Conference vmszoo::rc

    I totally agree tieh .6!  You will save money by getting a complete
    package instead of phasing in / out in pieces.  A flight pack will
    cost you as much as a complete system, and your stuff will not be
    designed to play together.  Most stuff will play together, but it's
    not worth the risk.  Reliability is important in radio equipment,
    especially in aircraft.
    	I have been flying Airtronics and Futaba 7 channel AM radios
    for 3 years.  I have had no problems with either.  Futaba replacement
    parts are more expensive than Airtronics though.  For this reason,
    I prefer Airtronics.  I stripped the gear set in two airtronics
    servos due to a Mid-air induced crash, and the replacement gear
    sets were less than 2 dollars!  I also bought a replacement flat
    450 Ma hr flight pack for the airtronics for 12 dollars.  For this
    reason only, I would recommend buying Airtronics over Futaba.
    (I see no significant difference in quality)
    

    Our local hobby shop (Ray's RC in Worchester) carries some spare
    parts for both Futaba and Airtronics.  He had gear sets when I 
    needed them, and he also had the receiver battery.  He complained
    to me about how much he has to charge for Futaba parts vs Airtronics.
    I bought my Airtronics radios from Sheldon's in California including
    extra servos.  They were selling the standard servos for 13 dollars!
    Try and find a Futaba S-128 for that!
    
    I second the motion to stay away from "Dirty" transmitters.  I don't
    want someone who is out to save a couple of bucks to shoot me down.
    I have noticed that World Engines carefully avoids claiming that
    their radio is 1991 approved although some ads such as Mutchler's
    claim they are.  I have seen the Expert rigs, and they look nice
    but I have not looked at them on a spectrum analyzer.  The other
    scary thing about the World Engines Expert radio is the wording
    in their ad about having to upgrade the receiver filters.  This
    clearly shows that they were selling the thing before getting all
    of the bugs out and getting bad press.  Now they are trying to 
    change this image and claim that it is "improved".  Don't be
    a guinea pig for some manufacturer - wait for a system to be perfected
    before buying it.  It's worth a few bucks more to have a reliable
    system that has proven itself.  (I suspect that we will see some
    new good equpment shortly from both Airtronics and Futaba.)
    
    Buying new RC equipment is not an easy decision now since almost
    all of the equipment (including the PCM sets) will be obsolete
    in 1991.  I would say that the best move is to buy the minimum
    system that you need for now with the knowledge that it will not
    be useful when the new rules go fully into effect.  This decision
    will keep getting harder until new 1991 stuff really comes out.
    I will try to make do with the equipment that I have until that
    happens.
    
    Charlie

I have a couple of those cheap Airtronics servos in my Eaglet,
and I love them!  They are easily the equal of the ACE Bantams,
and I didn't have to wear these old eyes out putting them
together.  Personally, if I were to buy one of the "brand"
radios, it would be Airtronics.  I like their frequency change
radio.  Their cheaper radios are made, I believe, by Sanwa, the
same folks who make the Cox radios.

A couple of comments about servos, while I'm on line.  I just
finished my last Bantam; its just too small for me to work with
anymore.  But, if you like to tinker with the soldering iron, its
a great way to get a top-notch servo for a little under $20.  I
would recommend getting a professional quality soldering iron,
and the smallest strand solder you can find (a professional
electronics store should have both).  The solder supplied in the
kit is too big.  Also, follow the kit instructions exactly.  I
tried to cut a corner on this last one and wound up in deep
sushi.

Talking about cheap servos, the HI-TEC ones from Korea that are
selling, for instance at Polk's for $10, are to be avoided.  I
have two (well, I never claimed being smart).  Actually, I bought
one new back when I was just experimenting, and the other at the
flea market a couple of weeks ago for $2.  Here in Colorado,
where they sell guns and knives in abundance, I get so happy to
see a model airplane item, I buy it, but that's another story.
Back to the servo.  The servos themselves are relatively sturdy
items, but their transit time make them unsuitable for any
aircraft use besides throttle -- which is what I will use them
for. 

    Al,
    	The 13 dollar airtronics servos are their standard model (I
    forget the number) that comes with their good radios.  I have
    put lots of flights on one set as well as on a set of Futaba
    S-128's.  I would say that the Airtronics servos have held up
    slightly better.  The futabas have developed some slop in the
    bushing for the drive wheel which gives a slight amount of
    control hysteresis.  This has not got to the unacceptable stage
    yet, but it's close.  I have not had any failures with either
    model, though.  I have had both apart, and I see no major
    differences that would make me choose one over the other quality
    wise.  
    
    	One other point to consider in radio systems is connector
    compatability.  In general there is none!  This is a pain if you
    want to use your own charger or if you want to mix manufacturer's
    servos.  (Although some people don't recommend it, I have done this
    without any reliability problems.) Futaba's AM systems and FM systems
    have different servo connectors thus making them incompatable. 
    I do not know whether their is any reason for this. 
    	The bottom line here is that it is more convenient to stick
    to one manufacturer and maintain connector compatability and the
    resulting flexability to mix and match your flight pack equipment.
    (Battery, servos, switch harness, ect.)
    
