1987 how could you tell the difference between channel 40 and
>53.40? I know you said black/yellow vs yellow/black - but the AMA Frequency
>Information section 2.2.1.2 doesn't specify any order to the two color ribbon
>and in section 2.1.3 it lists all the 53 MHz frequency colors as
>something-black. Which reads just like resistor color code?
Well, the 72MHz transmitters were supposed to have channel number cards
as well as colored ribbons. I thought that was a good, redundant system.
Today, everybody's (except hams) flying a red ribbon and you have to
look closer to see the channel numbers. Not as easy to see, but there
is no conflict or confusion about colors any more (except for youse guys
who think we haven't upgraded ourselves to the new system :-)
Most 53 MHz guys get to know each other - since use of those channels
is more rare, there usually isn't a frequency control system for 6
meters even if there is one in use for the regular channels. So, when
I get to the field I ask around to find the other hams, if any. Most
other hams do the same. So we spot each other and keep out of each
other's way. Not too hard, even if there are 30 flyers there, because
there will probably only be 3 or 4 hams there at most.
That's also why we hams want to keep the Morse code and theory tests
intact, so it's too much work for the rest of you to get your ham
tickets and we can keep our channels clean!
Dave
|
| 1018.4 | it will be a problem for a long time | LEDS::HUGHES | Dave Hughes (LEDS::HUGHES) NKS1-1/E3 291-7214 | Tue Oct 10 1989 15:10 | 49 |
|
I have to jump in here too. I was appalled to read Don Craft's statment
about not banning channel 20. One of the main arguments given for
allocating a large number of frequencies was that local clubs could
figure out which channels would cause problems (now, we have to read
this as "local clubs MUST do the hard work to figure out which channels
will cause problems, and keep on top of it because new users of the
in-between channels could pop up daily"), and could avoid using channels
that cause problems.
I have a big problem with this head-in-the-sand - "Well, everybody's got
to have narrow band dual conversion anyway so what's the difference"
attitude. I fly on 6 meters, 53MHz, 100kHz spacing between channels. I
have wide band AM radios and they work fine. They will continue to work
fine in the 1990s. I've been watching from the sidelines during this
1991 debate (I guess with my own head in the sand), thinking that it
doesn't affect me because I'm on the ham band. Well, since the channel
20/TV4 problem has to do with the 455kHz IF, it doesn't matter that it's
a 72MHz transmitter and a 53MHz receiver - I WILL BE SHOT DOWN BY A
CHANNEL 20 TRANSMITTER TOO! (If you don't understand why, take that as
an indication that this is indeed not a simple issue and some education
is required to deal with it intelligently). I hope the local clubs will
continue to do the work that the AMA in their negligence has dumped on
them, and keep on top of their own local situation and keep it under
control.
If any of the clubs I fly at un-ban channel 20, I (and any other ham
using current 53MHz equipment) will be forced to pick up the channel
20 frequency pin whenever I fly. I certainly hope and intend to lobby
that the channel 20 ban be permanent until TV4 goes off the air.
The problem here is education. Maybe a lot of you guys will disagree,
but I see merit in requiring some sort of examination and licensing for
anybody who will be operating a radio transmitter. Most of the severe
arguments I've heard about on the channel 20 issue involve sombody who
bought a radio on channel 20 and has no knowledge whatsoever about how
it works and what the issue is, and argues for his right to use his
radio because it's "approved" or some such nonsense. The AMA, in their
admittedly difficult endeavor to get us more channels, has left us in a
situation where knowledge of radio theory is required at least at the
club leadership level, but they have provided us no guidance whatsoever
to deal with the issue. It's also clear from reading the compendium of
misinformation, garbage, plain nonsense, and a smattering of facts in
Model Aviation that there is NOBODY at AMA who has an adequate knowledge
of radio theory and technology. If there was a competency test for the
AMA leadership, I think it would be hard to get a quorum at the next
meeting.
Dave
|
| 1018.5 | hams still need to beware | ISTG::HUGHES | Dave Hughes (ISTG::HUGHES) DLB5-3/B3 291-9327 | Fri Feb 09 1990 17:48 | 44 |
| >While he was on the line I asked about the Pattern problems
>at the NATs and he said Steve Helms and others went up
>to investigate and spend 3 days flying there. Steve flys 50 MHz
>and at the end of the third day they did pick up some VOICE interference
>at one of the 3 pattern sites on 50 MHz but they were not able to
>isolate it.
>
>I asked if the problem was only on PCM radios.
