Conference vmszoo::rc

>    	1. The radio that I am considering is on sale because its
>    	   replacement model conforms to some new standards that will
>    	   be imposed beginning in '91. What will the consequences be
>    	   of purchasing a radio that is 'sub-standard' in '91?
>    	   Specifically, will some hot shot FCC individual tell me that
>    	   I can no longer use my old radio when the new standards
>    	   are in place? BTW - I learned of the '91 standards change
>    	   from a sales person so feel free to tell me that there is no
>    	   such thing.
>

    There is such a thing.  The FCC has re-allocated the Radio Control
    Freqs. for '91, requiring Dual Conversion Narrowband Rx, and
    Narrow Band Tx equipment for that year.  I believe that the '91
    standard is supposed to require all Tx equipment to meet the Std
    starting in '89, with Rx to follow in '91.  This is a voluntary
    standard.  It would be impossible for the FCC to enforce, so they
    aren't even going to bother.  The place you will see enforcment is
    in AMA sanctioned clubs and meets.  Clubs may or may not allow the
    older, nonstandard stuff to be used by their members, its up to
    the club to decide.  The AMA *WILL* require that all equipment to be
    used in AMA events meet the standard. 
    
>    	2. I am a licensed HAM and would like to know if there are any
>    	   issues concerning the use of the 6 meter (approx 50MHz)
>    	   bands for RC modeling? If not can someone give me a source
>    	   for XTALS for that band.
>    

    No issues, Ala the other, higher frequencies.  HAM band RC is
    governed by the same rules that control any other HAM
    transmission.  You will need more than XTals, though.  You should
    instead buy a radio designed for the HAM band.  Unless you are
    particularly adept at redesigning/retuning RF circuits, you will
    find that a radio set up for 75 Meg is awful hard to get to work
    at 50 Meg.

    With the narrow channel spacing coming up I would advise purchase
    of an FM transmitter only.  Most of them can be brought into lne
    with the upcoming 91 spec.  None of the AM transmitters are good
    candidates for the 91 spec.
    
    If you get an FM transmitter now, you should be able to pick up
    a narrow band receiver in 91.
    
    There are other benefits to consider if you have a HAM liscense.
     We have two guys in our club that fly on 6 meter and they never
    have to wait for a frequency flag!  Neither one of them have
    interference or glitch problems either.
    
    Will Beatty

    
    	OK sounds like the transmitter that I am considering...
    	it is an FM model... will work OK. Concerning the use
    	of the HAM bands, what special provisions had to be made
    	to the equipement used by the fellows in your club (RE .2)?
    	Is it just a metter of specifiying to the sales person that
    	I want a 6 meter setup? (If by now you haven't guessed, this
    	is my first transmitter purchase!) Thanks for the replies.
    
    /Kevin

    Note 105 has an extended discussion of the 1991 situation. I
    recommend continuing this discussion there. Transmitters,
    receivers, and 6 meter operation are discussed.

    Dave

    Dave,
    	I thought that you software types didn't believe in GOTO
    statements.  By the way, I love it!!!!!!!
    
    Charlie

Just for info, this is the procedure I used last summer to get a 6M RC rig.
Incidentally, several of us have CS7P radios and they seem to be very good buys
with many features for the money.  Also note that 1991 rules do not
    apply to 6 m rigs.
    
    I ordered my radio from Sheldon Hobby (it must be a CS7P am model,
    Sheldon's part number AIR1110).  Sheldon discounts the radio to
    $179.95 and you might have trouble finding it somewhere else since
    it has been out of production for a while now.  It doesn't matter
    what 72 MHz channel you order it with since Airtronics replaces
    the rf modules in both the transmitter and receiver.  You can call
    Sheldon at 800-822-1688. 

    Send your radio in its original packing (the radio must be unused)
    to:

                Airtronics
                attn.: Jack Albrecht
                11 Autry
                Irvine, CA 92718

    I talked to Jack before I sent the radio and he indicated no
    problems.  He is a ham and was actually quite helpful.  If you
    want, you can call him at 714-830-8769. 

    Enclose a check for $3.50 to Airtronics for shipping
    and instructions on what you want done (convert to 53.x MHz).

    My radio was returned in about 2 weeks.


    73 es GL

    Ed, K5ED

    

    
    	Thanks for all the replies... the info in .6 is just what I
    was looking for... it's off to airtronics for me!
    
    /Kevin

    
    	I shopped around a bit and found that the Airtronics HI7 series
    	is comparable to the Futaba that I am looking at... the Futaba
    	is on sale almost everywhere for about $235 with 4 S130 servos,
    	but the Airtronics units are about $100 more albeit with 5 
    	servos... anyone seen any deals on the HI7 series??
    
    /Kevin

    Try Sheldon's on California.  They have generally had good deals
    on Airtronics radios.  I got three from them over the last 4 years.
    By the way, they screw up orders more than Tower does.  The best
    deal going on the Airtronics Spectra PCM line is Tower right now.
    
    Charlie
    

    Does anybody know if there is any difference in the micro-processors
    used in the Airtronics PCM's. For example other than bells and whistles
    what has the spectra PCM have over the Vangard PCM. 
    
    
    						Dave
    

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think one thing is that the
the Spectra has changeable TX modules, while the Vanguard has a
replaceable crystal.  I think that there are moves to make
replacing crystals illegal for 1991, due to the critical
bandwidth that must be maintained.  Thus, the older Tower catalog
lists this feature, while the recent Airtronics literature (Tower
just started listing these radios) omits mention.  I'm speaking
of the VG6DR series -- I really like the FM model. 

I'm not interested in the PCM version, despite thinking that
they're the wave of the future.  This is because of the high
price of the receivers, since I intend to buy multiple receivers
and the price of the Aristo/Expert receivers ($27) is too good to
pass up.

>price of the receivers, since I intend to buy multiple receivers
>and the price of the Aristo/Expert receivers ($27) is too good to
>pass up.

I was wondering about the price of those receivers.
Do they sell to anyone for $27 each?  I thought that they
were only selling ONE extra to purchasers of the Expert system.

Along those same lines - I assume it is a generic FM receiver.
Have you seen them work with any Futaba FM transmitters?  JR?  Airtronics?
My reason for asking is my Futaba FM channel 38 doesn't talk to my JR
FM channel 38 and vice versa.  I've always been confused by that.

Last but not least - does the $27 include any connectors?  What kind
of servo connectors does Aristo/Expert have?  Are they the same as
Futaba, JR, or Airtronics?

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================

    Airtronics has a new PCM receiver that is 1991 dual conversion that
    works with the Spectra and I think also with the Vanguard PCM sets.
    The major difference between the Spectra and Vanguard is all the
    bells and wistles.  Spectra has them, Vanguard doesn't.  I think
    that the receivers are the same.  The latest MA has ads for the
    receivers as replacements for non 1991 units.  They have the model
    numbers and which system they will work with.  PCM reveivers are
    on the expensive side but you do get added protection from some
    forms of interference.  I would recommend PCM for any Scale Ship
    or high cost Ship.  If you invest hundreds of hours/dollars in a
    plane it only makes sense to have the most reliable RC gear to go
    with it.  Two years ago at Orange, a guy from our club severely
    damaged his brand new scale ship (a beautiful scratch built
    Staggerwing) due to radio failure.  He's now flying a Spectra PCM
    set.  I am going with PCM in my new Sportster 90.  It's not a guarantee
    that you won't have radio problems but it's the best thing going
    right now.
    
    Charlie
    

>Do they sell to anyone for $27 each?  I thought that they

Now that you mention it, I was thinking of the Tower ad I saw
last nite in their '89 catalog -- Maybe it was closer to $30 -
anybody got the latest catalog handy?  Polk's sells the receiver
for thier Aristo as a separate item.  The Aristo and Expert
radios are identical except for the servos.  This is the new 1991
Rx that I'm talking about.

>Along those same lines - I assume it is a generic FM receiver.
>Have you seen them work with any Futaba FM transmitters?  JR?  Airtronics?
>My reason for asking is my Futaba FM channel 38 doesn't talk to my JR
>FM channel 38 and vice versa.  I've always been confused by that.

Got me there. As far as I know, all radios now sold in this
country are compatible, that is they use the positive pulse servo
output (actually, most use the same Signetics encoder, decoder,
and servo chips).  To be honest, I never considered incompatibility for
that reason but you may have something there, since Aristo/Expert
does not use the same chips in their servos, it would follow that
they don't use the same chips in thier radios either.

If anything is an oddball in your list, its probably the JR.

I've had absolutely no problems going between my Futaba AM Tx and
my Ace and Tower (Sanwa, I suspect) receivers.  Maybe there's
something different in the various FM schemes?

Also, I have a mix of Futaba, Ace, Tower, Royal, and Airtronics
servos, with no compatibility problems.  Though the Futaba center
seems very slightly different than the others. 

>Last but not least - does the $27 include any connectors?  What kind
>of servo connectors does Aristo/Expert have?  Are they the same as
>Futaba, JR, or Airtronics?

Connectors are a goodie.  I've routinely clipped the leads on my
servos and installed Deans connectors.  I was using the Ace standard
connections on my Deans connectors: Positive, Negative, and
Signal.  I just started switching to the Airtronics standard of
Negative, Positive, Signal with my last installation.  This is so
I can use my Airtronics servos without clipping the leads and
putting on a Deans.