    
    Charlie
    

    Hi Bernie,
                 A few years back I bought a four channel radio
    from airtronics, no bells and whistles, just servo reverse. I
    haven't had any problems in useing this radio and wouldn't hesitate
    to buy another, In fact, due to prices I'm sure airtronics will be my
    next radio. Now that I think of it, I also have an airtronics radio in
    my RC10 which I've run off and on for about a year with out a problem.
    I know futaba is a good radio but I'm sure you pay a lot for the name
    alone.

    
    re:basenote
    
    The Vanguard 4ch and 6ch FM radios meet 1991  specs, and have
    been approved by the AMA. They are the FM version of what you are
    looking at. The FM (non PCM) models have trainer-cord capabilities.
    I have the 4ch version and it is really nice (no problems). It has
    servo reversing, but no dual rates ( the 6ch FM model may have this).
    

I am currently flying an old Futaba 5LK transmitter.  I like the
radio very much but my next one will be one of the Airtronics
Vanguards.

The price you quoted for the Futaba is too low for an FM, so I
assume this is an AM radio.  It is generally agreed by the
magazine columnists and reviewers that AM will not survive in the
1991 environment because of the tight bandwidth/adjacent channel
splatter problems.  AM is also more vulnerable to 3IM than FM.

I can understand your concern about a tight budget; mine's tight
too...but I really want to caution you about getting AM; its not
gonna work in 1991, and is a false economy now.

My feeling is that, no matter what the ads say, I think
Airtronics makes the better radio.  This is my opinion for the
following reasons:

1. Pricing is slightly higher for Futaba, but bang-for-buck they
have more features.  I don't want features, I want quality.  Give
me servo reversing and perhaps throttle end point adjust and all
the rest of the bells and whistles can go hang.  What you pay for
with Futaba is the bells and whistles that you may never use; I
know I won't.  Airtronics radios are not so heavy on gadgets, and
I think the money difference goes into quality.

2.  Despite protests to the contrary, I don't think Futaba makes
a good receiver.  There was a mention in the last Model Aviation
about the chief tester at Futaba not getting the radios AMA
certified because he wanted to use a high-quality testing lab.  I
don't care; I'm not convinced because they still haven't come
clean and specified what their receivers will do.  They say
double-balanced mixer to confuse you with double conversion; they
say radios meet 1991 specs, but if you look closely its only the
Tx that they give figures on...I think they're covering up an
obsolete receiver design. 

3.  I also don't like the Futaba servos I've seen.  They're slow
and heavy and overpriced compared to the Airtronics servos.  My
Airtronics servos have taken a lickin' and they're still tick'in.
Just run a Futaba servo lock to lock and then do the same with an
Airtronics.  Listen to the sound and decide for yourself.  I
haven't the faintest idea why your friend doesn't like them, but
then again he races cars; its possible that he is confusing the
very stout case of the Futaba servo (as compared to Airtronics)
with quality.  I know that cars are hard on plastic.

Now, despite my tirade about bells and whistles I must confess
that my wife, in a fit of unreasonable generosity offered me the
$175 odd dollars for an Airtronics FM just last month.  I turned
it down because I want to hold out for the PCM.  Why?  I must be
nuts -- it'll be a bloody battle down the road next year...but I
want the fractional better dependablility that PCM gives me, and
I want the throttle fail safe, though I think its of marginal
value. 

A big disadvantage of PCM is that the receivers are proprietary
(sp); if you want another one you pay the bucks.  This is why I
like the PPM/PCM switch on a PCM.   You get one good receiver for
your best model, and you can pick up a standard FM one for your
other models...still at an outrageous price, but cheaper.

Also, a short comment on number of channels.  I have a 5 channel
Tx.   I think this is all most sport types need.  But if you wish
to have flaps and retracts, you need 6.  I don't buy a new car
every year,  or a new stereo, or a new radio...so I want
something that will work for me when I fly the Top Gun (just had
to get that in, Al).  I expect to be using the Airtronics for the
next 10 years.

I have 2 Airtronics VG4Rs and I love 'em. These are 4 channel, FM, *DUAL
CONVERSION* 1991 certified radios.

Both Tower and Sheldons regularly sell this model for $134 or so with three
servos, and additional servos at $16 - $19. Making the total for a great
radio right at $150.00. 

All-in-all I think they're great radios for the price, and I'd recommend them
to anyone. I would spend the extra $ though and get the FM. My next radio,
for the Mustang, will be the new 6 channel (VG6DR I think) that was reviewed in
this months RCM.

Randy

    No question I would change to Airtronics if I could. Futaba prices have
    gotten to high and their service is running eight weeks. I will say
    that their service is good though.
    
    Problem I have is to much stuff. I hate to change out equipment. As a
    result I now have nine airplanes with servo's, switch harnes's, etc for
    Futaba. Also have five radio's. Just to expensive to change.

    I am currently thinking of buying a new radio (The Aristocraft isn't
    the most reliable), I was thinking of a 5uap or the vg6P. The price
    between the two is close (within 40 dollars). Does anyone have any
    suggestions?
    
               Steve M in the Pitts.....