>He said yes to the best of his knowledge - but cautioned that the problem
>was only at the Pattern site for the FAI and expert and nearly all
>if not all the radios were PCM.
>
>I asked if the problem was Futaba only.
>He said yes to the best of his knowledge - but cautioned that the problem
>was only on 50 MHz and nearly all if not all the radios were Futaba.
Coming full circle in this note (although I'm sure it will spin a few
more times), the 50 MHz and 53 MHz ham bands are not legally reserved
for RC usage. Any ham can use any of those frequencies for voice, morse
code, and other stuff, at high power, with powerful beam antennas. This
is one of the risks of using ham bands. In most areas of the country
the usage of 6 meters is somewhat limited.
The 53 MHz channels are only AMA designations. The ARRL (Ham equivalent
of AMA) doesn't recognize RC on 53 MHz. Neither does the FCC.
The 50 MHz channels were agreed by both the AMA and ARRL. The ARRL lists
them as preferred usage for RC, but just like AMA policies this does not
carry the weight of law and if some hams are unaware of it and use the
frequencies that's just too bad.
Obviously, any direct interference on the same frequency (voice transmissions
for example) could clobber any RC signal. PCMs will failsafe, others will
just do whatever, but the plane is going to be out of control as long as
the interference is present. So if there was indeed voice interference at
the NATS it wasn't Futaba's fault, I think they may be the first and perhaps
only manufacturer to offer the new 50MHz channels, so probably nobody else's
equipment was in use on 50 MHz.
Saying that, I still intend to continue to use 53 MHz until there's a good
reason not to (such as my radios wear out, somebody starts operating other
ham gear on those frequencies, etc).
Dave
|
| 1018.6 | Frequency chart | K::FISHER | Only 30 Days till Phoenix! | Tue Feb 13 1990 09:29 | 124 |
| A good frequency chart from the model net.
Bye --+--
Kay R. Fisher |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################
Article 2066
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: RC Radio Frequencies
Date: 8 Feb 90 01:42:49 GMT
/* Written 1:55 pm Feb 7, 1990 by [email protected] in m.cs.uiuc.edu:rec.models.rc */
/* ---------- "RC Radio Frequencies" ---------- */
>I have heard that the FCC has changed the RC frequency allocations in the
>last several years and that there might be other changes coming. Could
>somebody who knows the complete story please fill me in on what frequencies
>and channels are currently used, what I can do with a ~9 year old airplane
>radio, and what I should be looking for in future compatibility when buying
>radio equipment. Thank you in advance for any information you may have.
Ted Goldstein
>[email protected]
/* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:rec.models.rc */
Ted, from the following, you can conclude that your system may no
longer be valid, both from the frequency and the bandwidth stand
points. Some companies offer converting to new frequencies, but
that does not help the need of a narrow tight system, the receiver
will not make it and probably the transmitter will not also. You
can ask, but it may cost more, if even possible to convert it,
than it is worth. It may well be that you should just get a current
system. You be the judge.
I posted this some time ago in rec.models.rc and it appears
that it is time to post it again, as questions are being posted
again. Our club avoids using channels next to known pagers, so
I am leaving reference to them in the table, so that others can
see how we handle it. As an example, channels 20, 22, 44 and 50
are banned at our site, under rules of our club. We feel that the ban
at our site of some channels will be removed, as the radio bandwidth
allows. In other words, when the R/C systems can operate without any
interference from pager uplinks 5 KC removed from our R/C channels.
Note that there is a "gap" between the aircraft and ground channels,
that is used by other services. Our "band" is not one continuous
chunk, in fact, it is like a picket fence, as there is a frequency
between every channel that is or can be used by other services.
