Multiplex Radios
rgde...@my-deja.com
price and quality with the other popular brands, Futaba, Jr, and
Airtronics? Is anyone using one, and how do you like it?
Ralph
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
RBarkus
price... Multiplex is more expensive (complete system vs complete
system). Quality..... now that is a question. From my experience I
have never seen a JR (what I fly) OR a Multiplex crash an airplane.
This is a case where more money does not buy more reliablity. It will
however buy you a very configurable system. You can add all kinds of
stuff to the multiplex systems.
Robert
aerogra...@my-deja.com
still are. Multiplex MC 4000 has more to offer by a long shot then the
Futaba 9Z and at prabably less money.
Roger
http://www.multiplexrc.com/tx_profi4000.htm
http://www.geocities.com/roger_forgues/index.html?946317473920
In article <387B6ADB...@worldnet.att.net>,
Ingo J Donasch
the quality is excellent, the sticks feel very good. you have the feeling
that you really get something for your money. I assume they continued this
trend.
everything I bought from multiplex was first class.
If the MPX4000 would have been available 2 years ago in the US I would
have bought it, instead I bought a MC24 (also a very good radio).
European radios are more versatile than US versions, they all support
programable stick modes (>90% in the US fly mode 2, about 70% od the europeans
fly mode 1), heli, glider and aircraft programs. also their programming
concepts are more open, meaning that they have less preprogrammed mixers
and assigned switches and more freely programmable mixers which makes it easier
to adopt to
the pilots different flying behaviors.
sorry that I can't give you a direct comparision, but I think if you
have the money to buy one you won't regret it. on my personal scale
of incredible expensive transmitters (>$700) the MPX4000 leads before the MC24,
than the Fut9Z and the JR10SX. (never saw a robbe FC28 which should be in that
category).
ps. MPX has the same "shift" as airtronics and JR in 72MHz. (N/A in 35MHz etc)
big thermals
ingo
Ton C. Jaspers
I once opened a Futaba and was amazed by the poor quality PCB and the
way the components were mounted. After that I switched to Multiplex,
and I don't mind spending the extra money.
Its not just electronics but also the quality if the gimbals etc.
There must be a reason why most glider contest flyers use MPX.
Ton
Gordon Upton
same money, Multiplex is a far better spec. and quality.
In the spirt of Ton below, why drive a Daiwoo when you could have a Merc!
Check out http://www.modelspot.com/mpx/mpxhome.htm
Gordon.
rgde...@my-deja.com wrote in message <85fnuq$buj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Gordon Upton
Gordon Upton
kir...@zagnut.rochester.rr.com
> You don't compare a Rolls Royce to a Beatle.
John, Paul, George, or Ringo? :)
I look at my shop floor and I see it needs sweeping
While my bandsaw gently weeps
(helllllp meeeeeee!)
Paul Nesbitt
brands you mentioned have excellent quality records overall. And in
comparing pricing, if you compare apples to apples, they are not that
much different. What you need to do is decide what you want out of a
radio, then look to the popular brands to see what is the best deal for
you. Some things you need to consider are:
- how many channels
- do you need a radio compatable with others at your field
- do you hold the TX or use a tray
- do you want your radio to handle airplanes or airplanes & helis
- what other extras do you want/need (ie..frequency synth, data safe,
etc.)
- What type of programming features do you want
Paul Nesbitt
kak...@my-deja.com
Nice features, horrible feel (thanks to the pizza-box case).
Gordon
Paul Nesbitt
You really expect us to believe that with the thousands of happy Futaba,
JR and Airtronics owners out there, their equipment is that inferior?
haha! I don't know what Futaba you opened, but I can guarantee that the
PCB in all of the better radios is first class, and no-one has better
gimbals than the better JR and Futaba radios.
I can't speak the Multiplex quality, but I do know that more gizmos does
not a better radio make.
Paul Nesbitt
Ton C. Jaspers wrote:
>
> You don't compare a Rolls Royce to a Beatle.
>
> I once opened a Futaba and was amazed by the poor quality PCB and the
> way the components were mounted. After that I switched to Multiplex,
> and I don't mind spending the extra money.