    This note describes my reasoning for reluctantly selecting an
    Airtronics FM radio.  It was not what I set out initially to buy.
    
    A later note will compare some high-end sailplane and pattern radios.
    (These systems are extremely complicated; comparison isn't easy.)
    
    
    Current situation:
    ------------------
    
    I own only one radio, an old and well used AM Futaba.  This radio has
    served me well, and Futaba has given superb service.  I now need more
    radio gear because I now have two planes and two partially built kits
    and swapping the receiver and servos around doesn't seem practical. 
    
    I am a beginner with less than a year's experience --- a mature and
    technically savvy beginner, but none the less a cub without experience
    in selecting radio systems.  I have read; I have asked; I have listened
    --- but I may still be all wet in my selection process and reasoning.
    Your comments on what follows are welcome. 
    
    
    Goals and objectives:
    ---------------------
    
    1)  Multiple planes in flying condition --- probably 4 or 5, but only
        one in the air at a time.  Probably only two flying on any one day.
        A turn-over of one or two planes per year.
    
    2)  As much freedom from radio interference as I can get.
        
        I think this implies 1991 compliance and PCM, not FM/PPM or AM.
        
    3)  Hassle-free interchange compatibility.
        
    4)  Reasonable up-front and on-going costs.
        
    5)  Emphasis on gliders then electric then glow-powered Sunday flying;
    	no interest in pattern (such as automated snap rolls).
    
    6)  At least six channels to play with.
        
    7)  Multichannel preset FAILSAFE.
            
            I believe that in the widespread woods and swamps of New
            England this feature can be important even in a glider as 
            an aid to avoiding a lost plane. 
                
    8)  Sufficient interchangeability and service to mostly keep flying.
    
    
    
    Approach:
    ---------
    
    Rather than buy independent systems for each plane, I would rather
    invest in several flight subsystems, one first class transmitter, and
    one basic transmitter.  All of these would be electrically and
    functionally compatible, albeit some with possibly missing features and
    channels.  Because complete entry level radio systems are on the market
    at prices comparable to, or sometimes less than, the flight subsystems
    from the same manufacturers, buying a minimal system complete with its
    transmitter is often a reasonably inexpensive way to obtain a flight
    subsystem; the included transmitter and its nicads are excess spares 
    and almost free.  If such a receiver is sufficiently compatible, the
    capabilities of the first class transmitter are available across the
    entire set of planes, limited only by the channel/control situation.
    
        Dan Eaton has pointed out the risk of this approach.  If all
        of my radios are on the same frequency and that frequency becomes
        locally unusable for any reason, I'm dead in the water.  I've
        thought about this, and I'm willing to take the risk.  If I
        own one radio system on a different channel, then I could swap
        the receivers on what seem to me to be rare occasions.  None
        the less, I could be very naive here.
        
    From my friends and this conference, I had narrowed the choice to three
    manufacturers: Futaba, Airtronics, and JR.  I felt that Futaba was sort
    of the IBM of the field --- the gear was of good quality and the
    service superb, but I perceived the marketing to be arrogant
    (needlessly incompatible connectors, the weasel wording about 1991,
    etc.).   Airtronics is quite different --- easy to like but not
    especially easy to do business with --- no local dealers, no local
    parts, etc.  JR seemed to be much like Airtronics, and I liked their
    single stick PCM-9.  But I especially liked the Airtronics approach to
    upgrades and compatibility and their products for gliders, so I settled
    on Airtronics.  I was gambling that with enough interchangeable
    equipment on hand, I could swap from the secondary planes to support
    the primary ones and ameliorate the dealer problem.  Based on the
    recommendation of Kay, I set out to buy two Airtronics radios, a Vision
    VS8SP sailplane radio with every feature a glider pilot could want plus
    a 4 or 6 channel Vanguard PCM as my first secondary system. 
    
    However, Airtronics is not as self-compatible as I'd like.  As I did
    the homework, I went from a Vision decision to an FM Vanguard; I'm
    giving up the FAILSAFE feature, and I may never buy the fancy glider
    radio.  I'm not delighted.  I may reluctantly forget Airtronics and
    re-examine the whole situation or just buy an interim low-end radio. 
    
    
    
    Data:   (thanks to the help of the Airtronics people in California)
    -----
    
    1.  Airtronics makes four 1991 listed receivers:
        
                        6 channel     8 channel
        
            FM/PPM        92765         92785
        
            FM/PCM        92965         92985
    
        The FM receivers are compatible with all of the transmitters
        considered (Vision, Quantum, Spectra, Module, and Vanguard).
        
        However, the 6 channel PCM receiver is compatible *only* with the
        Vanguard transmitter and conversely.  So the Vanguard PCM receiver
        cannot be controlled by the fancy Vision transmitter or the
        upgraded MD7 transmitter.  This was a surprise.   Evidently they
        blew it on the protocol with the six channel protocol being
        different from the eight channel protocol instead of being an eight
        or ten channel protocol with null slots.  This was especially
        surprising in that the eight channel came first; the six channel
        product was designed later. 
            
        So a second receiver for the Vision can be an FM receiver or a
        second eight channel Vision receiver, it cannot be one from a
        relatively inexpensive PCM system.  So much for compatibility.
                
