Ad Hock Group for RC Radio Improvements

phil...i would recommend a fair amount of caution in this...are you willing to risk loss of flying fields, increased insurance requirements, the possible increased presence of the FAA and the FCC, unrenewed leases....all because you want to make a point? Keep going with this and you will supply the anti modeling group with exactly the ammunition they need.

I had thought of that, in fact I haven't spewed a couple of fears I had for that very reason. So your suggestion is to stick our head in the sand and hope?

PaulBK58 wrote:

Don't stick your head in the sand, but overt rabble rousing will do just that. As was stated earlier in another thread, have you asked the AMA? Public airing of dirty laundry just makes a bigger mess and invites more negative and anti feeling than positive results. I feel that you have a valid point, however, you need to channel your efforts in the right direction.

Jim W

We don't need to bother with the rabble rousing, those who don't want improvements can go rouse their own rabble. Don't let them get you wrapped around the axle with the smoke and mirrors of liability because clearly improvements DO hurt those who have vested interests in existing radio systems, be they lazy owners or tight fisted makers of the same who are afraid of THEIR liability.

The trick is to design a workable system using current technology, frequency allocations, power limitations that IMPROVES the control systems in use.

There is another point to remember, our investment in our aircraft. A lot of people are flying expensive airframes, either in dollars or manhour invested. That should also be our motivation.

Phil

PaulBK58 wrote:

How I wish I had more knowledge of what goes into our radio systems.

From what I have read in these postings what we use is almost "Stone age" technology.

If the capability already exists, to me it seems stupid not to take advantage of it and develop systems which would allow more models to fly at the same time with no risk of being shot down.

When I started many years ago, the maximum possible over on this side of the pond, was six, using 27 MHz equipment. "Split" frequencies then came into being, doubling the possibilities, and then, by the efforts of people in the know, came 35 MHz reserved exclusively for aircraft, which more than re-doubled the potential.

What has been suggested on this group would seem to indicate that we have barely scratched the surface. I hope that those who do know about the technology will improve conditions for all of us whatever and wherever we fly - even though it would make all my (to me a considerable investment) R/C gear obsolete.

I wish you all the best in your endeavours.

Malcolm

I don't think we should shoot for anything that forces you to obsolete your equipment! I too have a considerable investment in my radio and receivers, but if brand X or Y came out with a new system with half the potential upgrades that are possible, I'd start moving as funds permit. Even if the AMA couldn't get a new piece of spectrum (which is difficult), there are things that could be done with our existing channels.

Phil

Malcolm Fisher wrote:

No this is not "stone age" technology!!

Here is wear this becomes a double edge sword...........while you develop a system to eliminate interference, allowing more models to fly increases the human error part. You bring the risk down of being shot down but you are going to increase the risk of mid air collisions, ect. If technology can eliminate the interference.....hey that's fine, but you will never eliminate human mistakes. You can only decrease it through proper education, communication, and learning safety in the hobby. This is were the "noodle" between your ears becomes the most important element.

Phil and the rest I wish you good luck. Mike

I am not suggesting that we abandon Phil's overall goal. If there is a better way to control our AC, I'm all for it. I was merely trying to say that we need to go through the proper channels in order to pursue it. I do think that what has been said has great merit, I just don't want to see it turn into some kind of mudslinging match where the good points are lost in the fog of war. With the right stimulus, I think that both the RCMA and AMA could work the issue out as they have done in the past. There was a threat to loose all of our 72mHz freqs. With some work, we at least have a viable, possible solution. I know there are knowledgeable people in both organizations that could address this as well as take it to the FCC. I just want to see it done the right way and not turn it into a flame war or worse, a law suit.

As far as out present gear goes, yes, we are in the stone age. Until resistance to phase lock loop frequency control or synthesized frequency generation goes away, a reliance on outdated crystal technology will prevail. We are one of the last segments to insist on using crystals.

Just my .02.

Jim W

True, but the number of concurent flyers should be a club or facility safety rule even now.....