At the end of this, it states that odd numbers will become valid
in 1991, but with the advent of many systems now meeting the specs,
I do not know if any manufacturers have "jumped the gun" and now
have odd numbers on the market, I would not be surprised if that
were true. We have not seen any show up at our site yet. -al- 2/7/90
R/C FREQUENCIES 11/20/87
11-72.010 36-72.510 61-75.410 86-75.910
72.020 72.520 75.420 75.920
12-72.030 37-72.530 62-75.430 87-75.930
72.040 72.540 75.440 75.940
13-72.050 38-72.550 63-75.450 88-75.950
72.060 72.560 75.460 75.960
14-72.070 39-72.570 64-75.470 89-75.970
72.080* 72.580 75.480 75.980
15-72.090 40-72.590 65-75.490 90-75.990
72.100 72.600 75.500 76.000
16-72.110 41-72.610 66-75.510
72.120 72.620 75.520 26.995
17-72.130 42-72.630 67-75.530 27.045
72.140 72.640 75.540 27.095
18-72.150 43-72.650 68-75.550 27.145
72.160* 72.660<--S 75.560 27.195
19-72.170 44-72.670 69-75.570 27.255
72.180 72.680 75.580
20-72.190 45-72.690 70-75.590 00-50.80
72.200<--C 72.700 75.600 01-50.82
21-72.210 46-72.710 71-75.610 02-50.84
72.220<--S 72.720 75.620 03-50.86
22-72.230 47-72.730 72-75.630 04-50.88
72.240* 72.740 75.640* 05-50.90
23-72.250 48-72.750 73-75.650 06-50.92
72.260 72.760 75.660 07-50.94
24-72.270 49-72.770 74-75.670 08-50.96
72.280 72.780 75.680 09-50.98
25-72.290 50-72.790 75-75.690
72.300 72.800<--C 75.700 53.10
26-72.310 51-72.810 76-75.710 53.20
72.320* 72.820 75.720 53.30
27-72.330 52-72.830 77-75.730 53.40
72.340 72.840 75.740 53.50
28-72.350 53-72.850 78-75.750 53.60
72.360 72.860 75.760 53.70
29-72.370 54-72.870 79-75.770 53.80
72.380 72.880 75.780
30-72.390 55-72.890 80-75.790 49.830
72.400* 72.900 75.800 49.845
31-72.410 56-72.910 81-75.810 49.860
72.420 72.920 75.820 49.875
32-72.430 57-72.930 82-75.830 49.890
72.440 72.940 75.840
33-72.450 58-72.950 83-75.850
72.460 72.960* 75.860
34-72.470 59-72.970 84-75.870
72.480 72.980 75.880
35-72.490 60-72.990 85-75.890
72.500 73.000 75.900
Notes: 1-- * is original 72/75 R/C frequencies.
2--Frequencies in 50 & 53 MHZ require Ham license.
3--Frequencies shown in 49 MHZ are downlink only, such
as thermal sniffers or other low power devices.
4--Frequencies shown between channels are industrial or
pager frequencies (including old R/C frequencies).
5--Pagers, C = constant carrier, S = "Sleeper", on only
when in use, located local to Champaign County, Illinois.
6--Frequencies shown in 72 Mhz band are aircraft only. Those
in the 75 Mhz band are ground based vehicle only.
7--The channel number is shown to the left of the "-". Only
the even numbered channels are recommended by the AMA at
this time, the odd numbered channels will be phased in
starting in 1991.
|
| 1018.7 | Futaba Certification gossup | K::FISHER | Only 30 Days till Phoenix! | Tue Feb 13 1990 09:34 | 127 |
| The subject of AMA certification is picking up on the UUCP net.
Here are a few articles.
Bye --+--
Kay R. Fisher |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################
From: [email protected] (Strawberry Jammer)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: 1991 stickering
Date: 8 Feb 90 18:14:26 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Hacker's haven
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Robert Huggins) writes:
{
{>>this message is being posted for Steve Zopfi as follows<<
{
{
{ I understand that there are Gold and Silver 1991 certification
{stickers. I own a Futaba Attack 4 that is advertised to be 1991
{ready. The transmitter has a silver sticker on it and as I understand,
{this means that the receiver is narrow band but the transmitter is
{not. If this is true, Futaba has been mis-representing this system.
{Can someone tell me if this is the case regarding Silver/Gold
{labeling? If I find out that my Attack 4 is now going to be obsolete
{in 1991, its going to make me think twice before I ever think about
{buying another Futaba system again. I was considering buying a Futaba
{7UAF real soon but now I have my doubts considering this.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but its even worse than you think!
The AMA stickers are ONLY for transmitter specs. Silver means that the
transmitter meets 1988 (!!) standards, Gold means it meats 1991 or narrowband
standards. EVERY transmitter in use today should either have or qualify for a
silver sticker! The AMA sticker while voluntary certifies that the
transmitter meets FCC requirements (i.e. is legal).
There is NO legally required standard for recivers, you are entirely on
your own. Since a bad reciver can cause YOUR plane to go wild (with all kinds
of disasterous possibilities), the AMA has started a VOLUNTARY test and
registry of complete systems including receivers which meet or exceed their
recommended specifications. These specifications were derived from actual in
use testing and while they are tough to meet are definitely to be considered
a MINIMUM performance standard for safe operation. That is to say they
represent the real world and not someone's theory.