> Its not just electronics but also the quality if the gimbals etc.
> There must be a reason why most glider contest flyers use MPX.
>
> Ton
>
> rgde...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >What do you think about the Multiplex Radios? How do they compare in
> >price and quality with the other popular brands, Futaba, Jr, and
> >Airtronics? Is anyone using one, and how do you like it?
> >Ralph
>
aerogra...@my-deja.com
and has allways been point blank. It does not mean that the others are
not good, they are excellent radios. Why are there so many Futaba's and
JR's compared to Multiplex, it's called marketing, and Multiplex has
been very poor in marketing in North America. Thanks to Karlton Spindle
of Critter Bits, he has made a differenc. Look at there servos, they
are now the servo of choice for the IMAC guys. I have been using
Multiplex for over 18 years, and during that time I have allways looked
at the others and considered changing with either Futaba or JR or even
Airtronics, but after looking carefully at what I was getting versus
Multiplex, it was no contest.
I know I just opened up a can of Flame... go ahead I can take it.
Roger
http://www.geocities.com/roger_forgues/Aerografixs.html?946562498480
In article <387C8C59...@boeing.com>,
Paul Nesbitt <paul.d....@boeing.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately, you really cannot compare brands that easy. All of the
> brands you mentioned have excellent quality records overall. And in
> comparing pricing, if you compare apples to apples, they are not that
> much different. What you need to do is decide what you want out of a
> radio, then look to the popular brands to see what is the best deal
for
> you. Some things you need to consider are:
>
> - how many channels
> - do you need a radio compatable with others at your field
> - do you hold the TX or use a tray
> - do you want your radio to handle airplanes or airplanes & helis
> - what other extras do you want/need (ie..frequency synth, data
safe,
> etc.)
> - What type of programming features do you want
>
> Paul Nesbitt
>
aerogra...@my-deja.com
whistles in other words less cluttered.
Roger
http://www.geocities.com/roger_forgues/Aerografixs.html?946562498480
In article <85ibgt$86a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
kak...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <85fnuq$buj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> rgde...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > What do you think about the Multiplex Radios?
>
> Nice features, horrible feel (thanks to the pizza-box case).
>
> Gordon
>
Steve Lewin
>You don't compare a Rolls Royce to a Beatle.
>
That's very true. One of them's a car and the other's a member of a
defunct popular music combo.
Sorry just I can't resist the occasional one !
Personally, I like Multiplex build quality but I don't like the feel
of them. Everything seems to be in the wrong place. I guess it's
because I learned on a more conventional Futaba. Perhaps Multiplex Txs
work best on a tray or something like that.
So to the original enquirer. There's nothing wrong with the quality at
all but before you buy a Multiplex Tx make sure it feels comfortable
to use.
--
Steve Lewin (Reading, UK)
CSM sim models, electrics and more at http://www.slewin.clara.net
Reading MAC home page http://rcplanet.com/rdmac
Randy Brown
Mutiplex radiios have been right up at the top with the rest.
Randy
>You must really like your Multiplex to exagerate so? I mean, come on.
>You really expect us to believe that with the thousands of happy Futaba,
>JR and Airtronics owners out there, their equipment is that inferior?
>haha! I don't know what Futaba you opened, but I can guarantee that the
>PCB in all of the better radios is first class, and no-one has better
>gimbals than the better JR and Futaba radios.
>
>I can't speak the Multiplex quality, but I do know that more gizmos does
>not a better radio make.
>
>Paul Nesbitt
>
>Ton C. Jaspers wrote:
>>
>> You don't compare a Rolls Royce to a Beatle.
>>
>> I once opened a Futaba and was amazed by the poor quality PCB and the
>> way the components were mounted. After that I switched to Multiplex,
>> and I don't mind spending the extra money.
>> Its not just electronics but also the quality if the gimbals etc.
>> There must be a reason why most glider contest flyers use MPX.
>>
>> Ton
>>
>> rgde...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >What do you think about the Multiplex Radios? How do they compare in
>> >price and quality with the other popular brands, Futaba, Jr, and
>> >Airtronics? Is anyone using one, and how do you like it?