    2.  FAILSAFE is not a feature of the Vision.
        
        All of their other PCM radios have FAILSAFE, including the two
        lines that use the very same receiver as the Vision, so the Vision
        receiver itself supports FAILSAFE.  The Vision transmitter doesn't.
        
        From my various sources I was given different reasons for this,
        but for whatever the reason, if you buy a Vision you don't get
        FAILSAFE.  I believe this is also true for the upgraded MD7SP.

    3.  The Vision sailplane radio is not recommended for power flight.
        
        Even though I said that I was planning rather mundane power flying
        (no deliberate snap rolls, etc.), the Airtronics service manager
        strongly recommended that I not use the VS8SP for it, and he sent
        me a VS8P manual so I could see why.  Well, I still don't
        understand, although that may be because of the bewildering
        richness of function described in the two manuals.  I did note that
        on the sailplane version the snap-roll switch is a dead switch, but
        to me that is a nit; I must be missing the significant shortcomings. 

        Tom Mroz, one of the co-owners of CSL, was more encouraging about
        using the Vision for Sunday flying, but the trade-offs involving
        flaps, etc. will take more study. 
        
        
    Conclusions:
    ------------
        
    1.  The MD7 with an immediate ATRCS upgrade is not for me.
        
        Mostly because of the PCM compatibility and FAILSAFE shortcomings
        that it shares with the Vision.  Both are important to me.
        
        Second, the total cost is over that of the Vision with only two
        advantages that I know of: a clock and Futaba FM compatibility. 

            Unlike the converted MD7, the Vision cannot work with the
            Futaba receivers.  I asked about this, and Albrecht said that
            they decided to use the microcode space (my words, not his) for
            other features and not support a competitor's product. 
        
    2.  The Vision is not right for me at this time.
        
        (I should mention that I really was dazzled by the capabilities 
        described in the user manual for this radio.  It is wonderful!)
        
        Without any other use than as a glider radio, it is utter overkill
        for a beginner's two channel glider.  None the less, I have grand
        plans, and I would still have gotten it if it were compatible with
        an inexpensive PCM system and had FAILSAFE.  I am not convinced it 
        is inappropriate for simple powered flight.
        
    3.  I am not sure Airtronics is right for me.
        
        If their forte, compatibility, is effectively limited to servo
        connectors, I think that I can accomplish a lot of that with a
        handful of Dean's connectors.  The PCM compatibility problem is
        probably parochial engineering and product [mis]management, but it
        might be repeated.  I'd like a single-stick as nice as JR's PCM-9,
        but if I buy the Vision and Airtronics then comes out with a
        single-stick, will it be needlessly incompatible with the Vision?
        
        Will there ever be a compatible low end PCM?   
        
    4)  The Vanguard must be considered a stand-alone decision and must
        compete with Futaba and JR without allies.
        
        The Vanguard PCM is an orphan that offers me few significant
        advantages over its competition.  The Vanguard FM is in the same
        situation except that it would seem to be be more compatible with
        other Airtronics products. 
        
        The Vanguard, although initially selected by me as a way to buy
        flight subsystems (with a back-up transmitter tossed in for free),
        happens to have what I need at this stage in my development --- I
        heed the theory that mixing is a tool for the savvy, not a crutch
        for the beginner --- well, maybe except the presets and the launch
        set-ups and the ...... 
        
        
        
    References:
    -----------
        
        Telephone calls to Airtronics (714)830-8769
            Cliff Weirick and Jack Albrecht, Customer Relations Manager
        
        User manuals for the VS8SP, the VG6PCM, the MD7SP, and the VS8P.
        
        Telephone calls to Control Systems Laboratories (408)946-4142
            Tom Mroz, principal (with Gene Englegau)
    
        User manual for the ATRCS (Advanced Technology Radio Control Systems)
        upgrade to Airtronics's MD7SP by Control Systems Laboratories.
    
        Magazine reviews and discussions:
            
            Airtronics Vision VS8SP: RCM, 5/89, pg 16, Al Doig
            
            Airtronics Vanguard VG6PCM: FM, 2/89, pg 30, Bob Aberle
            
            Airtronics Module MD7SP: MAN, 11/88, pg 40, John Lupperger
            
            Airtronics Spectra SP7P PCM: SRCM, 11/88, pg 30, Calvin Orr
            
            Futaba Attack FP4NBL: FM, 5/89, pg 70, Dick Gibbs

            Futaba 1024A FP-9VAP: FM, 3/89, pg 30, Bob Aberle
            
            Futaba 1024 FP-9VAP: MB, 2/89, pg 19, Eloy Marez (col)
            
            Futaba Conquest FP6NHP/PCM: MB, 3/88, pg 38, Eloy Marez 
            
            Hobby Shack Cirrus PCM5: RCM, 11/88, pg 104, George Steiner
            
            Aristo-Craft Challenger 4000 (AM): RCM, 7/89, pg 241, George Steiner
            
            Flight packs, etc.: MA, 3/89, pg 34, George Myers (col)
    
            ATRCS: MA, 8/88, pg 54, Blakeslee's column
    
            ATRCS: MA, 9/88, pg 47, Triebes' column

    ATRCS (Advanced Technology Radio Control Systems) is the name of the 
    upgrade to Airtronics's MD7SP by Control Systems Laboratories.