Phil

If this effort is to be undertaken in the U.S. it should be done so by Professional Engineers. There are many ramifications to be considered by those who might wish to do this, the legal as well as the engineering aspects of it must be considered. If this effort is undertaken using any RF band other than what we have already been allotted then the effort is futile. The solution must be also be either backwards compatible or at a minimum non-interfering with the installed base of TX / RX systems. If this is just something you want to talk about that will end up documenting all the potential problems of the current system then I might agree it could be used by those who might wish to get rid of us. It is easy to talk about the many different communications protocols in use today, with "free" cell phones and "free" WIFI built into every laptop it is easy to think technology is dirt cheap .... and once into mass production it is, if the volume is high enough. The development and qualification effort to gain FCC buy off will be significant. Having worked in engineering and development in the defense industry and the telecom industry for 20+ years I just want to say that this will not be a simple throw these parts together and lets do it right now solution. While plenty of the transceivers exist that could accomplish the objectives bantered about here none that I know of operate at 72 MHz. Every communications protocol also uses a DSP specifically designed for the intended form fit and function. Does anyone really have the facilities or the money to invest to buy the components (least expensive part of this), fab a board, solder (say a micro BGA transceiver and DSP) to that board, program the DSP, and then test the system using Class 1 test equipment ? Then do the same for the RX side of the system. This will cost a lot of money. Where is the payoff ? How many potential sales are possible ? Within the RC industry there isn't even a worldwide frequency standard to fall back on. To get the economy of production there has to be a large volume or the R&D is never recouped. If you captured 100% of all sales worldwide it would still take significant time to recoup the R&D. I have no idea what the patents are that control the basic TX form fit and function, but you can count on a problem there if it means Hitec, Futaba, JR, Airtronics ... will be hurt by the new technology. As far as volume production, I would speculate that there are as more cell phones sold in one day than the entire total unit sales of RC systems in history. If you want to argue this number then I will take 1 week of cell phone sales. All of the cheap technology is subsidized by a service or other hardware. RC equipment does not have the potential to be subsidized. I think the manufacturers are making a handsome profit per unit sold at this time but the volume is small and the pie is divided by several players. If redesigning the RF protocol was an easy problem to address you can bet that the established players would be all over it. Contrary to the view that has been expressed that says they are sitting back doing nothing I look at the new products being rolled out almost every year and think that they are investing in R&D. It takes a considerable effort to engineer a "computer" radio. Anyone that sits back and balks at that statement has not designed such a system. Yes the RF technology we have for RC is dated, but the engineering behind it is still good. There is nothing intermittently wrong with a crystal based RF system. If the end users, the AMA, FAA, or the FCC demand it effective failsafe can be incorporated into the existing TX's, RX's, and servos without the need to redesign the way the RF protocol currently works. In the event of a jamming signal or component failure there are no guarantees of the outcome.

Just my ramblings, Charlie

Good points, Carlie.

IF the FCC would allocate another model R/C frequency band (highly doubtful), AND the radio manufacturers would make the new radios (even more doubtful), it MIGHT work.

We think R/C is the whole world. It's not. Model R/C is only a very tiny piece of (for example) the manufacturing spectrum of Futaba. Almost everything we use is an offshoot, and not the main business, of the manufacturers.

I'm afraid Phil, "Mr. Nader", is calling a lot of attention to a problem that really doesn't exist. This is ONE ISOLATED INCIDENT, and some people want to revamp the whole system. Geez....run, Henny Penny, the sky is falling!!! Dr.1 Driver "There's a Hun in the sun!"

Give me a break, I didn't call you any names! No, it is not one isolated incident. Eveybody that has been around the hobby for many years in a medium to large size club has witnessed or had it happen to themselves somebody being shot down by an accidental turn on by a transmitter on the same frequency. I said MY concern was there could one day be an accident that could end our hobby. But I stated many reasons other than that why we should persue newer technology radio, Just a couple of posts ago you made the statement:

"The independent OR AMA-licensed "backyard flyer" is ALWAYS a danger to legitimate R/C fields, and always will be. Dr.1 Driver"

Sounds like the primary danger your concerned about is being shot down? That is specifically what needs to be corrected, it doesn't have to be that way.

Phil

Dr1Driver wrote:

All I'm am trying to do is call to the attention of RC'ers we can do better. Group think so to speak, nobody has any intention of designing anything to my knowledge.

Phil

BTW Charlie, I have 28+ years as a circuit designer > If this effort is to be undertaken in the U.S. it should be done so by

I've been in R/C almost 20 years, and have only seen three provable instances of radio interference. It IS isolated! Dr.1 Driver "There's a Hun in the sun!"

Wo why your statement:

"The independent OR AMA-licensed "backyard flyer" is ALWAYS a danger to legitimate R/C fields, and always will be. Dr.1 Driver"

????

Dr1Driver wrote:

Phil, I could tell you are very knowledgeable about the subject matter. I did think that you might be interested in designing a new system or forming the group to design a new system. I was not bashing you and no disrespect was intended in any way. I was just putting my $.02 worth of comment out there. It appeared to me that some of the posts indicated that a new "system" could be put together by cobbling together a variety of off the shelf solutions, while this may be possible I just think it is a more significant effort that will require industry support. The surface mount chip technology has moved beyond the ability for someone to do this in their garage. The last telecom RF project I worked on (3 years ago now) used a micro BGA package for the transceiver, we used an Air Vac machine to solder those to the PWB. A lot of people have an old soldering iron laying around, but very few have an Air Vac machine or a multilayer PWB shop in the basement.

What is it that you do want to accomplish with "group think" ?

Charlie

Hi,

I would like to thank the c> Phil,

One thing I got from these posts is a confirmation of the suspicion that RC protocol is very old. Newer technology can give us greater reliability and more usability, plus opening up a possibility for other features. In short, if you create a newer system that uses concepts related to, say, error correction and/or some kinds of shared spectrum within the current bands, then what (technically) prevents this?