>> >Ralph
>>
Jim McIntyre
Why is he wrong? Making a statement like that without backing it up with
some "meat" will not get you anywhere here.
Personally I prefer my JR system and yes, I have flown multiplex. I find
JR programming more than adequate and easy to use. More importantly, I
find it comfortable to use (something I can't say for multiplex). The
gimbals of the multiplex units may withstand more abuse (not sure about
that) but, they feel like the old Radio Shack CoCo 2 joystick (cheap).
> Mutiplex radiios have been right up at the top with the rest.
Then why don't I see that fact reflected at top competitions like 'Top
Gun' where money does not appear to be much of an object?
--
Jim McIntyre
Green River (NE of Toronto) Ontario, Canada
http://members.tripod.com/Jim_McIntyre
Paul Nesbitt
I was responding to Ton's post about Multiplex being far superior than
anything else. If Multiplex is "right up on top with the rest" as you
say, who is the rest? Well of course it is Futaba, JR, Airtronics,
etc.
Perhaps you are suggesting that I am wrong that the PCBs and gimbals in
the better radios are good quality? I hope not.
Or are you suggesting that I am wrong that "more gizmos does not a
better radio make"? I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels that way.
Please educate me as to what I am wrong about.
Paul Nesbitt
Randy Brown wrote:
>
> Dear Sir..you are verry wrong
>
> Mutiplex radiios have been right up at the top with the rest.
>
> Randy
>
> >You must really like your Multiplex to exagerate so? I mean, come on.
> >You really expect us to believe that with the thousands of happy Futaba,
> >JR and Airtronics owners out there, their equipment is that inferior?
> >haha! I don't know what Futaba you opened, but I can guarantee that the
> >PCB in all of the better radios is first class, and no-one has better
> >gimbals than the better JR and Futaba radios.
> >
> >I can't speak the Multiplex quality, but I do know that more gizmos does
> >not a better radio make.
> >
> >Paul Nesbitt
> >
> >Ton C. Jaspers wrote:
> >>
> >> You don't compare a Rolls Royce to a Beatle.
> >>
> >> I once opened a Futaba and was amazed by the poor quality PCB and the
> >> way the components were mounted. After that I switched to Multiplex,
> >> and I don't mind spending the extra money.
> >> Its not just electronics but also the quality if the gimbals etc.
> >> There must be a reason why most glider contest flyers use MPX.
> >>
> >> Ton
> >>
> >> rgde...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >What do you think about the Multiplex Radios? How do they compare in
> >> >price and quality with the other popular brands, Futaba, Jr, and
> >> >Airtronics? Is anyone using one, and how do you like it?
> >> >Ralph
> >>
Paul Nesbitt
sooo superior. BUT WHY? What makes it superior. Don't say programming
features! Thousands of pilots could care less about most of the bells
and whistles. In fact, even those of us with several "top of the line"
computer radios, don't use all of the features.
So, one more time. Why is Multiplex superior?
Also, I am one of the IMAC guys. Multiplex servos are not really the
choice of IMAC pilots. Yes they are gaining popularity, but if you
polled the IMAC membership, I think the percentage of Multiplex servos
in use is very small. And since you are referring to IMAC, how popular
are the Multiplex radios in IMAC. I'll answer, almost non-existent.
Again, I have nothing against Multiplex. But I do think that if they
want to become a major player in the US, they need to be more specific
about WHY their radio is superior.
Paul Nesbitt
aerogra...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Paul I feel I have to step in here for a second, Multiplex is superior
> and has allways been point blank. It does not mean that the others are
> not good, they are excellent radios. Why are there so many Futaba's and
> JR's compared to Multiplex, it's called marketing, and Multiplex has
> been very poor in marketing in North America. Thanks to Karlton Spindle
> of Critter Bits, he has made a differenc. Look at there servos, they
> are now the servo of choice for the IMAC guys. I have been using
> Multiplex for over 18 years, and during that time I have allways looked
> at the others and considered changing with either Futaba or JR or even
> Airtronics, but after looking carefully at what I was getting versus
> Multiplex, it was no contest.