Great job Al!  Its this kind of digging and sharing of info that
makes this conference invaluable.

As I understand it, you can use, or will be soon using, the
complex features of a go-fast PCM like the Vision.  Regretably, I
have to agree that your homework shows that what ever go-fast
system you choose you will wind up limiting your future options
because of compatibility.  Particularly, you found some nasty
stuff in the compatibility of Airtronics high-end radios; I doubt
we'll ever read about it in RCM or MA!

Not being in the market for go-fasts, I haven't thought about it
much, but it seems that you have reached the correct conclusion
that the time to buy one is yet to come.  I think this is wise,
and predict that by 1991,  most if not all of the fancy features
on todays PCM will be in the Vanguard/equivalent line. 

But it seems to me that you've glossed over the Vanguard PCM in
your analysis...I notice that at one point you went from the
Vision directly to Vanguard FM -- this was probably due to my
mis-reading of the note, but I think that if you have in fact
done this you are missing a very good bet.  The Vanguard PCM does
have throttle fail-safe, and FM compatibility which means you can
at least use other Airtronics FM receivers for your secondary
planes (anybody tried the Airtronic/World Engines Expert
combination yet?). 

As I understand it, changing channels on the Airtronics Vanguard
will be a simpler operation with crystal change than other radios
like Futaba.  Right now Airtronics does have this capability, but
because of degraded performance under extreme interference
conditions Airtronics does not list this as a feature. 

Additionally, Airtronics for whatever reason, has laid their
tails on the line and virtually guaranteed 1991 bomb-proof
operation.  I like that, and I think that in the current market
the Vanguard PCM is as close as you'll get to having your cake
and eating it too.  This is the radio for general flying, and lay
back and wait for the high-end stuff to mature.

    Several days ago I came within a hair of ordering the Vanguard PCM but
    then decided that FAILSAFE was not worth buying an orphan.  That may
    have been a mistake; the future Airtronics radios might spend the
    incremental micro-code to support the 6 channel protocol.  If they do,
    I'll kick myself; last night I ordered the 6 channel FM Vanguard. 
    
    Hmmmn.  In my head I just played the role of the Renaud(sp?) brothers
    at Airtronics.  If I were to come out with a 4 channel PCM receiver,
    would I make it compatible with the entry level Vanguard or the
    multi-channel product lines.  The answer is clear --- it would be
    another Vanguard and therefor the same protocol as the 6 channel.
        
        The current micro-receiver for gliders is not a 1991 receiver;
        that makes it a candidate for replacement fairly soon.  It will
        undoubtedly be FM, but there might be a PCM version as well.
    
    The Vision receiver is so very expensive that I don't see many people
    buying extra ones.  (If I remember correctly, the price of the bare
    receiver (without NiCds, servos, charger, mechanics, etc.) is
    comparable to the entirety of what I bought as a system last night.) 
    
    So, I may have made a mistake.  For certain short term compatibility,
    I may have selected an inherently less reliable radio.   Hmmmn.

    Ahh isn't this interesting. If one takes a look at the recent (#4)
    issue of Tower Talk they will be in for a surprise. The Futaba
    Attack series is NO LONGER listed as a 1991 radio. In Fact only
    the 5,7,8, and 9 series FM / PCM radios are listed as 1991. None
    of the AM's are listed. So for all you poor souls that bought a
    ATTACK, you've been attacked, I mean misled. Gee, what's next maybe
    I'll find that my 5UAP with it's dual conversion RX won't pass
    AMA spec's. Won't that make my $299 investment a sweet deal.
    Oh well, such is life...........
    
    
    					Cheers, Dave
    

    This morning's exchange of notes about the Vanguard FM vs PCM issue
    prompted me to re-examine the question.  I realized that in part
    I had been put off by the PCM-PCM incompatibility.  The result of
    the re-thinking is dumped out below for comment.
    
    1.  The replacement for the 4 channel FM micro-receiver will almost
        certainly be another FM receiver, not a PCM.  The reasons are:
        
        First, the reason for existence of this receiver is for the small
        size and light weight.  PCM receivers draw more current and
        so need more battery capacity ( = weight ).
        
        Second, I think FM systems might cost less to manufacture than PCM,
        and they probably need a low cost package to counter Futaba.
            
            Futaba is marketing an entry system in Airtronics' space,
            gliders, with a straight glider package and an electric
            package.   Airtronics has nothing competitive if the customer
            is insensitive to 1991 issues.  (The Futaba glider package is
            an AM Attack with two mini servos for $150; another $15 gets
            you the electric package with MOSFET speed control and BEC
            integrated into the receiver.  There's not a whisper or even
            a weasel word about 1991.) 
        
            They could use a low end package.  Sheldon's entry level
            Airtronics is 30% over Tower's entry level Futaba.  A 4 channel
            receiver addition to the Vanguard line could provide a graceful
            way to drop the minimum price. 
            