You can connect up a Deans and Airtronics connector, but you
can't get the Deans into the Airtronics slots in my Tower
receiver, which uses the Airtronics standard.   I anticipate that
I won't be able to connect my other servos to the Airtronics
receiver when I get it because of this problem.  I'm hoping that
somewhere along the line I'll come across a batch of Airtronics
connectors, and I'll be able to change everything to that.   Last
order to Tower I almost bought their 12" extensions for that
purpose, but I found higher priority goodies  (translated: I ran
out of money).

I should add that when you hook up the Ace standard to the
Airtronics standard, the servo smokes real good. Lucky it was a
Royal servo that I use only for throttle.  I doesn't seem to be
hurt by this misuse, and I even took it apart to see what
produced the cloud.  Looked ok. 

>>Last but not least - does the $27 include any connectors?  What kind
>>of servo connectors does Aristo/Expert have?  Are they the same as
>>Futaba, JR, or Airtronics?
>
>Connectors are a goodie.  I've routinely clipped the leads on my
>servos and installed Deans connectors.  I was using the Ace standard
...

OK - I'm still confused about the servo connectors.  I might have just
missed the answer in all the other details.

Does the Aristo/Expert receiver have Airtronics servo connector blocks?

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================

Sorry about that, kind of confusing when someone doesn't answer a
question straight out...

I don't know what connectors the receiver uses...but based on my
Aristo servo (junk) it uses the Ace standard and an
Airtronics-like connector.  What I was trying to say is that up
until now I've paid no attention to connectors, but have
converted everything to Ace/Deans straight off.  I know there's
at least one Aristo/Expert radio out there (Bob, are you there?),
so maybe an owner can describe the connectors for us. 

I can say that absolute interchangeability and compatibility is a
number 1 priority for me.

Actually, its a relatively simple operation to convert a
connector block to short pigtails for each servo, at that price
I'd have no qualms, given that everything else works right.  Your
raising the question about FM compatibility has wondering me if
its such a good plan after all...Maybe one of the low-end PCM
rigs is the way to go. 

    I just got my new 5 channel PCM from Tower today (1991 radio) It's
    got a switchable failsafe and battery failsafe. However they fail
    to mention how to properly set up the throttle and other servo
    failsafe presets. Anybody out there have any experiance with this?
    I'll play with it more tonight, but so far it makes no sense.
    
    
    
    						Dave
    

RE:    < Note 829.17 by TARKIN::HARTWELL "Dave Hartwell" >

    I also recently purchased a 5UAP from tower, and was wondering, Dave,
    if your radio came with a receiver that apparently has slots enough for
    9 channels.  Does Futaba simply use similar cases with different models
    of receiver, or is the receiver really nine channels?

    Later,

    Don

    I just looked into the Tower catalog, Mine came with a R129DP if
    I remember correctly. Or it's a R128DP. In either case tower lists
    these as 9 and 8 channel PCM receivers respectively... 
    
    It also turns out that this is the same receiver that Futaba is
    selling with it's 9VAP/9VHP 9 channel radio.  Why their shipping
    this one is beyond me. 
    
    Got any thoughts on the failsafe yet??
    
    Also the Xmitter weighs a tad more than the old 5NLP PCM I have,
    I wonder why? Gotta pull the back cover off tonight.
    
    
    
    							Dave
     

    John,
    	You've got it wrong!  Of coarse fail safe doesn't prevent crashing.
    It at least lets the thing go to low throttle.  Fail safe does NOT
    happen due to glitches!  It only happens if the receiver gets NO
    good frames for one complete second like if you turn your transmitter
    off.  It won't do it even if you have interference if your signal
    is sometimes getting through enough to give a good frame here and
    there.  If a guy had his system fail safe he would have crashed
    from interference anyway, probably sooner.  I saw a plane fly away
    this summer (It still hasn't been found) due to pure and simple
    radio failure.  It circled at full throttle until it was so high
    you couldn't see it.  I'm sure that guy wishes he had PCM with
    failsafe.  At least he might have had something to repair after
    it crashed at low throttle.  Also, there was the risk of the plane
    comming down on a highway or hurting someone.  The thing could have
    come down over 10 miles away.  How many fields are 10 miles from
    civilization?
    
    CHarlie
    

    Charlie, John,
    
    I prefer to "go-naked," thank you very much.  Fly-aways are so rare
    nowadays (I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a fly-away
    but I think it was in the PRE digital-proportional radio days.) that,
    if that's it's _primary_ advantage, I see failsafe as no advantage
    whatsoever, merely another misrepresented bell/whistle.  
    
    As both of you [and I] agree, failsafe **_WILL_NOT_** save an airplane
    in 99% of the situations and, indeed, as often as not, it prevents
    the pilot from effecting a save.  No thanks!!  If, in the future,
    when I purchase one of the "latest/greatest" radios, one thing it
    MUST have is switchable failsafe so I can opt NOT to use it or,
    preferrably, no failsafe at all. 

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

    The failsafe on the Futaba 5NLP PCM is not switchable and ONLY shuts
    down the throttle to a preset position of about 1/5 open. Other
    control surfaces are not affected other than they freeze in their
    current position rather than jitter. 
    
    The newer 1024 Futaba PCM 5UAP unit has switchable failsafe for
    interference, and for low receiver battery voltage. Here
    there is an adjustment that you can make that will determine what
    you want the throttle set to as a default. Again all other servos
    in the case of interference hold their current position during
    interference. During low battery voltage only the throttle goes
    to preset position, all others operate normally. In case the
    low battery failsafe becomes enabled, it can be immediatly reset
    by setting the throttle at minimum, whereby complete throttle
    control is re-enabled.
    
    One day I played with my older Futaba PCM in conjunction with creating
    interference with another Futaba radio on a different channel, but
    with it's antenna extended next to the plane. The PCM transmitter
    was about 20 feet away from the plane with it's antenna collasped.
    If I moved the antennas around just right, I could get the throttle
    failsafe to turn off and on, however other than short moments where
    the other servo's would freeze, all control surfaces responded to
    the inputs from the PCM transmitter. Inputs from the AM transmitter
    did nothing as expected.
    
    I suppose that failsafe could nail you if it enabled on takeoff,
    but it can help you in other situations. Especially people like
    myself that hav'nt been flying long enough to experiance all the
    woes of interference and such.
    
    
    Your probably right Al, not too often that a ship flys away.
    But If today was the day that it was decided that YOUR ship
    was going to fly away do to a battery oversight or failure
    would'nt you rather have a better chance of keeping it.
    
    
    
    						Dave
    

    Fail safe just keeps the reciever from sending the servos to their
    extremes of travel, in the event of loss of signal, optionally setting
    the throttle servo, and/or others to some specifc postion.  If you
    happen to be at the bottom of a dive, when the failsafe activates, it
    will quite happily keep the plane in its current attidute until it
    crashes.

    A TRUE failsafe needs some sort of Gyroscopic input so that in the event
    of a failure it can level the plane, maybe in a wide spiral.  Anything
    else would only be of benefit if you were alread flying straight and
    level.  I don't know of anyone who makes such a device.  Maybe someone
    should.

    I haven't flown PCM yet but I am a firm believer because I know
    how they work.  I just purchased an Airtronics Spectra PCM and I
    have played with the failsafe.  It is programmable from do nothing
    and hold last position to put all controls in any desired position.
    PCM acts like a very good noise 'filter'.  It ignores noise and
    concentrates on the good signal if at all possible.  Non-PCM systems
    can't do this because they can't tell a good signal from an interfering
    one.
    
    Charlie
    

Does anyone have a circuit that applies failsafe on one channel
with loss of signal?  I know I've seen one around, and that
they're not trivial; might be worth the trouble to cook one up
from a schematic.

I have nightmares about my Eaglet flying off into the sunset...

    
 RE: .30 -
    I too am surprised at the criticisms of failsafe.  If done properly
    it can only help you to save your plane.  By "properly", I mean
    that the failsafe only kicks in when there is no meaningful control
    and goes to idle and either neutral control or whatever the controls
    were at when it happened.  
    
    I have no personal experience with it but it sure sounds like an
    idea who's time has come.  It's just a matter of time before all
    systems will have it (and _should_ !!!).  This is not a bell and
    whistle, it's an important safety feature.
    
RE: .31 - John,
    For the non-PCM systems it isn't too complicated, especially if
    you just want to detect the absence of signal.  I would think
    you would also want to detect too many signals (such as someone
    turned on your frequency), which is a little more complicated
    but here's an idea I've kicked around for a while...
    
                          ____    
                         |    |
                         | OS |
                         | #1 |
   THROTTLE_PULSES H ---->    |o------------- MISSING_PULSE H
     (from receiver)  |  |    |
                      |   ----
                      |   ____      ----
                      |  |    |    |    |
                      |  | OS |----|D  Q|---- EXTRA_PULSE H
                      |  | #2 |    | FF1|
                      |-->    |  ,->C   |
                      |  |    |  | |    |
                      |   ----   |  ----
                      `----------'
    

    OS #1 and #2 are retriggerable one-shots, rising-edge triggered.  #1 is
    set to time out slightly past the normal period of the pulses.  #2 is
    set to time out slightly before the normal period.
    
    If a pulse is missing then OS #1 will time out and assert MISSING_PULSE.
    If a pulse comes along before OS #2 times out then the D flip/flop
    will assert EXTRA_PULSE.
    
