JR 10SX

[tony at radiosouthrc.com]

John:

Spread Spectrum Channel Hopping is what you are referring to...  I am on the AMA Frequency Committee, and we have been looking at a test system that would do just that.  However, the cost is expected to start at about $10,000.00 and it has many other issues that are yet to be solved.  

Futaba has had spread spectrum stuff available in their industrial use equipment for many years now.  However, adapting them for use in aircraft is problematic at best.  First, if we go to 72Mhz, it will make all other 72Mhz equipment out there now obsolete!  That in itself is a huge problem!  Try telling everyone that they all have to throw ALL of their radio gear away and purchase all new stuff....  not good!  

Futaba says the problems are too great to use Spread Spectrum in model aircraft right now, so they are not interested in pursuing it.  Perhaps others will, but if they don't like what they see, I doubt others will either. 

AMA has also been in contact with Homeland Security, and they have a concern about making highly secure RF links for radio control use...  They see a potential for making a bomb.  

All these issues puts a black cloud over Spread Spectrum, at least for the time being...


Tony Stillman
Radio South
3702 N. Pace Blvd.
Pensacola, FL 32505
1-800-962-7802
www.radiosouthrc.com
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Pavlick 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 12:10 AM
  Subject: RE: JR 10SX


  Yeah, I agree with Eric. As far as I'm concerned, the new Futaba radio (14MZ) is really nice looking, and of course I wouldn't mind having one BUT since I don't fly the really big stuff where 14 channels is a big help (multiple servos on each control surface), it wouldn't be much of an improvement over my 9ZAP. It seems like the RF section is always an after-thought. I remember when all the "new" frequencies were being discussed (pre 1991 times). One of the ideas behind getting all the new frequencies was to reduce the chance of someone being on your frequency. I always thought a better approach would have been to make everything with synthesized RF decks. Since the plan we adopted ended up making a lot of otherwise good equipment obsolete anyway, I don't see what the problem would have been. We wouldn't need as many channels that way either (more room for other stuff). If you can select your frequency, rather than just increase the odds of not being on someone else's frequency, then the real problem is solved. I seem to recall that Kraft had synthesized RF and "narrow band" FM equipment before anyone else. Almost every major radio manufacturer has some type of synthesized RF deck today.
   If you add the synthesized RF deck to a digital encoding "code hopping" transmitter and receiver you have a good solution to our newest problem. As long as the receiver isn't swamped by a very high output transmitter, this is safer than what we have now. A code hopping system uses a digital encoding scheme in addition to the base frequency. The "digital key" changes when the system powers up. You don't even know it's happening. Even if someone is transmitting on the same frequency, if the "keys" don't match the receiver won't respond. That's over simplifying a bit but that's the basic idea. There's more to the link than just the RF frequency, which as we all know is not always exclusive. Clothes pins with channel numbers are not exactly a foolproof method of securing your frequency. This kind of stuff is in $40.00 cordless phones and garage door openers - remember the old garage door openers that used to open for "no reason"? How do you think they fixed that? Why can't this technology be used in a $2000.00 radio? If we keep building bigger and bigger airplanes and controlling them with what is basically outdated technology, it's only a matter of time...
  John Pavlick
  http://www.idseng.com
    


   -----Original Message-----
  From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Grow Pattern
  Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 11:48 PM
  To: discussion at nsrca.org
  Subject: Re: JR 10SX


    Bill, the update to the 10SX (actually a 10SXII) was the digital trim 10X.  

    Is the 10X what you meant to say?

    In general terms I don't intend to buy another radio, of any brand, until they fix the weakness of our RF link to the plane. We can all still be radio-shot-down far too easily.

    Regards,

    Eric.
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: William C. Harden 
      To: discussion at nsrca.org 
      Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 9:42 PM
      Subject: JR 10SX


      Now that JR has come to market with their new 9303 radio, does JR intend to update their 10SX radio?  If so, when will the new radio be available???  Just curious.

       

       

      Bill 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050322/4b3c1039/attachment.html