Unfortunately Futaba -the largest retailer of RC radios in the US - has taken
a very insensitive position on the 1991 narrowbanding. They are the ONLY
manufacturer to have NO models tested to the AMA specs.,
according to our local "radio fixer" that is because even the Attack series
so called "1991" receivers won't meet the specs. While I have not personally
tested any radios my opinion (as an EE, and Extra Class Ham) agrees with him,
based on his observations and Futaba's published specs.
They seem to be quite willing to retune your transmitter to "gold" standards,
they did my 4NL for nothing when it was under warranty, but totally refuse to
do anything about the expensive and more critical part, the RECEIVER. They
also offer NO upgrade path for owners of older radio (including the so-called
1991 Attack series!). Basically they expect you to scrap everything and buy a
complete new system whenever (and IF ever) they produce something that works
to true 1991 specs.
Personally I have ordered two of the Sheldon's "Platinum Grade" receivers
for the two Futabas that I now own and will be buying Airtronics or some
other brand from now on.
Remember your TRANSMITTER working right protects the OTHER guy, your RECIVER
working right protects YOU!
Thanks to the FCC and the pagers on the "between" channels you need that
receiver NOW too!
*Mike Waters AA4MW/7 [email protected] *
Consultants are mystical people who ask a company for a number and then
give it back to them.
From: [email protected] (Jeffrey Fayne)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: 1991 stickering
Date: 9 Feb 90 13:01:34 GMT
Organization: Tellabs, Inc. Lisle IL
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Robert Huggins) writes:
[stuff deleted]
> I understand that there are Gold and Silver 1991 certification
>stickers. I own a Futaba Attack 4 that is advertised to be 1991
[stuff deleted]
> I was considering buying a Futaba
>7UAF real soon but now I have my doubts considering this.
I just received a 7UAF for Christmas, it has a gold sticker on the
transmitter for sure, but I don't remember seeing any sort of sticker on
the rcvr. The gold sticker doesn't say "AMA certified" or 1991
certified as I recall. I'll check and post if it does have one.
I understand that Futaba has some sort of
quabble going on with the AMA about certification, but I'm not
sure what the details are. I've heard something about the way
AMA measures bandwidth is the issue (BTW, if anyone has the full
scoop, I'd be interested in hearing about it). Hopefully, the issue
is not that Futaba doesn't meet the 1991 certification specs, but that
they just disagree about the procedure the AMA is using to measure
the specs!
To add to the confusion, I've read that the Jan 1, 1991 date is just
a manufacturers cut-off date and not an absoulute drop-dead date
for the use of older systems. Is that true and if so it seems to
me it's going to be a LONG time before older systems fade away!
Interested in any comments.
Jeff
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
F-14 | _ | | Jeffrey M. Fayne
Tomcat | /^ ^\ | | Tellabs, Inc.
____________|_( . )_|____________ | Lisle, IL (708)-512-7726
--*/--|_| (___) |_|--\*-- | [email protected]
* O O * fjs | Standard Disclaimer Applies
_____________________________________________________________________________
|
| 1018.8 | Airtronics to offer Vanguards in 2nd qtr 1991 on 6m. | HPSRAD::AJAI | | Fri Dec 21 1990 16:32 | 21 |
| I just spoke to Jack Albrecht today, and asked if the Vanguard series
of Airtronics radios will be offered on 6m.
He said that they would have the prototypes tested out by the first
quarter, and get licenced to mass produce by the 2nd quarter of 1991 -
or April-Jun 1991 timeframe.
This suits me fine as I want to get a 4 channel radio from Tower for my
Sophisticated Lady glider, that I will probably get built only by
then...
Tho-tcha'll might wanna know...
ajai
ps. I have been hounding Airtronics for a while now. A year ago, they
had said they would offer the Vanguards on 6m by June 1990, but later
asked me call fall 1990, and finally mid-december 1990, when they tell
me that it should be out 2nd qtr 1991
|
| 1018.10 | Just when you thought it was safe to "Ham it up" | ZENDIA::REITH | Jim Reith DTN 226-6102 - LTN2-1/F02 | Wed Dec 26 1990 08:27 | 6 |
| Don't look now...
One of my friends (a Ham) sent me a pice about the FCC's PR Docket
90-55 which establishes a no morse code Technician's class. The written
will be harder but no tappety-tap-tap required (or maybe the minimum
was just lowered to 0 WPM ;^)
|