<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<title>Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2.4G Required at next Nats??</title>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<div id=idOWAReplyText21065>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:black'>I think this is a really smart move on the part of the Event
Director and the AMA. The reality is if you go to the NATS practice sites, and
the AMA site they are hectic and things are happening very quickly. People
coming and going, with 3 different flying sites available. The frequency
assignments were a needed thing because there was no other option. If you ask
NATS event directors for the past 25 years they will all tell you the same
thing...Frequencies make their job a living hell. I remember NATS check in when
they tested your radio to make sure it was narrow banded and you were on the
right frequency. Thank goodness they don’t have to deal with that
now. Flight line assignments, seeding of pilots, and management of
those things all take way too much time from the guy trying to run the contest
the best he can. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>By
mandating 2.4 systems it will not only make the event directors job easier, it
will make the site a much safer place, for you and your aircraft. How many
years have we had incidents where models were shot down during practice both at
practice sites and the AMA site after hours. I think there has been an incident
almost every year since I have been going to the NATS in 1997. This past year
excluded since I was not able to attend, and 2008 I don’t remember any
but most pilots were already on 2.4 systems.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>The
truth is our models have huge investments of time regardless of the money
involved...The time to trim, setup and maintain the models is the huge
investment. My personal opinion is to risk that level of commitment, time, and
effort on 72mhz, is the same as flying it on AM or 27mhz</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>A
trip to the NATS for me averages about $1000-1500 per year and includes a
2000mile one way trip….. This doesn't include the models or the
consumables associated with the models, batteries, fuel, maintenance and so on.
It’s just travel, hotels, and food eating out for the week. In
perspective each manufacturer JR or Futaba can convert your older TX to 2.4 for
around $200 with a new module and rx. This is extremely cheap for the added
safety, and secure connection to the model. Consider the lower end models are
$1500-2000 invested not counting the 200hrs worth of building and the
100+ flights trimming and setting up a model. So at worst case the cost to
convert to 2.4 is around 10% or less of the models total cost. How much of your
time is invested in that model?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>2.4
is more secure to your model not just from the no shoot down stand point but
the signal and connection along with noise rejection is so much better on 2.4
than it was on PCM and exponentially better than PPM. The Spread Spektrum
technology is not a fad, or a gimmick, it is not a dressed up FM signal like
PCM was…this is like sending your plane an email. Its faster and more
secure, and provides the individual ID of the TX by the RX. This is really the
biggest improvement to R/C since proportional control. I would say the issues
with radio problems I have seen at the local field have dropped to less than
25% of what they were before on 72mhz equipment, and that is just sport sector.
We pattern guys take very good care of our equipment and rarely have issues
anyway. The 2.4 stuff is made for events like the NATS, Pylon, Pattern Soaring,
Scale, IMAC….the list goes on and on.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>I
know of clubs that have taken down the frequency board and require 100% use of
2.4 at the field. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>My
view is you can't afford to not be running 2.4 systems. Both companies make
excellent 2.4 systems that provide a safe and secure environment for our
models.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>I
applaud the effort by the AMA, and the Event director to make things safer and
easier for the event.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Troy
Newman</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org on
behalf of Chris Fitzsimmons<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wed 10/28/2009 11:35 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> General pattern discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2.4G Required at next Nats??</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>As stated earlier please contact Dave. Then
it's not heresay.<br>
<br>
It's not an AMA thing, but a cd thing.<br>
<br>
Chris<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<br>
On Oct 28, 2009, at 11:24 AM, "Bill Glaze" <<a
href="mailto:billglaze@bellsouth.net">billglaze@bellsouth.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Earlier, on this list, Tony Stillman stated that there was "no truth to
the rumor" that DSS would be required at the Nats in 2010. Changed?<br>
Bill Glaze<br>
----- Original Message ----- From: <<a href="mailto:verne@twmi.rr.com">verne@twmi.rr.com</a>><br>
To: "General pattern discussion" <<a
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><br>
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:20 PM<br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2.4G Required at next Nats??<br>
<br>
<br>
I already fly with 2.4 so I'm not impacted. Having said that, it seems a little
autocratic if it's not an across the board AMA Nats policy.<br>
<br>
Verne<br>
<br>
<br>
---- Derek Koopowitz <<a href="mailto:derekkoopowitz@gmail.com">derekkoopowitz@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
This will be true for Masters and FAI only.<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<br>
On Oct 28, 2009, at 6:28 AM, "Lance Van Nostrand"<br>
<<a href="mailto:patterndude@tx.rr.com">patterndude@tx.rr.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
I heard someone state that starting in 2010 all pilots must fly 2.4G<br>
at the Nats. I searched the discussion archives and the AMA website<br>
and came up empty.<br>
Is there any truth to this?<br>
<br>
--Lance<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>