    There are several things you can do with these two signals.  You
    can use another one-shot and require them to happen for a certain period
    of time before going failsafe, or you can use them directly to go
    failsafe (on any glitch).  I think it's safest to wait for these
    signals to happen for a certain amount of time, such as...

                                     +
                          ____       |  -----
                         |    |      | |     |
                         | OS |      `-|D   Q|---- FAILSAFE H
    MISSING_PULSE        | #3 |        | FF2 |
    -or- EXTRA_PULSE ---->    |o------->C    |
     (can't draw       | |    |        |  R  |
        OR gate)       |  ----          --o--
                       |                  |
                       `------------------'

    
    One-shot #3 is set to the interval (say 1 second) that you want the
    missing or extra pulses to be present before going failsafe.  Note
    that as soon as normal pulses are seen FF2 gets reset and FAILSAFE
    gets deasserted (you regain normal throttle control).
    
    Now all you do is use FAILSAFE to select a mux which will either
    pass the normal throttle pulses on the the throttle servo or pulses
    that you generate...
    
    
                               --.
    THROTTLE_PULSES H --------|0  \
                               \2:1\_____________ To Throttle Servo
                               /MUX/
    FAILSAFE_PULSES H --------|1  /
                               --'
                                |
           FAILSAFE H ----------'

    
    The failsafe pulses can be generated fairly simply with a couple
    more one-shots (God I hate those things but they sure can be
    useful!)...
    
    
    
                          ____         ----
                         |    |       |    |
       FAILSAFE H        | OS |       | OS |---- FAILSAFE_PULSES H
          -and-          | #4 |       | #5 |
    FAILSAFE_PULSES L  -->    |o------>    |o--- FAILSAFE_PULSES L
  (can't draw AND gate)  |    |       |    |
                          ----         ----

    OS #4 is set to roughly what the servo expects to see for time
    between pulses.  OS #5 is tweaked to give you the throttle position
    you want when it goes failsafe.  When FAILSAFE is asserted, this
    thing just keeps retriggering itself and generating fake throttle
    pulses.

    Obviously you need to add all the proper design considerations such
    as bypassing, buffering (on the receiver output in particular),
    etc.  When choosing parts I'd try to use CMOS wherever possible to
    keep power drain to a minimum.
    
    Looks like about a half-dozen chips plus discretes.  The reason
    I've never tried doing it is that I figure the circuit will be
    less reliable than the system itself, since it would be home-made.
    Maybe that's not too big a deal on the throttle servo but I never
    convinced myself it was really worth it.  I figure when my radios
    die I'll replace them with systems that have it built in, and until
    then live without it (as I have to this point).

    Any other ideas?  Anybody see any major bugs in this?  Is this what
    you were looking for John?
    
    Bill

    P.S. sorry about the long-windedness but since I've been automatically
    extracting new notes and mailing them to myself I don't get into
    this conference much anymore.  Figured that since I'm here I might
    as well stay a while!!!

        Re:< Note 829.33 by GIDDAY::CHADD "Go Fast; Turn Left" >

        John,
        
                Let me  try  this  one.    You  have  a  choice when your
        receiver  and  transmitter  stop  communicating.    You  have  to
        understand that glitches are olmost  always  of  short  duration,
        typically 1 to 2 seconds.
        
               1) Without failsafe  your  receiver will pick up any noise
        on its frequency and  try  to  interpret  it.    Result is wildly
        fluttering  controls,  ot  controls  locked  at  their  extremes.
        Consequence is plane totally out of  control and probably a pilot
        having  a hard time recovering even after the receiver  locks  in
        again.  I have been the vectim of these kinds of problems several
        times.    Three times I have crashed planes on approaches due  to
        3IM because the servos went wild.
        
                2) On a glitch the plane  holds the controls, potentially
        throttles back, and when the receiver locks in again you are in a
        position resembling the one you were in before the glitch.
        
                I have never expected my failsafe to act  as an autopilot
        and land the plane for me, that's ludicrous, but  simply  get  me
        safely  through  a  glitch.    I  would  love an AM  failsafe  as
        described in .-2, but I can't build one myself.
        
                      _ 
                     / |
        |  _====____/==|
        |-/____________|
        |    |        o \
             O           \ 
                          O
         Hang in there! o_|_
                          |
             Anker      \_|_/

Allright Bill; that's the ticket.  I'll put everything into a
schematic and have a good look at it.  Got my CMOS book on the
shelf there just dying to be used.  I've also got two hot
projects on my desk, choices!

Half a dozen chips is too much real estate for me; I'd like to
see 3 at maximum.  Actually, the missing pulse detector and the
failsafe position generator are not what was worrying me; it was
the logic to switch between the regular signal and the failsafe
signal that I couldn't do. You've indicated how to do that
nicely. 

I have a simple missing pulse detector with an op amp that I can
use, and I can put the missing pulse generator in a 555, no
problem.

Drat! I know that I have another circuit for that function laying
around somewhere...

RE .-1

        It seems to me that a simple missing pulse detector won't work very
        well for most interference situations since the problem is an over
        abundance of pulses rather than a lack of them. In addition to the
        missing pulse detector (for detecting a dying transmitter), how
        about adding a couple re-triggerable one-shots. The first one would
        be re-triggered by an incoming pulse (any channel should work) and
        would be set to time out only if the time between successive pulses
        was long enough. The second one-shot would be triggered by the
        first one and would have a period of maybe .5 to 1 sec or whatever
        seems reasonable. Normally, the first one-shot would time out once
        a frame and trigger the second one shot. The second one would never
        time out since it's being re-triggered once a frame. If some
        interference crops up then the first one-shot will start seeing
        pulses come in too fast, it will keep being re-triggered so it and
        won't time out and re-trigger the second one-shot. If the
        interference persists then the second one-shot will time out after it's
        longer delay, which would turn on the fail-safe. This way you could
        handle both the "transmitter dead" and the "outside glitches"
        cases. What do ya think? 

                     !
                   --+--
G. Schrader     o___<0>___o    CSS::SCHRADER
                  *  *  *

    
    Re .-1  sounds good since it does extra pulses and missing pulses,
    plus duration with only a couple one-shots.  Keep it coming, we'll
    get this down to a few chips eventually!
    
    One thing we haven't considered is what the receiver does to the
    pulse train before passing it on to the servos.  I know one of the
    decoder chips has a one-shot built in, I think to guarantee that
    there is a minimum time between streams of pulses.  It may be that
    the receiver does the extra pulse detection for you.  Then a
    simple missing pulse circuit would be enough.
    
    I would say this would be a fun winter project but it seems there
    will be no winter this year here in the east.  Charlie and I are
    going to Utah in February just to get in some skiing on REAL snow!!
    
    Bill

If the failsafe is inserted between the decoder output and the
servo (just to make sure we're all talking about the same thing),
it sees one pulse that varies between 1.0 and 2.0 milliseconds at
an interval of about 15 milliseconds.  Believe me, the servo is
very particular about the spacing of this pulse -- I lost about 4
months finding that out.

Assuming that we're talking falisafe on only one channel, I don't
see any reason to go failsafe when you're getting hit.  Your
throttle might be happy, but the rest of the controls are going
crazy.  I think that trying to fix this condition will bring in
more chips than is worth it.  

After I saw Bill's circuit I went to a very exciting DECmeeting,
and realized that I can duplicate the switch logic with two AND
gates, an OR gate, and an inverter.  With a little luck I can get
the whole mess into a single NAND or NOR chip.  That leaves a
dual 555 to provide the missing pulse detector (a simple
modification to the standard circuit), and the failsafe pulse.
Two chips, gang, or is ignorance bliss?

    
    Well, the 2:1 mux would be a single chip also, and would have less
    external wiring than using a quad NAND chip.  There is one advantage
    to using a NAND chip however.  Since you should buffer the signal on
    the way in, you could use something with a Schmitt trigger input like
    an LS24 (quad 2-input NAND), which might serve both the receiving and
    driving requirements quite well.  Four NAND gates would of course
    perform the muxing for you.
    
    The argument in favor of failsafe when you are getting hit is that
    an out-of-control model with throttle off is better than an
    out-of-control model with full throttle.  Also I'm still not sure
    that when you go out of range you can bank on not getting any pulses
    from the receiver.  Worth an experiment?
    
    With 555's you can probably do it with two chips plus discretes.
    Give it a try!  By the way - I've seen some 555's vary a lot with
    temperature.  Make sure you test it over the expected temperature range!
    
    Bill

    I guess this sorta belongs here... Any rate I have been in the slow
    process of putting in a new Futaba 5UAP PCM radio into my cougar.
    During this process, several things occured which I think is great
    with this radio. First receiver battery fail safe. I took the unit
    out of the box and installed it into the plane very carefully wrapping
    the receiver in 1/2" thick foam and sealing it in a snug fitting
    plastic bag. Why spend all this energy, to make it more crash proof
    in the event of a mishap (interference of course). At any rate while
    playing with the controls with throttle wide open I noticed that
    almost suddenly, the servo response slowed down, within 30 seconds
    of me still playing with the sticks the throttle shut down, and
    stayed at it's preset (you set it) state. All other controls continued
    to work without interuption. By throttling back I could once again
    gain throttle control for another minute or so until failsafe came
    back on. The other nice part of the radio is that all 4 channels
    have something called ATV adjustable travel volume. With this you
    can limit the full swing of the servo from center to both directions.
    A toy you say, well yes but I hooked up all my linkages, and never
    had to move them again trying to get the proper throws on the control
    surfaces. Just measured what I wanted for deflection and dialed
    it in. In addition the rudder would deflect 1/4" more in one direction
    than the other. No problem, fixed in 5 seconds. Getting more bold
    and want more up or down elevator, no problem dial it in. This is
    also independent of the dual rates which also work as past dual
    rates work.
    
