UPGRADING 35M MODELS TO 2.4

[fred barlow]

Whats the lmas possition on the assan, corrona ect uk certified after market 2.4 GHZ plug and play modules,

[fred barlow]

hi barrie update on assan 2.4 i asked the bmfa they say it ok because its got its en certificate

[barrie burton]

Thanks Fred,I have now gone down the Jeti route,but having problems with the installation in the transmitter,it cannot find the PPM signal.

[graham stanley]

I have just upgraded my Multiplex EVO to 2.4 via the Jeti 2.4 module and Rxs. It appears significantly better than many 2.4 offerings, particularly with the real time feedback of important data.

All the receivers have feedback to the Tx of battery voltage and signal strength at both Rx antenna, as well as audible warning of connection loss. So at long range if your Tx beeps it's time to do a 180..... (I still had a strong link at 2,800ft today when testing my little tug.) Additional sensors can be plugged into the Rx so altitude and vario data is available live, same with current and volts, battery capacity used etc....

A very useful feature is the ability to "slave" extra channels to another - so in a six servo wing, it might have just two channels from the Tx, aileron and flap, and the mixing / distribution done in the Rx. Slave receivers can be added to the bigger receivers if required.

What is the LMA view on the suitability of this equipment in over 20kg models?

It appears to me that is would be possible to run two (or more) transmitter modules from one Tx, and have two independently bound receivers. There is of course a practical limitation of where to mount the aerials. More receivers can be used, providing there is only one "master" for each transmitter module. Remote rx buried in wings if easy to achieve. Feedback is only possible from the master Rx.

Is it time to revisit the CAA requirements and recommendations?

Graham

[tony hooper]

Graham

The guidelines for the installtion of radio equipment is quite simple although we accept there can be numerous variatons on the theme that meet the criteria.
When an LMA Inspector goes through the progress stage of the build this is something that should be discussed with him. At the Final Inspection on a model he has to be satisfied that:-

"There are 2 rx's each with their own power supply and each capable of controlling the model."
In pratice this usually means that one elevator and one opposite aileron are controlled by each Rx. Some of the other services can be split accross the Rx's but there must still be a "throttle fail safe" present. Great care will need to be given to aircraft which have " all moving tailplanes" and not the convential "split elevator" arrangement
The latest developments of Power Boxes, Weatronics Rx systems, matchboxes, etc. all assist in achieving this objective.

[Stuart Mackay]

For Graupner/ JR users there is now a credible Spektrum alternative to the IPD sytem.
I have fitted this to a couple of "our" MC 24s and it looks like a factory fit with a new aerial fitted where it should belong (!), complete with a new backplate, giving access to the bind button and available from us at around £270 with an AR12000 receiver included in the set.

[John Evans]

Silly Question
Whether it be 35 or 2.4 why do we build in redundancy on the model ie two recievers two batteries etc etc etc. When you have no redundancy in transmitter ? (or have you )
Silly season Question
John Evans 1915