Polk's Hobby Tracker II Radio

The February issue of Model Airplane News has a review of Polk's Hobby Tracker II Radio. It seems to have a lot of good features for the money, such a frequency scanner, memory storage for 99 models, and variable frequency. Price is $275. I have not been a fan of Polk's Hobby in the past. Does anybody have any experience or thoughts on this radio?

Reply to
Jim & Nancy Stricklin
Loading thread data ...

I almost bought one of these a few days ago but couldn't come to terms on the deal. This was a one owner radio. I like the feel and the features. Most of all I like the company. They are phone friendly and are always updating the radio as users discover things that could be better. The software version at this time is 1.31. They will upgrade the software to the latest version at no charge as they make these changes. The scanner portion may be overly sensitive as it seems to detect 2nd and 3rd harmonics in our location here in Virginia. They will detune the scanner for you if it is a problem at your location. The seeker receiver, while a bit large, is flawless and the fact that it will work with any other transmitter and frequency you have is a major plus!

But, be aware that early next year they are coming out with an updated version that includes a more rounded redesigned case and the ability to upgrade without sending in the radio.

So I'm going to wait a bit longer before buying mine... but buy one I will!

Art

Reply to
Artster

They have , or did have anyway, a problem with the transmitter saving trims in mix modes. This wasn't acceptable to me. I'm waiting until their all new update in '04 before I buy one.

Reply to
jeboba

Are the connectors Futaba compatible?

Reply to
Jim & Nancy Stricklin

Hello,

Checkout RCUniverse, do a search for Tracker II articles. I wrote a few.

The Seeker II is a GREAT receiver. I have used both Futaba and JR servos and Futaba and the Tracker II transmitters without a problem and would buy another.

The Tracker II is a mixed bag. As a frequency synthesis non mixing radio it works well. The mixing leaves something to be desired. My original firmware (1.2) was VERY, VERY BAD and I believe Lewis Polk knew it was bad when the radio shipped. Lewis Polk was also not very forth coming about the problems with his product. I upgraded to version 1.3 and have not fully tested it. Polk's promised a 2 day turn around that took two weeks; in Minnesota that a difference of about 40 degree in temperature. Again, checkout the Tracker II on RCUniverse. I am not upgrade current, so things may have gotten better? Secondly, there was to be a new design for 2004. If you are now confused, so am I went it comes to the Tracker II.

John Berk

Jim & Nancy Strickl> The February issue of Model Airplane News has a review of Polk's Hobby

Reply to
John Berk

check the e-zone

formatting link
under the radio forum. Some issues with it.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Also read through the Tracker II threads (do a search) at RCgroups.com. The consensus is that it's not a very good computer radio (some say really crappy). If you treat it as if it were a simple NON computer radio, then it might work for you. The problem is that the Futaba 9C is a HUGELY better radio and doesn't cost that much more (and a synth module will be available for it soon)... so for the money, it's a much better deal than the Tracker as is the Hitec w/Spectra module. The Seeker receiver, however, is a nice unit and worth the $70 easy.

There's going to be a Tracker (III?) out next year we're told, but as a buyer (and then a seller) of a Tracker II, I don't trust Polk's anymore. They screwed up big time with the programming of the T-II and, I feel, in turn screwed their many trusting customers who bought a radio that did a lot less than Polk's claimed. As for "support", all we got was promises and then excuses ("Not enough memory to fix the program") so Polk's has been scratched off my list of company's to buy from.

MJC

Reply to
MJC

On 12/21/2003 9:22 PM Ted shuffled out of his cave and grunted these great (and sometimes not so great) words of knowledge:

I have the Tracker II. While I like the radio in general, there are a couple of shortcomings (IMHO).

The receiver is fantastic - an excellent buy just by itself.