        Third, an FM glider receiver would be compatible with both the
        Module and the Vision sailplane transmitters.  A PCM would be
        an orphan.  A tiny receiver plus the MD7SP transmitter should
        be an attractive, working-class, glider package, selling with
        4 mini servos for maybe about $265.  (I think that would give
        the customer flaperons plus tail controls.)
        
        So I don't see a pressing need to introduce another PCM receiver
        for a couple of years at least.
        
    2.  Therefor the Vision PCM and the Vanguard PCM will be co-existing
        for a long time.  
        
        They could stand pat with this current situation or they could
        upgrade the Vision to support both, depending upon market pressure.
        Unless they are against the wall on micro-code space, the upgrade
        could be very inexpensive to do --- new manuals, additional
        testing, a few words of code, no field obligations, and no hardware
        changes.  Their marketing people would get chances for new packages
        and pricing.  I think they will support both PCM protocols. 
        
    3.  If they do the PCM micro-code changes, the addition of FAILSAFE at
        the same time would be almost free to them; the transmitter already
        has a spare button switch in the right place.  So I think they
        will add both Vanguard-style PCM and FAILSAFE to the Vision line.
        
    4.  And that brings me back to where I started --- a [new] Vision
        for my advanced gliders and Vanguard PCM's for my power planes.    
    
    If I am right in my perception that PCM & FAILSAFE is more reliable
    than FM, then I just did something dumb; I should have ordered the
    PCM Vanguard and taken the risk of owning an orphan.

re Note 1047.11 by Kay re  Don't crystal swap 
    
    To augment Kay's correct reply, quoting page 6 of the Airtronics
    Vanguard PCM manual:
    
        ".... feature plug-in crystals for ease of manufacture.  The
        FM/PCM crystals SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED by the owner ..... cause
        loss of control and ... crash ... of your model.  DO NOT CHANGE
        CRYSTALS! .... return ... for ... change."  [The emphasis is
        theirs.]
    
    Now having quoted that, I note that their catalog lists dual conversion
    receiver crystals for both upper and lower channels at the common even
    numbers.  They do not offer dual conversion crystals for transmitters.
    So, if you insist, you can crash your own plane, but you cannot shoot
    down your buddy or upset the FCC.  If you have the right equipment and
    the savvy, you can legally and safely re-tune your receiver.
    
    I wouldn't. 
    

Here is the question I asked in .11:

>Can anyone tell me what the usual procedure is to change channels, on both 
>the Futaba stuff (particularly the Attack series) and the Airtronics 
>stuff?

Here is the reply to my question:

>That's easy - you have to send it back to an authorized repair facility.
>In most cases the easiest thing to do is send it back to the manufacture.

Following this were several discussion regarding the sins of crystal swapping.
The point about crystal swapping is well taken.  But, considering I never 
even suggested swapping crystals I think the response was a little harsh.
However, if the intent was to simply inform the notes community at 
large I'm sorry if I have taken offense.

Now, a different subject.  A concern was raised at my field last night 
about the Futaba Attack series being used on the narrow band channels.  
It was noted that the Attack is silver stickered and should not be used 
on channels 12 through 34.  If this is true why is it that I was able to 
order the Attack from Tower stock on one of these channels.

Actually, it may be a mute point in my case.  Enough of a stink was made
that the only way I could resolve it to everyone's satisfaction was to 
send the unit in and get it checked/converted, whatever the case may be.  
Since I am a beginner who is actively trying to get field privileges I'm 
not willing to take the down time.  So, I ordered the Vanguard 4 Ch FM 
unit last night and will have it tomorrow.  The price from Tower was not bad 
(Though Fed Ex charges are).  Everyone says I should have a spare radio 
anyways.  Try telling that to my wife.

This is the fun part, right?

Loren 

    I think the answer on the attacks on 12-34 is that they are usable
    within the present channel spacing. However in 1991 when all channel
    spacing is reduced they would not be acceptable. (I think?)
    
    
    Tom
    
    P.S. I'm sure all reference to crystal swaping was just for the
    publics information and not directed towards any one individual.
    

re Note 1047.15  
    
>> I never even suggested swapping crystals ... the response ... harsh.
    
    I reread the responses; I don't think anyone meant to be harsh.
    The upper case in my reply was a transformation from the italics
    in the Airtronics manual; as I said, the emphasis was their's. The
    other text was an elaboration/explanation/clarification.
    
    Sorry you felt yourself to be a target; we understand the feeling.

>> Why is it that I was able to order the Attack ... on one of these channels.

    "Selling" is sometimes legal when "using" isn't.  In this case, I think
    and, someone else should verify, that both are legal until 12/??/1990.
    After that date, I think that anything can be sold, but that only
    narrow band transmitters can legally be used.
    
    There are several dimensions muddling this.  
    
        The law              e.g.  the FCC doesn't care about receivers
    
        The AMA rules        enforced only through insurance clauses,
                             contest entry rules, and club affiliations.
    
        Individual clubs
    
        Timing               the AMA rules and maybe the law have stages
    
All clear [as mud]?