    I like it, I like it.....
    
    
    
    						Dave
    

    I kind of see the point that if one is going to spend serious money
    on a radio system that the system purchased be 1991 spec'ed. However
    there are exceptions...... case in point.
    
    I have two aircraft radios and one helo radio. I fine that having one
    aircraft radio dedicated to a pattern bird and the second to a good
    flying sport ship I need an additional radio for a beater ship of
    float flying or combat ship etc...... So what is a guy to do? 
    
    I have been looking at radios of late. At  the Wram show I checked
    out all of the new JR line of radios. 1991 spec'ed. I I were to
    purchase one of these systems I would spend 200 - 850 dollars and
    then have to use one of my present radios as the beater. I have
    two century VII's and can't see turning one of them into a beater.
    So again I ask. What am I to do?
    
    
    Here's what I did.
    
    The cost of purchase of a flight pack with a minimum of four channels,
    four servos,battery and odds and ends is 100+ dollars. Purchased
    individually the cost is greater. So in my case it is wise to puchase
    the base system that JR is presently selling. Presently it is on
    sale for 95.00. If you went to the Wram show you should know that
    you could have picked up a 10.00 discount ticket at the JR booth.
    So this brings the cost of the system to 85.00. Granted the system
    has only three servos but after adding the fourth servo and shipping
    the cost to my door is still only 119.00. If I then use this system
    for the remaining two years before 1991 and then throw away the
    transmitter and receiver I still have app 100.00 of equipment. If
    your not planning on changing brands of radio in 1991 then the purchase
    of a simple system can be a smart move in this interum period.
    
    
    Tom

    
>>    for the remaining two years before 1991 and then throw away the
>>    transmitter and receiver I still have app 100.00 of equipment. If
>>    your not planning on changing brands of radio in 1991 then the purchase
>>    of a simple system can be a smart move in this interum period.

    Here's the other side of the coin.  Let's assume a cheap 1991 system
    costs $200 and will still cost the same in 1991.  Then in 1991 you
    will have spent $319 instead of $200 and the difference is that
    you have four extra servos and a flight pack battery in addition
    to your 1991 system.  If you need that, fine - but you could have gotten
    the 1991 system _now_ for $200 and wouldn't have to spend the $200
    in 1991 (when you're probably going to want to buy a nicer system
    for your good planes and keep the cheap system for the "beater").
    If I was buying a cheapo today I'd still pay more to get a cheapo
    1991 system.
    
    Of course, you will win big if the 1991 systems get much less expensive in
    a couple years.  It seems that they should, but who knows what will
    happen when people are _forced_ to buy the new ones.  The demand
    may actually drive the prices higher.  Tough one to call.
    
    There are other advantages to your approach, such as having an extra
    transmitter laying around in case you need parts (like a joystick
    pot) or if you can get it upgraded to 1991 standards at a reasonable
    cost.

    Bill
    

    Bill, My head is at the part where I'd like to buy the new computer
    10 but a 750.00 a pop I can't afford it right now. This way I'm
    sure I'll have the extra servos and battery anyways...
    
    
    Tom

    As a fellow Galaxy-8 owner, I too am very pleased with the system and
    wouldn't trade for anything.  But no because of it cost but because of
    convenience.  I've got three planes on it now - one on AM with a PPM
    transmitter module and the other two on PCM, and guess what I only have
    to take one transmitter to the field!  The transmitter modules are a
    lot smaller than a whole new transmitter box!
    
    Now lets talk price and 1991.  As I understand it only the ABC&W
    receivers from JR are 1991 legal, for the Galaxy-8 thats $174.99 a
    pop!  Add 4 servos (JR 505 Standad) a 1200mah pack and switch harness and
    you've climbed to $242.96, hardly what I'd call a bargain!
    
    Don't get me wrong, I think the concept is great and I hate to lug all
    that extra stuff around particularly extra transmitters.  But the price
    for convenience is stiff.  My solution is to stay with the cheaper non
    1991 receivers and bite the bullet when the time comes.  When it does
    I'll already have my transmitter, servos and battery wired into the
    plane AND I wont have to change anything except the receiver, even the
    transmitter settings for servo reverse, ATV, etc. will remain the same!
    
                --|--             Happy (con)Trails!
                 (O)             
          _______/ \_______       Scott Cox
    

        Re:< Note 829.47 by PEE47::COX "So Speedy, how do we get zeez brains?" >

                The major  drawbacks  to  multiple  planes  on  the  same
        transmitter are:   single  point of failure - transmitter down or
        out of juice and you are dead - even worse is transmitter broken!
        The other is that at  times  you  find one or two frequencies are
        very busy and have long waits  - if you have multiple planes on a
        transmitter Murphy will make sure your frequency is crowded!
        
                      _ 
                     / |
        |  _====____/==|
        |-/____________|
        |    |        o \
             O           \ 
                          O
         Hang in there! o_|_
                          |
             Anker      \_|_/

>    So again I ask. What am I to do?
...
>    individually the cost is greater. So in my case it is wise to puchase
>    the base system that JR is presently selling. Presently it is on
>    sale for 95.00. If you went to the Wram show you should know that
...
>    the cost to my door is still only 119.00. If I then use this system
>    for the remaining two years before 1991 and then throw away the
>    transmitter and receiver I still have app 100.00 of equipment. If
>    your not planning on changing brands of radio in 1991 then the purchase
>    of a simple system can be a smart move in this interum period.
>    
>    
>    Tom

I just spent 99 for a Futaba Attack that they claim to be 1991 compatible?

I say claim only because only Airtronics Radios are Certified by independent
labs as per the AMA rule.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================

    I thought airtronics had a cheapo 100-130 dollar 4 channel radio
    that was 1991 certified???
    
    Also I want to through in a plug for Radios with lots of adjustment.
    
    I was installing the radio in my LJMP Pantera this weekend, it is
    a 120" glider with glass fuse.  
    
    Anyway the rudder pushrod is all contained in the fuselage and exits
    right at the rudder post. I plugged in the rudder and gave the stick
    a twist and WOW about 4 inches of travel each way and it was not
    even in both directions.
    
    So pull out the handy Dandy little tweaker tool and set the LEFT
    and Right Alieron settings to about 2 Inches each way.  NOW this
    is slick!!!!!!
    
    I have never had a radio with these capabilities and I am enjoying
    it fully!!!!
    
    Oh yes it is a Airtronics MD7SP (MoDule, 7 channel, SailPlane).
    
    The only way to go!!!
    

>    I thought airtronics had a cheapo 100-130 dollar 4 channel radio
>    that was 1991 certified???

Nope - their $100 dollar radios are AM and none of the Airtronics
AM are 1991 - only FM and PCM.
    
>    Oh yes it is a Airtronics MD7SP (MoDule, 7 channel, SailPlane).
>    
>    The only way to go!!!

I agree and wish I had one - but waiting for a SP equivalent with
PCM and multiple plane memory - Airtronics promises any year
now - also want a single stick.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================
    

    I ordered the same radio from Hobby Lobby for $119.99 plus shipping.
    Should be in tonight or tomorrow.
    
    
    Steve

Here's some of the latest gossip from the UUCP net about 1991 stuff.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

Article         2518
From: roberth@tc.fluke.COM (Robert Huggins)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: Futaba Radios
Date: 15 May 90 21:25:17 GMT
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
 
In article <1990May11.154310.6361@dcdwest.uucp> plb@dcdwest.uucp (Phil Blais) writes:
>For all you Futaba bashers out there (you know who you are) :-) this
>months Model Aviation lists a number of Futaba radios which have been
>certified for '91.
>
Yeah, and they don't list the Attack 4 as 1991 ready even though it is
advertised as being 1991 ready.  Then Futaba comes out and says they have
an upgrade program to make the Attack 4 1991 ready when it is already
supposed to be.  Wonders never cease.

Article         2521
From: jahr@hprnd.HP.COM (Steve Jahr)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: Futaba Radios
Date: 14 May 90 16:36:06 GMT
Organization: Old Programmers Home
 
/ hprnd:rec.models.rc / plb@dcdwest.uucp (Phil Blais) /  8:43 am  May 11, 1990 /
 
>For all you Futaba bashers out there (you know who you are) :-) this
>months Model Aviation lists a number of Futaba radios which have been
>certified for '91.
 
That's great!  Just two questions:
 
    Why did it take soooo long?
 
    Where's the upgrade program for current Futaba owners?
 
My own answer to number two was a Sheldon's/RCD receiver, and from what
I have heard about numbers sold and experienced in backorder (2 months)
I would guess quite a few other Futaba owners have gone this route too.
 