The shortcomings:

  1. There is no "buddy box" port. The new Tracker is supposed to have one. This may or may not be a negative.
  2. The programming, is somewhat clumsy. It allows you to be more precise in several areas, but items such as saving the trim settings require you to save each setting individually. Futaba saves all the settings at once. The plus side though, is you can clear/reset an individual setting.
  3. The styling is outdated, if that matters to you. 4. The unit is larger/bulkier than the majority of transmitters. If you have small hands, this may be of consideration.

Some of the plus items:

  1. Three assignable mixing functions.
  2. The additional 4 channels are assignable to ANY of the the switches on the transmitter.
  3. 5 year warranty on the unit.

The bottom line (for me anyway) is that the pluses of the unit far outweigh the minuses.

I do not need a buddy box port (although one would be nice) and the larger/bulkier size works well for me as I have large hands. I really like the 99 model memory (I have 8 planes) and the fact I can use the transmitter with ANY BRAND OF RECEIVER (you can set an individual model for positive or negative shift).

Would I do it again ? I most likely would. The new Futaba 9 channel transmitters are nice, but expensive. I felt this unit provided the "most bang for the buck".

Hope this is of some help to you.

Reply to
Ted Campanelli

| The problem is that the Futaba 9C is a HUGELY better radio and | doesn't cost that much more (and a synth module will be available | for it soon)...

Where have you heard that a synthesized module would be available for it soon? I certainly haven't ...

The Hitec Spectra module is known to work, but I've heard there's issues with that, both technical (greatly increased power consumption?) and political (no FCC or AMA approval) ...

Whatever module comes out, it would be nice if it could have it's frequency stored in the radio's model memory, rather than adjusting knobs like the Spectra, but I suspect that this won't happen ...

The Tracker II also has a built-in scanner, which would be nice. Too bad more radios don't have that ...

Reply to
Doug McLaren

If Futaba does it, it will program from the front of the radio thru the regular programming features. After the frequency has been selected the transmitter set key is pressed or the on off switch is cycled and you are in business.

Been flying a 9ZWCII with the synthesized module since they came out. Works fine in all enviornments that I am aware of.

Reply to
Dersu u

Just because YOU haven't "heard" about it, then it must not be true? A little self important, are we? :-) Futaba already lists a proprietary part number for the 9C Synth module in their catalog (notabley different from the part number for the 9Z Synth module). It will (Ok, "should") be available early '04.

Higher power consumption? Sure, ANY synth module will draw more power than a fixed freq crystal. But not "greatly" where it makes a huge difference. No FCC or AMA approval? Nonsense. Unless you're referring to using the Spectra module in the Futaba transmitter, but that's not what I was talking about. At all. You automatically lose FCC and AMA approval anytime you mix brands of TX and tx module designed and approved for a different brand.

I understand that the 9C module WILL be software selectable but I'm not going to profess absolute knowledge or certainty on that. I speak only of which I have definite knowledge. The rest, I leave up to others to speculate.

Agreed. But if you think about it, almost no other radios out there have a multichannel scanner and we've survived this long...

MJC

Reply to
MJC

I have the Futaba 9ZAS WC II, and it doesn't change frequencies automatically either.

I think there's a sound rationale behind the Futaba implementation, and that is to require explicit user action to change frequencies.

Storing the model's frequency in memory would be a nice-to-have feature, but allowing the transmitter to change frequencies without user acknowledgement is a bad idea.

How many times have we read here in this august pack of lunatics where some experienced modeler launched a model with :

1) the battery turned off or discharged 2) the ailerons reversed 3) the transmitter antenna collapsed 4) the wrong transmitter 5) the wrong receiver 6) yada yada yada

Automatic frequency changes sounds to me like yet another scenario for a "shoot down" or worse, an uncontrollable model roaring around the pits.

Cheers, Fred McClellan the dash plumber at mindspring dot com

Reply to
Fred McClellan

Mjc,

How soon? Where's you read that was coming soon? --

Jim L.

formatting link
Using - Virtual Access(OLR), ZAP 4.5, & WinXP Pro w/SP1

Reply to
Jim Lilly

Mjc,

All I can find on their web site is the 9Z synth module, none for the 9C.