On the reason you were able to buy a Futaba on the lower
channels:

Its because the low channel/narrow band rule is AMA,
not FCC.  It is a *NOW* AMA rule; that is, clubs wishing to conform
to AMA guidelines for insurance purposes must reserve the lower
band channels for narrow band only.

The FCC doesn't care diddly about all this, in fact, if they had
their way we'd be on the interdistal channels now (actually we
are, as I'll explain below), narrow band or no narrow band (their
rule is that we don't interfere with Public Service stations,
they don't care how we do it, by using narrow band equipment or
by vacating adjacent channels when we get shot down. 

Futaba, through their advertising policy, their slowness to
actually qualify conforming equipment, and their lack of regard
for such rules as this one has historically shown contempt for
the AMA in general and 1991 in particular.  They're right in this
fact: their equipment is now legal and will continue to be legal
long past 1991; the heck with the AMA.  

Remember, in the Brave New World, its AMA guidelines we're
talking about; we are even now conforming to FCC law simply by
vacating channels adjacent to Public Service stations.  In this
sense we've been in 1991 for several years now; its just that its
starting to close in on us now because the adjacent channels are
coming into widespread use.

The only part that can be called a recognition of the AMA by the
FCC is that the FCC has consented to look the other way while the
new channels are phased in: this is the AMA phase-in plan.  You
can bet that if the FCC did it their way, our slowness to use all
the channels, particularly the odd ones, would have caused us to
lose those channels years ago. 

Now we read in MA that the AMA is considering leaving it
to the local clubs how they want to implement 1991.   Since the
clubs are now screaming that they can't force their people to buy
1991 radios now, and since the true 1991 radios are only now coming on
the market (because manufacturers have chosen to wait til the
last moment to build 1991 radios), and since many folks are
still, through ignorance or love of a bargain, buying
wide-band/or AM equipment not suited to 1991 rules, because of
all these things the AMA is admitting that a grandfather policy
at the discretion of the local clubs is allowable.

I think that if the AMA had it to do over again they'd have
decided to enforce 1991 right from the start; in a sense this is
what is happening now; everyone is waiting til the last moment to
get with the program.   Note that the AMA is warning us, with
good reason, that we'd better not be too generous with our
grandfather rules, if we don't get on the odd channels soon,
we'll lose them.

Amen.

    As I understand it, all radios being sold on the low numbers (only even
    ones available) are supposed to have transmitters that meet the 1991
    guidelines for narrow band.  The receivers can be wide band.  I have
    seen spectrums of a couple of Attack transmitters that looked very
    marginal to me.  (read not in spec)  I am surprised that a new model, no
    matter how low end it is, would not meet this spec since even many
    older transmitters do.
    
    
    Charlie
    

Just a little clarification about the Futaba Attack series.
I don't know exactly what the latest tower flyer says but
in the past Futaba and Tower have advertised that the Attack
series (all of them - including the electric one) are 1991 compatible.

Given that you trust that Futaba is really 1991 compatible even
tho they have not been certified by an independent lab as per
the AMA's suggestion then it is safe for you to assume that the
attack is narrow band 1991 compatible with both the Tx and Rx.
That is the new attacks - not the ones sold two years ago.

I personally believe they are 1991 compatible and would not
have sent my channel 34 attack back were it not for the channel
20 scare that we had.  At that time before it was determined
that the problem was channel 20 we thought it was an attack problem.

I'm not a big Futaba fan - but I believe they are 1991 compatible.

However since they have not been certified - my advice stands.
Buy only certified 1991 equipment.

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

>< Note 1047.13 by ABACUS::RYDER "perpetually the bewildered beginner" >
...
>            Futaba is marketing an entry system in Airtronics' space,
>            gliders, with a straight glider package and an electric
>            package.   Airtronics has nothing competitive if the customer
>            is insensitive to 1991 issues.  (The Futaba glider package is
>            an AM Attack with two mini servos for $150; another $15 gets
>            you the electric package with MOSFET speed control and BEC
>            integrated into the receiver.  There's not a whisper or even
>            a weasel word about 1991.) 

I think they state quite clearly that they are 1991 compatible.
Also (I believe) Airtronics does have a receiver/electronic speed control unit
but they don't appear to be marketing it.

>    than FM, then I just did something dumb; I should have ordered the
>    PCM Vanguard and taken the risk of owning an orphan.

No more so then if you had purchased a Pro-350 :-)

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

re Note 1047.21 by Kay
    
>  I think they state quite clearly that they are 1991 compatible.
    
    No, not a word in the [current] Tower flier I was reading.  
    They do say, "... narrow band system ...", but, unlike some
    of the surrounding ads, not a mention of 1991 or compliance.
    
>  Also (I believe) Airtronics does have a receiver/electronic speed 
>  control unit but they don't appear to be marketing it.
    
    There is such a receiver, model number 92621/92623, in their current
    repertoire, and they do market it.  But you wouldn't want it, Kay. 
  
    It is on the 75 mc band and designed for cars.
    
>> .... I should have ordered the PCM Vanguard ...
    
    In true Digital tradition, I did reconsider from scratch my final
    reconsideration of my final decision.  But I broke from tradition
    and did not change my decision on the decision about the decision.
    