Steve 'Futaba basher/owner' Jahr
--------------------------------

Article         2533
From: waters@darla.sps.mot.com (Strawberry Jammer)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: Futaba Radios
Date: 16 May 90 20:57:27 GMT
Sender: usenet@dover.sps.mot.com
Organization: Hacker's haven
 
In article <2080058@hprnd.HP.COM> jahr@hprnd.HP.COM (Steve Jahr) writes:
{/ hprnd:rec.models.rc / plb@dcdwest.uucp (Phil Blais) /  8:43 am  May 11, 1990 /
{
{>For all you Futaba bashers out there (you know who you are) :-) this
{>months Model Aviation lists a number of Futaba radios which have been
{>certified for '91.
{
{That's great!  Just two questions:
{
{    Why did it take soooo long?
 
According to the letter one of our members got from Futaba, it was because
they wanted to test the units thoroughly. I'm just glad they finally DID come
through though!
 
{    Where's the upgrade program for current Futaba owners?
 
They claim almost every TX sold since 1988 meets the specs as shipped (they
give model numbers in the letter). I believe the cost is for the new RX.
I agree that the upgrades leave a lot of people who bought Futaba "out in the
cold" though.
 
{My own answer to number two was a Sheldon's/RCD receiver, and from what
{I have heard about numbers sold and experienced in backorder (2 months)
{I would guess quite a few other Futaba owners have gone this route too.
 
I am one of them, and VERY happy with the units.
           *Mike Waters    AA4MW/7  waters@dover.sps.mot.com *
 
There is no right way to do wrong.
 

Article         2534
From: irwin@m.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: Help! Some questions on RC equi
Date: 16 May 90 14:46:00 GMT
 
 
/* Written  9:32 am  May 15, 1990 by joe@dayton.UUCP in m.cs.uiuc.edu:rec.models.rc */
/* ---------- "Re: Help! Some questions on RC equi" ---------- */
In article <40800093@m.cs.uiuc.edu> irwin@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>>>>	8_ What are the danger of using a non-91 ready radio in 1991 ?
>>
>>I will share it with you, what insurance company, (not AMA)
>>is going to cover you in the event of a mishap, if you are
>>flying with an illegal radio?????????
 
>This is a good point.  So:
 
>1. How do we tell if our equipment is "legal"?
 
>2. My radio was purchased in '87.  Futaba.  If not 91-legal, can it
>   be modified so that it is?
 
>3. Is the only reason for the change to allow for more frequencies
>   in crowded areas?  If so, grumble, grumble.  I fly alone, about
>   15 miles from the nearest flying club.  Suddenly all of us solo
>   pilots are illegally operating?  Ug.
-- 
>UUCP: rutgers!dayton!joe   (Picts 1-16 are   DHDSC - Joe Larson/MIS 1060
>ATT : (612) 375-3537       now ready.)       700 on the Mall, Mpls, Mn. 55402
/* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:rec.models.rc */
 
Joe, you can send your system to Futaba, have the transmitter checked,
corrected if needed, and you should obtain a dual conversion tight
spec receiver, to replace the one you have.
 
Though you fly 15 miles out in the boone docks, you just might be more
at risk than one who flys in a club.
 
Most clubs try to stay on top of the situation, and know what is going
on in their locality. Our club uses a band scanner and we know where
the local pagers are on the spectrum.
 
Where you are, there just MIGHT be a pager located just 10Khz from the
channel you use, and it just MIGHT shoot you down one day.
 
We have listened to these pagers, and the most often repeated messages
are, "call the office" or "Dr. XYZ, call your answering service."
 
By the way, you say "suddenly you are illegal", it is not suddenly,
the plan was conceived and put in motion about 8 years ago. It has
been slowly being phased in, (the plan that is), as better systems
became available. The problem is that most modelers put off doing
anything about it, until the "last damn minute." And, to add insult
to all of this, the manufacturers continued to empty out their stock
in their warehouses by selling them to the modelers, after they knew
that they would become illegal and would not meet specs. In fact, 
I would bet that a "new" system could still be purchased that does
not meet specs. The advice is, MODELER BEWARE, know what you are
getting.
 
Al Irwin
irwin@m.cs.uiuc.edu

Article         2537
From: jahr@hprnd.HP.COM (Steve Jahr)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: Correction (was Re: Help! Some questions on RC equipment (long.)
Date: 16 May 90 16:18:26 GMT
Organization: Old Programmers Home
 
Joseph Larson writes:
 
>In article <40800093@m.cs.uiuc.edu> irwin@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>>>>	8_ What are the danger of using a non-91 ready radio in 1991 ?
>>
>>I will share it with you, what insurance company, (not AMA)
>>is going to cover you in the event of a mishap, if you are
>>flying with an illegal radio?????????
>
>This is a good point.  So:
>
>1. How do we tell if our equipment is "legal"?
>
>2. My radio was purchased in '87.  Futaba.  If not 91-legal, can it
>   be modified so that it is?
 
I am in a similar position (87 Futaba 4FG)... so I'll tell you what I 
plan to do about it.
 
First we must understand that there are two parts to "91": the Tx and
the Rx.  The Tx is the one that the FCC cares about and thus is also
the one which makes us illegal.  The Tx is also typically easier to
make compliant, many AM radios (possibly FM too) can be made 91 
compliant with a simple RF module adjustment.  Sometimes you can
get your Tx checked out at a hobby show, if it complies with 91
specs you get a gold sticker.
 
The Rx is actually the most important part of 91... *even though
nobody is forcing you to change*.  Unfortunately the only way to get
the Rx 91'ed is to replacement it with a new narrow band *dual
conversion* receiver.  In my case I went with a Sheldon's/RCD Rx
(which also got me 7 channel capability with a few Tx modifications (: ).
If you go this route, expect a long wait.  Mine was backordered 2 
months.  Perhaps this has gotten better now that they raised the
price ): 
 
>3. Is the only reason for the change to allow for more frequencies
>   in crowded areas?  If so, grumble, grumble.  I fly alone, about
>   15 miles from the nearest flying club.  Suddenly all of us solo
>   pilots are illegally operating?  Ug.
 
The answer to this one is *NO*.  Even with the new additional frequencies
there are other RF spectrum users *in between* the RC '91 narrow
band frequencies.  Do you know what the range of pagers is (I don't)?
They can be just one of the offenders.  In my area the local Sheriff's
and Highway Patrol also have radios which interfere with non-DC Rx's.
You may be able to get along with non-91 Rx... but is it worth the
risk of cratering your plane or worse?
 
Steve Jahr
----------

Article         2539
From: TOMQ@ncsuvm.ncsu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: Futaba Radios
Date: 17 May 90 20:42:57 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University Computing Center
 
For all of us (including me) who thought the RCD Rx es the ticket into 1991,
Maybe we should have looked at the figures more. When the RCD was $59.95 it
wasn't too bad of a deal but now it is $79.95 and I have to wonder just how
much more money do I have to come up with to get a complete radio??The
answer I found was in the Futaba 4-NBF (since I need FM) For $127.95 (Tower
I think) plus shipping I get 3 148 servos, a Rx battery pack, Backup Tx
misc radio type stuff etc. and all for less than 50 bucks more. I guess
I  depends on what you need but next time i'll buy the whole thing.
BTW I don't want to be little the RCD it works quite nicely and reliably,
Its just with the expense of servo and batteries its just not the deal I
thought it was.
Food for thought!
Tom

This seems like an appropriate place to put this tidbit...

I was looking through my latest Model Aviation (Feb '91) and ran across the
following paragraph in the "sport and aerobatics" column on page 42:

    "Before we leave the subject of narrowband/wideband equipment,
     let me caution you about one fact. The AMA publishes a list of
     transmitters and receivers which meet the AMA requirements for
     narrowband operation. However, don't rely on everything you
     read. Some of the receivers listed as narrow band don't qualify
     across the board. It is true that some of one manufacturer's
     model number receivers are narrow band if certain modifications
     have been made to them. However, other receivers with the same
     model numbers would not be narrow band if the modifications have
     not been made. You'll note that none of the receivers listed carry
     any identification other than model number. Don't assume that
     your receiver is truly narrow band just because it is on the AMA
     list. Be careful and check it out."

AAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!

Just how are you supposed to check out a reciever???? Maybe the serial
number should be above some value???? Manufactured before some date????
Better yet, just what good is the AMA reciever list anyway???? The article
gives no clue on how to find out whether a given receiver is OK, it just 
says to do it!!.

Thoroughly disgusted,

    Glenn Schrader

    I ran into the same thing while talking with the AMA. It was
    admitted that there is a problem with what's listed. Joe blow's
    receiver, model number XYZ manufactured BEFORE X date is NOT narrow
    band, but Joe Blow's SAME receiver, SAME model number XYZ manufactured
    AFTER X date IS.
    
    The bigger problem is that Joe Blow won't tell you which is which
    becuase he then wouldn't be able to sell all those non narrow band
    receivers he still has in stock.
    
    In my opinion, the AMA really stuck it to us on this one.

Ron Van Putte is great for giving out tidbits like that. If you
send him a SASE with your question, he'll probably give you the
real scoop.

Sounds like Futaba...:-)

>I was looking through my latest Model Aviation (Feb '91) and ran across the
>following paragraph in the "sport and aerobatics" column on page 42:
...
>     narrowband operation. However, don't rely on everything you
>     read. Some of the receivers listed as narrow band don't qualify
>     across the board. It is true that some of one manufacturer's
>     model number receivers are narrow band if certain modifications
>     have been made to them. However, other receivers with the same
>     model numbers would not be narrow band if the modifications have
>     not been made. You'll note that none of the receivers listed carry
>     any identification other than model number. Don't assume that
>     your receiver is truly narrow band just because it is on the AMA
>     list. Be careful and check it out."
...
>Just how are you supposed to check out a reciever???? Maybe the serial
>number should be above some value???? Manufactured before some date????
>Better yet, just what good is the AMA reciever list anyway???? The article
>gives no clue on how to find out whether a given receiver is OK, it just 
>says to do it!!.