Got a link for the part number you found for the 9C? --

Jim L.

formatting link
Using - Virtual Access(OLR), ZAP 4.5, & WinXP Pro w/SP1

Reply to
Jim Lilly

Geez guys, why do I have to do all the work? :-) Go to

formatting link
then go to page 23. The "Transmitter Modules" box at the bottom left corner of that page shows a separate and different part number for the Synth module for the 9C (hint: it's not the same number as the one shown for the

9Z).

I'm guessing, just guessing, that Futaba put this listing in the catalog early because they ARE going to be releasing the 9C synth module soon, and this way, they would have it already listed in their catalog and wouldn't have to redo the catalog later.

MJC

Reply to
MJC

Here's another link talking about the same thing at:

formatting link
MJC

Reply to
MJC

| > | The problem is that the Futaba 9C is a HUGELY better radio and | > | doesn't cost that much more (and a synth module will be available | > | for it soon)... | >

| > Where have you heard that a synthesized module would be available for | > it soon? I certainly haven't ... | | Just because YOU haven't "heard" about it, then it must not be true?

?

| A little self important, are we? :-)

Um, no. I think you're reading *way* too much into my question ...

When I saw your statement, I even checked the Yahoo groups 9c list -- no mention of a synthesized module to be released -- but plenty of people asking.

| Futaba already lists a proprietary part number for the 9C Synth module | in their catalog (notabley different from the part number for the 9Z Synth | module). | | It will (Ok, "should") be available early '04.

Is that conjecture based on the part number being listed, or is there more?

(I hope you're right. But since I've not heard this from anywhere else, I'm skeptical.)

| > The Hitec Spectra module is known to work, but I've heard there's | > issues with that, both technical (greatly increased power | > consumption?) and political (no FCC or AMA approval) ... | | Higher power consumption? Sure, ANY synth module will draw more | power than a fixed freq crystal. But not "greatly" where it makes a | huge difference.

I've heard it uses several times more power than it does in the Hitec radio, therefore getting quite warm. Not a little more power, but a lot more power. And only in a Futaba radio, not in the Hitec radio.

| No FCC or AMA approval? Nonsense.

You're obviously misunderstanding me ...

| Unless you're referring to using the Spectra module in the Futaba | transmitter, but that's not what I was talking about.

Actually, that's *exactly* what I was referring to (I guess I didn't make it clear enough.) Right now, today, if you want to use a synthesized module with a 9c, it's the Hitec spectra, and while it's known to work, there are issues, some of which I've mentioned.

| automatically lose FCC and AMA approval anytime you mix brands of TX and tx | module designed and approved for a different brand.

Well, that's been argued to death with both sides claiming victory (and I'm probably starting the war back up here), but either way, I'm not going to go out and buy a Spectra module for my 9c -- I'll wait for the Futaba version.

| > Whatever module comes out, it would be nice if it could have it's | > frequency stored in the radio's model memory, rather than adjusting | > knobs like the Spectra, but I suspect that this won't happen ... | | I understand that the 9C module WILL be software selectable

From where?

I was imagining that it would be almost exactly like the Spectra module, but who knows?

| > The Tracker II also has a built-in scanner, which would be nice. Too | > bad more radios don't have that ... | | Agreed. But if you think about it, almost no other radios out there have | a multichannel scanner and we've survived this long...

Oh, I'm fully aware. But it would still be nice ...

Reply to
Doug McLaren

But if the 9C uses the same modules as the FF8 then doesn't that eman that it'll fit the FF8 as well ?

Also, does anyone know if it's slated to become available on 35MHz as well as 72 ?

Reply to
Boo

Mjc,

Thanks! --

Jim L.

formatting link
Using - Virtual Access(OLR), ZAP 4.5, & WinXP Pro w/SP1

Reply to
Jim Lilly

Mjc,

Your other link indicates it to be February - 04 --

Jim L.

formatting link
Using - Virtual Access(OLR), ZAP 4.5, & WinXP Pro w/SP1

Reply to
Jim Lilly

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.