> I know I just opened up a can of Flame... go ahead I can take it.
> Roger
>
> http://www.geocities.com/roger_forgues/Aerografixs.html?946562498480
>
> In article <387C8C59...@boeing.com>,
> Paul Nesbitt <paul.d....@boeing.com> wrote:
> > Unfortunately, you really cannot compare brands that easy. All of the
> > brands you mentioned have excellent quality records overall. And in
> > comparing pricing, if you compare apples to apples, they are not that
> > much different. What you need to do is decide what you want out of a
> > radio, then look to the popular brands to see what is the best deal
> for
> > you. Some things you need to consider are:
> >
> > - how many channels
> > - do you need a radio compatable with others at your field
> > - do you hold the TX or use a tray
> > - do you want your radio to handle airplanes or airplanes & helis
> > - what other extras do you want/need (ie..frequency synth, data
> safe,
> > etc.)
> > - What type of programming features do you want
> >
> > Paul Nesbitt
> >
Randy Brown
Randy Brown
Sponsered Rudder:Multiplex USA
:-)
Ask him if he has ever had a digital pot on a Futaba or a JR with 16
bit
resolution? Also when was the last time he got a discharge circuit in
either one
or 5 flight modes with mixing that allows the users to have everywhere
from complex
heli (with up to 4 ccpm heads btw) mixing to CAR mixing in the same
radio with 13
point curves and auto adjust mixing? When was the last time you heard
Futab a or
JR having a TRULY PC INTERFACE ABLE radio for under $300.00?
We are not the largest never will be we are simply the best.
karlton
Multiplex USA
>You must really like your Multiplex to exagerate so? I mean, come on.
>You really expect us to believe that with the thousands of happy Futaba,
>JR and Airtronics owners out there, their equipment is that inferior?
>haha! I don't know what Futaba you opened, but I can guarantee that the
>PCB in all of the better radios is first class, and no-one has better
>gimbals than the better JR and Futaba radios.
>
>I can't speak the Multiplex quality, but I do know that more gizmos does
>not a better radio make.
>
>Paul Nesbitt
>
>Ton C. Jaspers wrote:
>>
>> You don't compare a Rolls Royce to a Beatle.
>>
>> I once opened a Futaba and was amazed by the poor quality PCB and the
>> way the components were mounted. After that I switched to Multiplex,
>> and I don't mind spending the extra money.
>> Its not just electronics but also the quality if the gimbals etc.
>> There must be a reason why most glider contest flyers use MPX.
>>
>> Ton
>>
kak...@my-deja.com
rab...@execulink.com (Randy Brown) wrote:
>
> Just for you Paul..from the Owner of Multiplex USA
>
> Randy Brown
> Sponsered Rudder:Multiplex USA
> :-)
>
> Ask him if he has ever had a digital pot on a Futaba or a JR with 16
> bit resolution?
etc, ... list of boasts snipped.
Yeah Randy - just like I said earlier.... great features, but it still
has a horrible feel. If the radio doesn't "feel" right then I really
don't care how much magic is inside the case.
The first time I ever picked up a JR X347 (the first ergonomically
designed case I came across) I knew I was in love, and newer radios
have gotten even better. The shape, balance, and position of controls
on my JR PCM10 just feels so natural. Futaba and Airtronics have also
developed radios that "feel right". For some reason though, Multiplex
has stayed in the dark ages in this respect, IMO.
If the feel of the TX doesn't make me comfortable, then it's going to
be a distraction which I simply don't need.
Look at it this way - if you bought a new top-of-the-line luxury car
which was packed with wonderful gizmos and features, but the driver's
seat consisted of a sheet of rough plywood supported by wobbly bricks -
would you care more about the fact that the car's GPS system was the
best that money could buy, or about the lack of driver comfort ?
I've long stated that my ideal radio would be a Multiplex system
inside a JR case, so please don't think I hate Multiplex - just
their anachronistic cases.
Gordon
Cregger
facts. Geesh! <G>
I'm not taking sides by the way. I do not own a Multiplex or a top of the
line rice box.