I just read the article first myself last night.  I think this is a case
where too many people are saying too many conflicting things.  Sending mail
to the AMA may be a good idea but...

Take the statement in context - nearly every thing said in the article regarding
1991 was technically inaccurate.  He talked about flyers being OK on wide band
if they took three pins - simply not true unless they also spend time scanning
the airways to insure there are no paging systems present.

I wouldn't blame the AMA if the above statement is true.  What else could
they do?  IF (a big IF) a manufacture changes the specifications of a receiver
without changing the model number (and as far as I know receivers don't have
serial numbers) then that is just plain wrong.  But...

I seriously doubt a word of it is true.  

As to how you are suppose to check out a receiver - forget it.
If it is on the list and you purchase it NEW AND (that is a big AND)
it is dual conversion - then you have done all you can do.  If you
took it to a qualified FCC licensed technician (I am one) who is current
with the state of the art (I ain't) and has up to date test equipment
who's calibration is current (I don't) then he(she) should be able
to take the receiver apart and test it's specifications.

However - even given that there is the old rule - never touch something
that isn't broke - that is I wouldn't take apart a brand new receiver
and start fiddling with it and expect it to be BETTER when I am done.

This article did nothing to help the current radio knowledge base and
has cast doubt about the AMA's testing program, radio vendors ethics,
and the AMA's plans for 1991 implementation.  It seems to be against
policy (probably for legal reasons) to name names but IF (again a big IF)
some vendor X has changed a receiver model number Y such that old versions
are not 1991 compliant and new versions are 1991 compliant and the model
number is on the AMA list then it would be to the benefit of US, the
AMA, and I believe the vendor if we could all find out the vendor's
name, model number, and possibly a method of determining the difference
between the old and new internals.

When I read this last night I thought - what a dummy - write about pattern
and leave the radio information to the George M. Myers column - Radio
Techniques.

I still feel warm about the AMA and the AMA's 1991 list.
I still feel if you want a safe radio you just have to
order one that is on the list AND dual conversion.  If you pick
Futaba, JR, Airtronics, or RCD then you are in good hands.

I would add ACE to the list if and when they make the AMA list.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    Kay,

    An Rx doesn't have to be Dual Conversion to be narrow band.  There are
    plenty of 91 approved Rx's that are not Dual Conversion.  Anything made
    by JR is *NOT* Dual Conversion.


    Randy

>         <<< Note 829.60 by LEDS::COHEN "That was Zen, This is Tao" >>>
>                     -< Don't let the issues confuse you >-
>
>    Kay,
>
>    An Rx doesn't have to be Dual Conversion to be narrow band.  There are
>    plenty of 91 approved Rx's that are not Dual Conversion.  Anything made
>    by JR is *NOT* Dual Conversion.

Randy, I know you don't have to be Dual Conversion to be narrow band.   I 
re-read my note and didn't find where you would infer that meaning.

I agree - there are a few receivers on the 1991 AMA list that are not
Dual Conversion.

I won't agree that they are safe from 23 channel interference.

I disagree that JR does not make Dual Conversion receivers.  The receiver
that comes with the Galaxy 8 is Dual Conversion - but it is apparently
not on the AMA 1991 list - go figure.

I will state again for the 999 time.

1.  Get a transmitter with a gold sticker to be 1991 AMA legal.
2.  Get a receiver on the AMA list to be AMA safe.
3.  Get a dual conversion receiver to be "23 channel" (and beeper) safe.

This is easy to do.

Don't remember what topic we were in but did everyone see the chart in the
latest AMA Model Aviation that showed the frequencies for the various events
at the NATS.  The implication is you can only fly in the NATS on the selected
frequencies - for instance they divided the frequencies between several events
and if you a frequency is in the Scale event then it won't be in the Glider
event.  For me this means even if I could go this year I would have to spend
approximately $200 changing frequencies in order to fly gliders.  Hey - after
all the time before 1991 NOW they are suggesting certain frequencies for gliders
and certain frequencies for scale - too late boys.  I intend to call and 
register my protest.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    re -.1
    
    Let'um have it with both barrels Kay. I'm not going to the Nats
    this year either, but my freq. is one of the ones not allowed for
    the soaring events.
    Apparently the rumors that all events will be at the Lawrenceville
    airport are true, rather than having the soaring events 20 miles
    away as in '90.
    Last year the host club did an excellent job of freq. control with
    scanners and constant spectrum monitoring. The only incident
    occured when a kid down the street turned on chan. 52, in his house.
    
    I suspect that the decision to have all events at one site is a
    public relations ploy on the part of the AMA. After all, if ~ 1/3
    of all the entrants are not participating at the main site, it confuses
    the local media, potential spectators, etc.
     
    It will be interesting to see if the helicopter events are brought
    in from their outlying site too.
    
    Terry
    

    I have 4 radio's on three different frequencies. If I were flying
    in the nats, not one of them is in the right place.

>As to how you are suppose to check out a receiver - forget it.
>If it is on the list and you purchase it NEW AND (that is a big AND)
>it is dual conversion - then you have done all you can do.  If you

>order one that is on the list AND dual conversion.  If you pick
>Futaba, JR, Airtronics, or RCD then you are in good hands.

    Sorry, Kay,

    I read the first part, above, and didn't register the "AND", reading it
    as just "if it's on the list and you purchased it new it is dual
    conversion".  My mistake.

    I did want to point out to you that none of the JR Rx's listed (to the
    best of my knowledge, which has been known to be flawed in the past) by
    the AMA are Dual Conversion.  As you pointed out, the Galaxy is D.C., but
    it's not listed.


    Randy


    P.S. I just aquired a JR X-347, myself.

>    the AMA are Dual Conversion.  As you pointed out, the Galaxy is D.C., but
>    it's not listed.

In interesting aside - Kevin Ladd has been purchasing Galaxy 8 Dual Conversion
PCM radios to be flight packs with his JR PCM-10.  Seems like a nice 
combination.  But here's an anomaly.  According to the invite I just
read for the Phoenix Scale Qualifier - he would not be allowed to fly.

Why - because you have to sign a statement that your receiver is on the
AMA list.  An Futaba Attack AM is on the list but the JR Galaxy 8 PCM
is not and no ACE radios are on the list.

I think they have the right attitude - but the actual implementation has
problems.

Comments Al?

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    Re: .-1, Kay,
    
    I'm totally disconnected from the operation/administration of the
    Phoenix Masters Qualifier and am, therefore, unqualified to comment
    beyond saying that I'm confident this situation could be worked out
    equitably.  Similar situations could well develop at contest time and
    I'm sure the organizers have built in enough flex to deal with such
    problems in such a manner as the affected pilot could fly unless there
    is a clear and obvious danger to allowing him to do so.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

Well I called the AMA with my two complaints from the last issue if
Model Aviation.

I objected to the add for the pulse jet advertisement (gasoline with
a 3 foot flame (page 153)) and I complained that the frequency list
for the NATs was too late.  It is already 1991 and too damn late for
them to publish what frequencies we need to purchase.  I talked 
to Bob Underwood and Chip somebody.  It fell on deaf ears.  They
explained how Pattern and Pylon have always been restricted but
that fell on my deaf ears - never been in or seen NATs Pattern
or Pylon.

Anyway - they have already changed their mind about the soaring restriction
and are allowing all 50 channels this year - but next year will be different.

They say - NO problem - you have two years to change your frequencies.

If you think I'm a little mad your right.  For two years I have been changing
my frequencies.  

As far as I am concerned it is already 1991 and if they think my Sailplanes
can't be on channel 34 or my scale planes can't be on channel 38 (which
they are) then they blew it.  It is too late and I would like to encourage
all of you to at least call and register a complaint.

Adding new frequency restrictions to Scale and Soaring cannot and should
not be tolerated.

Maybe I should purchase a Futaba AM Attach channel 20 and one of those
neat pulse jets with the 3 foot flame and enter it in the AMA NATS :-)

AMA Headquarters phone number = (703)435-0750.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

Boy, that is really dumb.  They've been crowing to us for years
now about how the new channels will relieve crowding, then they
restrict the channel numbers for each purpose...

Now, the glider guiders, if they ever suspect that they will EVER
compete, EVER, EVER in the whole world, would be foolish not to
buy only frequencies on the list, which means each glider club
will be crowded around a few frequencies, same as before, maybe
even worse.

As far as pattern and scale goes, well, at least they share the
same club as us non-competition bozos, but here too, they would
be more inclined to buy frequencies on the list than not, and
here too there will be "bunching" around a few frequencies.  Glad
I sprung the extra bucks for a module radio.

Just when you think they're a bunch of good guys at AMA, they
pull a fool trick like that.   It was so dumb that I figured I
misunderstood them when I read the bit.

    Well, it looks like they're trying to cause a groundswell of demand for
    the synthisized crystal radios that are reported to be "coming"
    
    These radios will help since you just show up at the field, register
    one of the channel numbers as your frequency of the day, and fly
    without going back to the frequency board. Scary stuff or not?