    I think.   Hmmmn.   FAILSAFE and mixing and PCM for an extra $80.
    
    I even called a woods meeting on the topic, but you couldn't come.
    
Alton, who expects to take delivery of the Vanguard 6 FM in September.
                Yeah, I know, big deal.  But this result is tangible.

    Whatever the Tower flier says, the Futaba Attack advertisement in 
    the August RCM states:
    
    		"The R114H and MCR-4A 
    		receivers both meet the new 
    		1991, 20KHz specifications"
    
    They don't mention the transmitter or claim sophisticated circuitry
    in the receivers, so who knows?  
    
    FWIW - I think its unreasonable for a club to insist that someone 
    use or avoid certain equipment based on hearsay and suspicion. 
    Reminds me of the witch hunts.  Why don't they run some tests, or
    have a qualified person do so if they don't have the tools and
    expertise?  That might be a viable service offering for someone
    with access to the equipment and a desire for some part time income.
    

   Last night I ordered an Airtronics Vanguard 6ch PCM.  I ordered it from
Omni models because the price was $2 cheaper than Tower and orders over $75
don't have shipping charges.  So I saved about $7 total (that's a bottle
of UFO).  Total cost was $237.99.

   I had a hard time choosing between Airtronics and Futaba, but Futabas
inability to get onto the AMA list is what made me go with Airtronics.  I 
would rather go with a radio that has passed the testing than just take the
manufacturers word that their equipment is good.  

  The radio will go into my Kadet Sr. for 'testing', and then into my Wot 4.
It may eventually make it into my L4, or I may get another radio for that one.

  There aren't any problems with Ch 22 are there?  After I hung up the phone
I gave myself a scare thinking that I had ordered a ch 20, but I actually
got 22.

			Jim

Jim, the tax man was very nice to me last nite, and I'm about
ready to order one of those doggies myself -- was there any
indication of the radio being in short supply?  Also, did you
compare price with Sheldon's?

PS -- Stand by world!  John is about to get his first .40-sized
plane -- and a kit (yuck) at that!  Now I won't be able to use my
design flaw excuse for crashing.  I'll have to modify it to cover
my bases.

>Jim, the tax man was very nice to me last nite, and I'm about
>ready to order one of those doggies myself -- was there any
>indication of the radio being in short supply?  Also, did you
>compare price with Sheldon's?

  Funny you should ask...it was the last one they had (Omni models).  I don't
know how the supply is with other shops.

  Sheldon's was $2 more.  The only place I found that was cheaper is 
Mutchlers (sp?).  I think they had it for $229 + shipping.  Since I have no
experience with them, and the shipping would bring the price up close to
Omni, I opted for the known shop.  

  Kay - which note did you enter all the good information about the Airtronics
radios in?  I know...I know....use that little search trick that Al told us
about.  I can't find my instructions and never copied over the files (oh dopey
me!)

  
          Jim

    Yes, channel 22 is a problem...... I'm on it
    
    
    
    
    						Dave
    

I was leafing through my Model Aviation magazine which showed up yesterday and
lo and behold some Futaba radios were listed with the Airtronics, JR, and RCD
stuff in the 1991 list. The AM models were missing but it looked like most if
not all of the FM and PCM models were there. 

Glenn Schrader

I just got off the phone with Jack Albrecht of Airtronics.  I had
several questions to ask and received some interesting scoop that
I thought I'd pass on...

Firstly, I had commented in another note that if you have a
broken/obsolete servo you could send it back to Airtronics for $5
and they would replaced it with a new 102.  Boy, I really blew
that one!  The real deal is that if you have an UNREPAIRABLE
servo, for any reason including a failed major part or even a
dirty pot, they would replace it for $15.  Sorry guys.  I have a
flaky -394 servo that prompted me to ask this question.  I think
I'll try to clean the pot before I lay the bucks down.

Next, I had noticed that the MD7 series (I have an MD7P) has
dissappeared from the ads and I wondered why. Jack said that they
stopped production on the radio because a timer chip in there is
no longer manufactured.  This radio will be replaced in their
product line with a new radio, the Infinity 600.  This is the
funny looking one that has been rumored in the mags lately.  It
is expected to be available in November and will be in the mail
order $385 range.  The Infinity is PCM/PPM and stores up to 4
plane settings.

Also coming up is a micro 4 channel receiver, the 92745.  This
receiver is 23x23x57 milimeters and is a shrunken equivalent of
the 92765 receiver.

Getting back to the MD7, I had some concerns about the
availability of tx modules and receivers.  Jack said that the
93772 tx modules for the MD7 are exactly like the 93782 tx
modules in the Specra/Vision radios. They have different part
numbers because they were type accepted at different times.  This
means that we will be able to get the new odd channel modules in
the November/December timeframe when they will be available.  

Also, the *cheap* Vanguard 6 channel FM receiver (about $65 from
Tower) is compatible with the MD7 radios.  This will allow me to
add new channels for about $120/channel total.  Though, for
another $15 I could get the 7-channel RCD receiver which I
suspect is a good deal better.  Without these options I was stuck
with buying another 8-channel receiver for the MD7 at $110 or so a
pop.