--
Ed Cregger
ecre...@mindspring.com
*remove a g
Paul Nesbitt <paul.d....@boeing.com> wrote
> Why can't I get a straight answer? I keep hearing that Multiples is
> sooo superior. BUT WHY? What makes it superior. Don't say programming
> features! Thousands of pilots could care less about most of the bells
> and whistles. In fact, even those of us with several "top of the line"
> computer radios, don't use all of the features.
>
> So, one more time. Why is Multiplex superior? (snip)
Jim McIntyre
kak...@my-deja.com wrote:
<snip>
> I've long stated that my ideal radio would be a Multiplex system
> inside a JR case,
What a great idea. Let me keep the large touch screen of the JR PCM10
series and the ease of programming (especially for heli flight modes)
and I'm sold. Where do I buy it? :)
--
Jim McIntyre
Green River (NE of Toronto) Ontario, Canada
http://members.tripod.com/Jim_McIntyre
Paul Nesbitt
reinforcing my argument that Multiplex isn't better (quality wise)than
JR or Futaba or others, it just has a different market approach. Their
apparent vision is to have the most features of any radio on the
market. JR's vision seems to be to have the most ergonomic radio on the
market. Futaba's seems to be to have a very ergonomic yet widely
capable radio. (These are just my observations). In all cases, these
manufacturers have taken quality as a given. They can't sell much
product if they don't.
So, in my opinion, none of these manufacturers have the best quality
product. They are all super competitive. But I will give you this, if
you are in market for a radio with the most features, then Multiplex is
the best. If you are looking for the best ergonomic radio, JR is the
best. etc, etc, etc.
So who makes the best radio. Best at what? Like anything else in this
world, it depends on what the individual consumers expectations are and
what they consider the best.
Paul Nesbitt
Randy Brown wrote:
>
> Just for you Paul..from the Owner of Multiplex USA
>
> Randy Brown
> Sponsered Rudder:Multiplex USA
> :-)
>
> Ask him if he has ever had a digital pot on a Futaba or a JR with 16
> bit
Paul Nesbitt
not to let it happen again. <VBG>
Paul
fl...@nonortelspamnetworks.com
I have used JR radios pretty much exclusively for 5 years since I started in
the hobby. I have used the JR Century VII, JR 622, JR 347 and currently
use a JR 10SXII for my heli flying. I currently also use a Multiplex 3030 for
my airplane and heli flying. I have used a few miscellaneous lower end 4 and 6
channel radios from Airtronics, Futaba and Hitec. I was originally a thumb
flyers
then switched over to thumb and fingers when still using only JR radios.
I purchased a used Multiplex 3030 and the JR 10SXII about a year ago.
Here is my subjective view of both radios. I am only commenting on features
that I have used or experimented on the bench to see how they work.
For those who don't wish to read to the very end of the article, my conclusion
is that I find for my purpose the Multiplex is a more flexible and capable
radio
than the current JR radios that I have. I would buy another Multiplex radio
over
the next generation JR.
Ergonomics
Since I am a very flexible flyer this point is kind of moot. I enjoy flying
with a tray
and find the layout of the Multiplex very comfortable to use. The Multiplex
has
movable and assignable switches which is a lot more flexible than the current
line of JRs, Futaba, and Airtronics Yes, I know that the Stylus has assignable
switches but not moveable. In Europe all the radios Graupner and FC also have
the moveable/assignable switch capabilities. I fly the JR 10SXII with a tray.
I fly other radios with my thumbs when I instruct with a buddy box.
An example of one ergonomic point is that the Multiplex radio have position
slider
beside the operational slider. You can set the position slider to what ever
position
you need and then use it as a reference when moving the operational slider. It
works
great when moving the operational slider for flap operation on my Chipmunk. I
can find
neutral position without looking at the slider.
Model Saving/PC interface
The JR 10SXII has a data save interface with the computer which allows you
access to the model programs. Currently the Multiplex 3030 (I believe) does
not have
this capability. Multiplex 4040 has the PC interface. The JR 10SXII can save
up to
10 models in the transmitter. The Multiplex 3030 can store up to 99 models.