Is FCC approval required if the same bands and power levels are still used, but with different signaling protocols? (Assuming no change, or certainly no increase, in out-of-band interference.) Does the FCC care if there are compatibility problems with current *RC* equipment? Are the channel frequency designations set by the FCC (or by users, manufacturers groups, or other)?

Today, servos are not 100% compatible -- so how much difference from one mfgr to another is allowed before the FCC steps in. For example, would it currently be illegal for a mfgr to make a TX/RX system that combined two or three channels to increase the range, reliability, or add bells and whistles?

Similarly, suppose a mfgr decided to use a small number of adjacent channels along with a new protocol to implement the reliability/usability features such as discussed by Phil and others. These channels would block only a portion of the band and only at a given field when in use. This could provide for a compatible sharing of the band with the current equip. After, say, 10-20 years, the new system could expand to use all the band and effect a transition.

If this is not a good idea, do we expect to be stuck with the same protocols, list of features and other limitations 15 or 20 years from now?

In an earlier post, you (or someone) made the point that RC products are only a small portion of the parent company's business. This suggests they are already using recent SMD, packaging, etc., methods you mention above. I don't see why there has to be a special fabrication facility to make the proposed new RC equipment. I take your point about the need for SMD technology being necessary (and about the low volumes ability to pay for it), but why can't current production lines be used? Cheap consumer items are made this way and the designs -- the products themselves even

-- change all the time. This is a necessary element for these factories.

You (I think) mentioned that DSPs are needed to implement reliability and usability features. But with the very low data rates needed for RC control, shouldn't low-power low-cost SMD DSPs be easily available to handle error-correction, bandwidth sharing, etc., features? It doesn't seem to me that a special ASIC/BGA is necessary for this system. With a design in hand how much would it add to the cost of an RX/TX system? Of course, new firmware and software has to be developed. But the biggest advantage of programmability comes from benefits unanticipated at the outset. It is worth it. Such is the example of the computer industry and the user community.

Unfortunate term, that. We all know there's no such thing. Group discussions -- much better.

Charlie, First educate the RC Community, that there are benefits to be gained. I wasn't around when proportional radios started, but the technology leap is similar. Second to get people talking about the potential that exists, and "wouldn't it be great if" out of the box thinking. It has already been brought up to me is "closing the loop with the aircraft", something while I knew technically was feasable, but didn't consider the benefit.

If there gets to be enough talk, the AMA and manufacturers will listen. Maybe their designers will start following some type of group discussion, or start thinking.

What I would see as potential benefit to RC'ers:

Phasing out of frequency boards. Elimination of the need for transmitter impounds Phasing out of the 3 mile frequency sharing issue Elimination of the concern of park flyers or the rogue independent RC'er.

*More flexability in the orderly shutdown of a model in flight when castrophic interference happens *More flexability in the orderly shutdown of a model on battery or switch failure More immunity to same channel noise interference Make BPL a non interference issue More effective concurrent users by removing channels as the determination and switching to an addressable/networking protocol *Multiple model radios that verify the aircraft selected is the one you have turned on. *Reduction of the fly away potential. *Interoperatability between manufacturers Wireless training "buddy box" operations *Brand X tranmitter with brand Y receiver *Receivers that verified servo's we hooked up before allowing throttle advance if the user so programmed

(The sad part of the above is some of it doesn't need any FCC or AMA involvement those are marked with an *)

With the continued change in digital technology, minaturatazation, capability vs cost you don't have to think to out of the box to: Realtime telemetry to close the loop. Locator information for those of us that have to go into 6' tall corn to FIND a model. (Been there done that!) Aircraft feedback on signal quality or interference issues Aircraft feedback on battery condition, servo condition Flys back to a certain spot on complete prolonged signal loss.

This could all be in that same flight transmitter and package today.

I've been an RC'er for 16 years, I fly at a club with 80+ members, we are in a metro area where geography only has limited space where RC fields can go, and much of that space causes the 3 mile seperation to be an issue for flying sites. During those 16 years, I had a crash because a guest flyer turned his tranmitter (on the same channel as me) on without regard for the frequency control board. (No he didn't reimburse me!) I have seen several expensive airplanes go in because of accidental frequency board screwups, both parties very distrought by the accident. I've seen planes fly away because of transmitter failure, I've seen planes fly away for a other of reasons completely out of site. (isn't amazing how a plane can fly straight and level when you don't want it to). I've seen planes recoverd by a non hobbiest 10 miles away from where it flew off. (not a scratch of damage, ran out of fuel in a flat field, finder said it was sitting perfectly on it's trike gear), I have seen planes go through periods of out of control by experienced flyers, randomly on the same two channels, different planes and flyers.

I have no financial interest, no ties to any RC companies or hobby shops. My verbage is stricktly to help RC'ers today and in the future without causing any issues for existing RC'ers.

Phil

p.s. would somebody like to add some constructive benifits?