| > Certain receivers ARE better and better. The Berg and FMA receivers, | > for example, are top notch. Futaba and JR make some really good ones, | > and some iffy ones. Hitec makes some reasonably good ones, and some | > crappy ones (like the Feather.) | | Better and better in what manner? And, according to who?
According to me.
As for the manner, I'm referring mostly to the ability to reject interference not directly on the channel in question, and the ability to not glitch when interference is detected.
(The two are different. PCM receivers should never glitch, but that doesn't mean your plane won't crash when it goes into failsafe or position-hold mode.)
Oh, and you need some decent range. I've personally had my planes at
1/2 mile up at least once (I measured it with an altimeter) so I'd really want a mile range or so.
| > As far as I know, all the PCM receivers are good, though Futaba just | > came out with a limited range PCM receiver -- that doesn't sound good. | > | > The DSP receivers are good too -- FMA, Berg, Plantraco, Sombra Labs | > and others. Single conversion or dual conversion, it doesn't matter. | > | > Beyond that, the dual conversion recivers (without PCM or DSPs) are | > generally OK, but not great. | > | > Most JR receivers are single conversion and are OK, but not great. | > | > Beyond that, most single conversion receivers are bad, and the Hitec | > Feather is one of the worst. | | Single conversion receivers do not need to be bad, and double conversion | receivers can be junk.
I'm not aware of any dual conversion receivers that are junk. The stock Futaba 7 channel and similar receivers aren't very impressive, but the range is good, so I wouldn't call them junk. And I thought I was pretty clear about the single conversion receivers. Berg makes some good ones, JR makes some OK (like the Futaba dual conversion receivers) ones. But most of the rest are not good -- limited range, limited ability to reject interfence.
| Everything you have said is vague; lacking substance.
Well, it's about the best that you'll find now. | > | > With better technical info, you can avoid the crappy receivers. | > | > Actually, it's not hard to find out which receivers are good and which | > aren't -- it's all online, if you know where to look. For example, | > searching for `Hitec Feather' will tell you very quickly what the | > world thinks of them. | | I don't want subjective opinions on what's good or bad. I would like to see | technical specifications for all the characteristics of the equipment.
It would be nice. But I hope you're not holding your breath waiting for it ...
| That's not too much to ask, considering what risks we take by putting the | equipment in our planes.
Right now, our gear uses a narrow little 10 KHz signal. It's so simple for even a local pager tower (not to mention another guy who forgot to get the frequency pin) to totally swamp that signal and send your plane crashing to the ground, no matter how good of a receiver you have, that you really need to consider that every flight might be your last, merely due to radio problems.
Spread spectrum could be the solution to most of those sorts of problems, but it's still not really available, though there are some home-brewed systems out there.
(Another common problem is that batteries can fail at any time. If you don't have two packs, you're flirting with disaster right there.)
Thinking about it can make you not want to even go up :)
| Purchasers should be able to compare specs to help | make a choice of equipment types. | > | > | Far too sensible to ever catch on. | > | > Well, the way it would catch on would be a receiver maker who thinks | > they make the best receivers posting their detailed specifications | > first. I can see that happening, if they think it'll improve sales | > ... | | Agreed.
... and I didn't say it, but the low end receivers will never post their specifications. But eventually that'll be OK -- you just won't buy any receivers that don't post their specifications.