>Now, the glider guiders, if they ever suspect that they will EVER
>compete, EVER, EVER in the whole world, would be foolish not to
>buy only frequencies on the list, which means each glider club
>will be crowded around a few frequencies, same as before, maybe
>even worse.

And how about these fancy new radios like the JR347, Airtronics Infinity,
and Futaba Super Seven that are made for Helicopter and Glider and
Power planes.  Very popular and very good radio - but according to the
AMA there is no RIGHT frequency for them to choose.

I loved your title.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    The AMA has really opened a Pandoras Box on this one, and the
    not-so-mythological demons are going to rise up and smite them
    mightily.
    It is perhaps asking too much for them to explain the rationale
    of the decision.
    While the larger events have had freq. restrictions for years,
    these are usually a first come/first served proposition with
    (n) entries per channel allowed. In soaring it's usually 10 per
    freq. at the nats and ~ 5 per at the regionals. Nobody seems to
    mind this system, and few if any are turned away. If the number
    of regular competitors were to suddenly increase 10X, the new policy
    might make sense.
    
    In the meantime I can only scrounge through trash cans looking for
    aerosol cans with which to make the combustion chambers of my pulse
    jet. ;^} 
    
    Terry
    

If there is a rationale, it might be that it allows them to hold
all events in the minimum of space.  The AMA has pushed a
one-location Nats in the past (for good PR), and with the recent
rebellion in the free flight ranks, this might be their effort to
hold things together.

Certainly, with the last Nats, I got the impression that the
events were held in the same relative area, and with the "Peoples
Park" that they've purchased in the Midwest, this type of
frequency control is probably mandatory.

Yes, I think they will hear it from us folks out here in RC Land!

    Re: .-1, John,
    
    That's PRECISELY why they're doing it.  You don't have to be a rocket
    scientist to see that this whole assigned frequency thing is designed
    to accomodate the AMA Nats, allowing them to cram all RC events into
    the same general area.
    
    What it seems impossible for the "Good Ol' Boys" at AMA HG to
    understand (even though Bob Underwood's Feb. column in M.A. states it
    in spades) is that an **_EXTREMELY_** small percentage of AMA members
    participate in the Nats (and that number dwindles yearly) or
    competition in general.  I've forgotten the exact number but only
    approximately 8900 AMA members competed in ALL contest events (includes
    U-control, free-flight, Peanut scale, et al) through September of 1990.
    
    A simple calculation shows that this number represents less than 5% of
    the 160K AMA membership. Yet, to selfishly accomodate their AMA Nats,
    our AMA leadership(?) is MORE than willing to inconvenience the
    remaining 95% of their membership.  Shame, SHAME on this narrow-minded
    bunch of losers.  Somehow, I have a sneaking suspiscion that _this_ one
    is gonna' bite 'em in the shorts!  (I certainly HOPE so.)
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

I don't mind their rationale - what gripes me is their timing.

We (I) were forced into upgrading our radios and making all our
frequency decisions before 1-Jan-1991 and I did.

Now one month later they say "No problem - you have two years to
change your frequencies".

My goal is to complain loud enough and often enough during the 
next two years that I change their NATs frequency chart for Scale
and Sailplanes.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    Now you guys have confused me.  I thought the frequency restrictions
    only applied to people who were competing in AMA events.

    They're saying "If you want to go to the Nats, and you fly aircraft type
    X, these are the channels you will be allowed to use".

    What's the problem?  As Al says, they're inconveniencing only 5% of the
    flyers (and really, it's less than that, since some of the 5% will
    already have the right channel).

    And anyway, with plug in Tx modules, it's really not that much a problem
    to switch channels.  I was actually thinking of buying a spare Tx Module
    and Rx for my 347 so I could switch channels at the field if I wanted
    to.


    Can someone explain what it is that I'm missing here?


    Randy

    re. 77
     I don't think your missing anything Randy, but the controversy
    arises over the fact that '91 introduces the odd channels, allowing
    nearly double the number of fliers at a given time and place, without
    freq. conflict, while at the same time the AMA cuts back on the
    number of freqs. to be allowed at a given time and place, i.e.
    the Nats. How many other regional events will chose to try this
    ploy ?
    
    The number of AMA members competing  vs. non-competitors is not
    as significant as the fact that AMA competition is the heart and
    soul, IMHO, of the AMA's reason for existance and is probably why
    it has survived and expanded over the years. Competition
    attracts interest, new members, more sunday/sport fliers, a few
    of whom will go on to sanctioned competition, keeping the cycle
    going, etc.
    
    Anything that riles the small percentage of members who compete
    ripples down through the organization out of proportion to their
    numbers perhaps, and this is true in any sport/hobby organization.
    
    Terry
    

    Re: .-1, Terry,
    
    I disagree with only one point in .-1, namely that the Nats, ergo
    competition is the primary factor contributing to the
    existance/survival of the AMA.  In my opinion, the REAL sole reason the
    AMA hasn't dried up and joined the dinosaur in extinction is INSURANCE!
    Were it possible for us as a whole or in groups to obtain good,
    inexpensive liability/property damage insurance, I predict the AMA
    would vanish within a few years!
    
    Unfortunately, that would not necessarily be good as we'd lose our
    power gained from numbers and, therefore, our lobby in critical issues
    such as frequency acquisition.  Bad as the current 50-channel,
    secondary user scheme we presently have may be, there's a better than
    even chance that we RC'ers would have NOWHERE to fly, frequency-wise,
    were it not for the AMA lobbying on behalf of a LARGE membership when
    allocations were being reshuffled over the past 20 or so years. 
    Business/industry would simply LOVE to have our frequencies on almost
    any terms and very likely WOULD get them if it were not for the united
    front we present via AMA and the resulting strength of our lobby.
    
    I'd just once like to be able to thank AMA for thinking of the
    membership FIRST (before personal interests) and attaining something
    FIRST RATE for us rather than having to say, "Well, what they got us is
    better than nothing, I suppose."  The lack of consideration evidenced
    in this latest imposition, designed simply to accomodate the AMA's
    sacred cow, namely, the AMA Nats which 99% of modeldom will never
    participate in in the first place, is reason enough to conclude that
    the above is merely wishful thinking! 
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

>         <<< Note 829.77 by LEDS::COHEN "That was Zen, This is Tao" >>>
>                              -< I don't get it >-
>
>
>    Now you guys have confused me.  I thought the frequency restrictions
>    only applied to people who were competing in AMA events.

Less that that - only the NATs.

>    They're saying "If you want to go to the Nats, and you fly aircraft type
>    X, these are the channels you will be allowed to use".
>
>    What's the problem?  As Al says, they're inconveniencing only 5% of the
>    flyers (and really, it's less than that, since some of the 5% will
>    already have the right channel).

By itself there is nothing wrong with that as far as I am concerned.
But they could have and perhaps should have published this list two years
ago.  Not now one month into 1991.

>    And anyway, with plug in Tx modules, it's really not that much a problem
>    to switch channels.  I was actually thinking of buying a spare Tx Module
>    and Rx for my 347 so I could switch channels at the field if I wanted
>    to.

To change the frequency on my Chuperosa or Sagitta I have to break the fuselage
and repair and re-paint again.   In addition to that I have to purchase another
transmitter module or else send mine in for frequency change.  
I only want one frequency for gliders and one for power so I would change
two transmitters and 6 receivers.

>    Can someone explain what it is that I'm missing here?

I could have and would have planned around this if I had only known in advance
that such a restriction was going to be applied.

I think of it this way.

The AMA said "Fisher - you MUST have all new radios by 1991!".

I said "Darn - OK."

1991 came 9 days ago and I said "It only cost me $1,385.00 but I'm Ready".

Now the AMA says - "Good - here's a list of what frequency your glider radio
MUST be on if you EVER want to compete in the NATS and here is a list of
what frequency your scale radio must be on if you EVER want to compete in the
NATs."

I said "Kinda late fool".

It probably won't cost me anything - I'm just excluded from the NATS.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    IF it only affects the NATS and DOESN'T cascade down to all sanctioned
    events...
    
    Big Fat Hairy Deal

>   <<< Note 829.81 by ZENDIA::REITH "Jim Reith DTN 226-6102 - LTN2-1/F02" >>>
>              -< I always wanted to try a CL speed pulsejet ;^) >-

Me too

>    IF it only affects the NATS and DOESN'T cascade down to all sanctioned
>    events...
>    
>    Big Fat Hairy Deal

I'm sure it won't cascade down.  What CD would be dumb enough to try have
Scale and Sailplanes at the same contest.  

The Scale guys don't appreciate our winch lines across their runway and
the Sailplane guys don't like landing for points on concrete.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

But, as I pointed out earlier, in a competitive club, such as a
glider club, or one with mainly pattern or scale flyers, the guys
will tend to cluster around the "approved frequencies" for the
simple reason that they can then fly at the Nats with the plane
and radio.  Either that or they will be forced to buy
multiple or frequency changeable radios.

If Kay has sealed up his radio in his glider, it better be on an
approved frequency, or he'll not fly it at the Nats. He's stuck
with that frequency every time he flys the plane, along with all
the other guys in the same boat.

What about the fellow that's stretching it to buy a Vanguard?
He's gonna be waiting in line with the others just like him in
order to fly, each day, at the club.