Mode switching
The JR10SXII (heli) can switch between up to 5 flight modes. However these
flight
modes are not totally configurable, only some of the functionally can be
changed
from one flight mode to another. The Multiplex can switch between 3 flight
modes.
These flight modes are totally configurable. I can set any servo limits,
functionality,
travel etc. It is like having a totally new model.
Battery life.
My JR10SXII takes 8 standard AA nicads currently 800 mah. My Multiplex
transmitter
takes 6 standard C size nicads currently 1700 mah.
Features
The Multiplex 3030 allows me to assign which servo to which channel on the
receiver.
If I have a particular order that I like to have my servos I can do that to
all my models.
For example, my preference is to have throttle - channel 1, rudder - channel
2, elevator -
channel 3, left aileron - channel 4, right aileron - channel 5 etc. For JR,
Futaba and Airtronics
the servos are set in what ever order that is factory set.
I can assign mulitple servos the same functionality and have all other
functions follow. For example
I can put three separate channels on the receiver to rudder function and
adjusting the trim function
will affect all three channels. I know that the earlier models of JR high end
radios did not have
this capabilities. This is great for setting up spilt dual elevator servos.
All I have with the Multiplex
radio is to set one travel on the channel to oppposite of another channel and
put in the elevator
servos into the two channels. I do not need to physically reverse the servos
or use any servo
reversing equipment.
The Multiplex 3030 will work with JR and Airtronics FM receivers. The
Multiplex 4040 will
work with both Futaba, JR and Airtronics FM receivers. I believe the Stylus
will handle Futaba and
JR FM receivers.??
Unfortunately the PCM receiver for the Multiplex 3030 is only 512.
Since I fly with thumb and finger, I put a switch on top of my stick for
retracts. It is great not having
to move hand to retract gears. The switch can be assigned other functions
also.
I find the gimbals very smooth and satisfactory to use in both the JR and
Multiplex.
Both antennas will swivel.
I do not like the fact that JR has chosen to only include one type of software
in their high
end radios. My JR 10SXII is only a heli version and does not contain airplane
software.
Multiplex includes 10 sample model which are very handy to customize.
There is one feature which allows you to slow down a servo up to 10 secs. This
is great for
flaps as they can be made to operate gradually as you setup for landings.
Multiple functions can be assigned to one switch so that you can have retracts
going up and
also switch over to high rates with only one switch as an example.
There are other features which I have not touch upon since I do not have the
radio or manual
in from of me.
Unless I get a very good deal on a JR 10X, my next radio will be a Multiplex
4040.
A subject view of two radios.
Fred....................
Paul Nesbitt wrote:
> Why can't I get a straight answer? I keep hearing that Multiples is
> sooo superior. BUT WHY? What makes it superior. Don't say programming
> features! Thousands of pilots could care less about most of the bells
> and whistles. In fact, even those of us with several "top of the line"
> computer radios, don't use all of the features.
>
> So, one more time. Why is Multiplex superior?
>
Ton C. Jaspers
here.
I like a radio in a tray so I can fly with my thumb and index finger
on each stick while resting my wrists on the surface. I believe this
alows for better precision control and is less stressfull to the
hands. This is especially importand to glider pilots who sometimes fly
for hours without breaks.
When using a tray one would like to have a flat, pizza box syle radio.
If you try the tray-ed setup with the latest JR or futaba models you
would find they don't fit a tray that well and hence are less
comfortable to use by two fingered pilots.
Hence, to those kind of pilots they are less ergonomic than the flat
pizza boxes :-)
Ofcourse this is a personal preference and I know a lot of pilots who
fly very well (even better than me) with their thumbs only, so there
is no need to flame. In the end the best radio is the one you feel
most comfortable with.
Ton
sle...@hotmail.com (Steve Lewin) wrote:
>t...@xs4all.nl (Ton C. Jaspers) wrote:
>>You don't compare a Rolls Royce to a Beatle.
>>
Mike Wizynajtys
the the best.
But I agree with you, Paul. "European radios are definitly different,
but definitely not better."