The AMA has given us many frequencies to minimize crowding at the
club field, now they move to limit the usage of these frequencies
for the sake of a once-a-year event.

Info from the usenet.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

Article         3717
From: budd@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov (Gerry Budd)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: PCM vs. FM
Date: 14 Jan 91 18:27:02 GMT
Sender: news@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
 
In article <N41^{A%@rpi.edu> eagle@itsgw.rpi.edu (Kirk M Adams) writes:
 
>       My reasion for sending this is to point out that dual conversion FM-
>   PPM and/or FM-PCM is not necessaraly the bes way to go.  There are other 
>   RF techniques out there (ever hear of single side band?) that might be 
>   better.  Anyone know of any company really working on new inovations??
>   It seems to me that the big three have mostly stopped trying truely new
>   ideas...  Comments?
 
Agreed, dual-conversion has its own set of problems.  As an example,
at the Las Vegas Pattern Contest last fall (before the TOC) several
individuals learned the hard way :( that dual-conversion isn't bullet
proof.  Both Futaba 1024's and JR Galaxy Rx's were having BIG problems
within certain frequency ranges (ch 40-50) due to the 1st IF of the
dual-conversion Rx mixing with a local TV transmitter offset
approximately 10.7 mHz.  The JR PCM-10 single-conversion ABC&W Rx
worked fine at this site on all freq's.
 
As far as new equipment/technology, the highly competitive (and
secretive) nature of the industry tends to keep information concerning
new developments "quiet" until the product is ready for release.  Some
of us who compete tend to be "let in" on new developments early to
assist in field testing the equipment and help out with the marketing
aspects.
 
Both Futaba and JR introduce new equipment into the european market
earlier than into the states under the names Robbe and McGregor.  I
understand that Futaba has been testing a Robbe system in europe that
allows the operator to upload/download flight control software to a PC
via an RS-232 port in the transmitter.  I think that would qualify as
a significant advancement in R/C capability.
--
 
Jerry Budd
budd@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov  ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!budd

Article         3724
From: budd@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov (Gerry Budd)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: ABC & W (was Re: PCM vs. FM)
Date: 15 Jan 91 17:01:53 GMT
Sender: news@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
 
In article <5242@trantor.harris-atd.com> gbastin@x102c.harris-atd.com (Gary Bastin 60293) writes:
 
>   Can someone please tell me what is meant by ABC & W.  I have seen this
>   for some time now, and no where has it been explained.  Is it some type
>   of digital encoding, or error correction coding, or is it something much
>   simpler?  Is it just marketing hype :-) ???
 
>   I fully understand single conversion versus dual conversion, and
>   intercept points/noise figures.  I just haven't seen a definition of
>   "ABC & W".  Thanks in advance!
 
ABC & W stands for "Automatic Blocking Circuit with Window" which is
descriptive of the circuit logic of the receiver.  ABC & W is standard
on all current JR receivers, both single-conversion and
dual-conversion.  It apparently uses a very narrow-band active
filtering technique to eliminate some of the problems inherent in
dual-conversion designs while retaining the advantages.  It is a
proprietary design that JR has patented.  As I understand it Futaba
has made several attempts at "cloning" the ABC & W design but hasn't
been able to alter the design enough to avoid legal action if the
receivers were put into production.
 
My experience has shown that ABC & W isn't marketing hype at all.  It
really is a lot better.
--
 
Jerry Budd
budd@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov  ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!budd

I got some disturbing news from a friend that got a letter in the mail. Seems 
the FCC is hearing arguments for/against changing our 72 mHz band again. Seems 
they want to stick a couple more channels between ours and restrict things to 
2.5kHz bandwidth. I haven't seen the letter but it sounded real. They are 
asking for people to write the FCC and their CongressCritters on this issue. 
The closing date for it is the end of February of this year and it would go 
into effect in 1996. Looks like we've got another round coming, guys. 8^(

I'll get a copy of the letter this week in the mail from the guy and enter the 
information in detail in here. If the spacing is correct, nothing now flying
would pass. We'd either have to change to another band or...

    I got a suggested letter to forward to the FCC from my local hobby
    shop.  Apparently the FCC is considering 2.5 Khz spacing on our
    frequencies in order to add mobil phones in on the spacing.  Bad news.
    
    The NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) has been published.  Write
    the FCC and your congressman to protect out present allocations!
    
    Will

posted without permission a posting on this from USENET

Article 11844 of rec.models.rc:
Path: engage.pko.dec.com!e2big.mko.dec.com!dbased.nuo.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!decwrl!parc!biosci!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!caen!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!bbb
From: bbb@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: REPOST:Frequency Alert
Message-ID: <1993Jan25.131510.46742@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:15:10 GMT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services
Lines: 100

Reposting of   Frequency Alert

(without permission.)
                     





X-NEWS: kuhub.cc.ukans.edu rec.models.rc: 10928
Relay-Version: VMS News - V6.1B5 17/9/92 VAX/VMS V5.5-2; site kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Path: kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!caen!uunet!storcon!paulm
Newsgroups: rec.models.rc
Subject: Frequency Alert
Message-ID: <C0qzH3.AGz@storcon.com>
From: paulm@storcon.com (Paul Moreau)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:39:03 GMT
Sender: paulm@storcon.com (Paul Moreau)
Followup-To: rec.models.rc
Organization: Storage Concepts, Inc.
Kewords: *** IMPORTANT ***
Lines: 78

  I recently got this flyer from a friend who went to the RC show in Pomona.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

				Frequency Alert

At then end of 1992 the Federal Communications Commission issued a Notice
of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM - PR Docket 92-235).   Implementation of
the document would have a profound effect on model frequency use.  Developed
by the Mobile Land Service, the proposal creates a massive frequency
restructuring - the first of its type in 60 years.

While the 455 page document addresses frequency use in another service,
(Part 88 of the Code of Federal Regulations) it will ALSO affect Part 95
where the RC frequency use lives.   With out becoming too technical the
restructuring inserts TWO new frequencies BETWEEN those presently assigned
for modeling use and commercial users.   That means we could have a user,
higher in power, transmitting only 2.5 Khz away from many of our 72Mhz and
75Mhz frequencies!

Example:
	Model Channel 12 - 72.030 Mhz
		new insert	72.0325 Mhz
		new insert	72.0375 Mhz
	Present Commercial 72.040 Mhz

Not only re these users very close to our frequencies, they are also
designated as "mobile" therefore we would never know where they are
operating, including right in the pit area at your field!   Our equipment
will not be free from interference at this spacing!   The technical
specifications suggest other concerns may exist as well.

The academy of Model Aeronautics and Radio Control Manufacturers Association
are enlisting your aid in contacting the FCC to express our concern.   We've
been urged by counsel, to use "every arrow in our quiver" to address the
proposal.   You and your club are arrows that can help us make our point!

Below you will find a listing for the FCC, and the United States congress.
You are strongly urged to write NOW! to those persons and agencies
representing you, expressing yor concern!   The NOW! is very important since
the deadline date for comments is February 26, 1993!

The AMA, with R/CMA's support is now filing a formal letter of comment
through their legal counsel.   Three concerns will be used in objecting
to the proposal.

	1.  Saftey!  RC models are not the silk and tissue items of years
	     ago.
	2.  Economic impact.
	3.  The number of indviduals impacted.

Be assured that we will monitor all actions in this matter carefully and
pursue all avenues available.   All arrows will be expended!   YOU are one
of them!   Your target must be noted in your letter.   It is referred to
by the FCC as NPRM PR Docket 92-235.

These persons or agencies will count the hits!

Senator:		     To a Representative:	     FCC
The Honoable (name)	     The Honorable (name)	     1919 M St, NW
United States Senate	     United States House of Rep.     Washington, DC
Washington, DC 20510	     Washington, DC 20515	     20554


	CONTACT the AMA Technical Department for questions or concerns

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
          _____________________________________________________________
          -                *                      _______   _~;       -
          -            Paul Moreau               |       =_= /        -
          -    Sr. Diagnostics Software Eng.     \   USA    /         -
          -         Irvine, California      --->  *-_  ___ /          -
          -     UUCP: ..!uunet!storcon!paulm         \/   \\          -
          _____________________________________________________________

Its for real, and its a sneaky-pete attempt to bypass the modelling
community by shoving something through before we can all get up in
arms.

I and most of our board members heard about this for the
first time at our meeting.  It will, of course, create a whole new
Brave New World, and will definitely obsolete our equipment.  It
should be noted that the frequencies affected are at the LOW end of
our band, below ch 42--right where most of our 1991 receivers are
located.  Guess our industry did too good of a job of meeting the 1991
standards; we just got pulled up a couple of notches tighter.

We really need to sink the responsible people in mail over this one:
in no uncertain terms they are trying to put it to us this time. 
These guys are not crane operators either, we're dealing with the
multi-megabucks phone industry.

    Two questions:
    
    - What ever happened to the proposal noted in .88?
    
    - Anybody have a comment on AMA's decision to forgo the requirement for
    gold stickers on post-1991/narrow-band compliant radios? Are clubs 
    following this in their general rules, or are some still requiring stickers?
    
    I ask because Mr. Claus kicked in on a new Futaba 8UAF (!) this xmas 
    (got it on Ch 44 in case .88 became real) and if I'm going to need it
    stickered this would be the time to do it...
    
    Thanks!
    
    /dave