Wiz
Paul Nesbitt
Paul Nesbitt
kak...@my-deja.com
fl...@nonortelspamnetworks.com wrote:
>
>
> Ergonomics
> Since I am a very flexible flyer this point is kind of moot. I enjoy
> flying with a tray and find the layout of the Multiplex very
> comfortable to use.
Interestingly enough, most of the people I know who fly Multiplex
also use a tray. Wonder if this is true in general, rather than
just in the group that I know ?
If so, that could explain why they don't care about the feel of the
box.
Gordon
Randy Brown
gotten the profi
line in on 72MHz. YET. Yes our servos are gaining in popularity
because they are
great. Our radios will do the same, I can sum it up in two word
QUALITY CONTROL.
Better RF technology, lower current drain designed to last a life time
not planned
obsolescence. Higher resolution (Profi 4000 is 16 bit) EQUAL
RESOLUTION VALUE ON
ALL CHANNELS! Most radios are only high resolution on 1-4 channels.
NAME BRAND COMPONENTS ar used in the manufacture of the radios, they
are made in
Germany in short production runs with the highest quality control
possible.
Karlton
kak...@my-deja.com
rab...@execulink.com (Randy Brown) wrote:
>
> Higher resolution (Profi 4000 is 16 bit) EQUAL RESOLUTION VALUE ON
> ALL CHANNELS! Most radios are only high resolution on 1-4 channels.
Awesome !
Now, instead of just having my landing gear up or down, I can also
choose 65534 positions inbetween as well !! ;-)
Gordon
aerogra...@my-deja.com
18 years ago. It was allready made for airplane, Helicopters, and
Gliders. It had interchangeble cassettes with all the potentionameters
and switches. One for heli, one for F3A, and so on. Then I purchased
the Royal Expert, with interchangable E-proms with the pots and
switches remaining. Again for any type of models you want, airplanes,
helis, gliders, twin engines boats, cars, they had an E-prom for it.
Then in 1991, I bought my MC 3030 with everything plus my grandmother
in it.
But going back the the Profi 2000 (18 years ago) we had tight band
(10Kzs spacing), the servos were the Profis, all metal gears. The budy
box was invented by Multiplex. When Dubro came out with the
switch/charge combo as a first, it was funny, because my very first
mustiplex radio 18 years ago had this and still has it. My point is
they are ahead of the pack with innovatons and the others follow,
sometimes.
I started to fly with a tray with my Proline radio and have never
looked back and maybe that's why my 3030 feels ok in the tray position.
Regards
Roger
http://www.geocities.com/roger_forgues/index.html?946317473920
In article <85nodr$7m1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Mike Slaughter
Mike
"Cregger" <ecre...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:85kr8p$vcj$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net...
> There you go again, Paul. Expecting people to give you logical reasons and
> facts. Geesh! <G>
>
> I'm not taking sides by the way. I do not own a Multiplex or a top of the
> line rice box.
> --
> Ed Cregger
> ecre...@mindspring.com
> *remove a g
>
>
> Paul Nesbitt <paul.d....@boeing.com> wrote
>
> > Why can't I get a straight answer? I keep hearing that Multiples is
> > sooo superior. BUT WHY? What makes it superior. Don't say programming
> > features! Thousands of pilots could care less about most of the bells
> > and whistles. In fact, even those of us with several "top of the line"
> > computer radios, don't use all of the features.
> >
> > So, one more time. Why is Multiplex superior? (snip)
>
>
>
Ingo J Donasch
...
>
> Interestingly enough, most of the people I know who fly Multiplex
> also use a tray. Wonder if this is true in general, rather than
> just in the group that I know ?
>
> If so, that could explain why they don't care about the feel of the
> box.
>
> Gordon
the argumentation is the other way around: poeple who like to fly with a tray
would never
consider a JR style transmitter (if they have another choise).
for them only the MC24, FC28 or MPX4000/3000 are in the discussion.
I flew a JR10 with a custom box (because I can't fly with my thumbs), it worked,
but
the ergonomics was not quite optimum. that's why I fly an MC24 now (with my JR
module
and receiver).
finger tip pilots need a flat tx surface,
thumb pilots need a case that fits in their hands.
unfortunatly you can't have it both in the same design, sigh!
anyway, I really enjoyed reding through this thread.
ingo
(I still hope to meet the other mode-1 pilot in the US.... #8-)
Cregger
metal transmitter cases (preferably US made), Harley-Davidson motorcycles
and pack a Colt 1991A1 parkerized .45 pistol. Wah-hah! <G>
Mike Slaughter <MikeSl...@cinci.rr.com> wrote
Herbert M. Winston
I still have fond memories of my old metal cased ProLine & Kraft tx's, but
don't miss their non-computer basics. I don't ride Harleys any more, but
did for a while in Highway Patrol (getting paid to ride a hog!). Your
handgun's in the right direction, I prefer my Para Ord. P-14 & P-12.
Herb Winston, High Flyer
"Cregger" <ecre...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:85qpr6$a20$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net...
Cregger
I'm with you, Herb. While I miss the "good old days" of Kraft and Proline
radios, I would not want to go back to non computerized rigs. What we have
today are miraculous in their reliability and usefulness. Not to mention low
price. Even though the plastic tx cases may not be as reassuring as the
metal cases of yore, the ergonomic design for "thumb flyers" such as myself
is very attractive. I might feel differently if I used a transmitter tray. I
keep saying that I am going to switch to a tray, but I haven't yet.
Still, I must admit, that I am intrigued by Multiplex after all of these
years. However, I have always wanted a Mercedes-Benz diesel sedan, but have
not been able to rationalize spending the extra money. I guess I'll just
keep flying the plastic rice boxes until something else comes along.
--
Ed Cregger
ecre...@mindspring.com
*remove a g
Herbert M. Winston <dete...@mediaone.net> wrote
Ton C. Jaspers
the modern cell-phones ?
Just a thought.
Ton
aerogra...@my-deja.com
is no risk,
Multiplex does make a very good less expensive radio that you would
probably be pleased with.
Yesterday, I resurected my old (18 years) Multiplex Profi 2000 that I
stopped using in 1991, charged it up and it works perfectly, I will be
using it for the upcomming Fiber Optic display at the Forum 2000 in
Guelf Ontario, January 29th. Hope to see you guys there.
Roger
http://www.geocities.com/roger_forgues/Aerografixs.html?946562498480
In article <85s76i$jft$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>,
"Cregger" <ecre...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Paid to ride a hog? Wow! Some guys have all the luck.
>
> I'm with you, Herb. While I miss the "good old days" of Kraft and
Proline
> radios, I would not want to go back to non computerized rigs. What we
have
> today are miraculous in their reliability and usefulness. Not to
mention low
> price. Even though the plastic tx cases may not be as reassuring as
the
> metal cases of yore, the ergonomic design for "thumb flyers" such as
myself
> is very attractive. I might feel differently if I used a transmitter
tray. I
> keep saying that I am going to switch to a tray, but I haven't yet.
>
> Still, I must admit, that I am intrigued by Multiplex after all of
these
> years. However, I have always wanted a Mercedes-Benz diesel sedan,
but have
> not been able to rationalize spending the extra money. I guess I'll
just
> keep flying the plastic rice boxes until something else comes along.
> --
> Ed Cregger
> ecre...@mindspring.com
> *remove a g
>
> Herbert M. Winston <dete...@mediaone.net> wrote
>
> > Hey Ed,
> > I still have fond memories of my old metal cased ProLine & Kraft
tx's, but
> > don't miss their non-computer basics. I don't ride Harleys any
more, but
> > did for a while in Highway Patrol (getting paid to ride a hog!).
Your
> > handgun's in the right direction, I prefer my Para Ord. P-14 & P-12.
> > Herb Winston, High Flyer
>
>
Bernard Grosperrin
> I can't speak the Multiplex quality, but I do know that more gizmos does
> not a better radio make.
So, please, don't....
--
Bernard Grosperrin
"Bernie"
Team Topspeed
http://www.cwsuperpage.com/bernie
Bernard Grosperrin
> Then why don't I see that fact reflected at top competitions like 'Top
> Gun' where money does not appear to be much of an object?
for what I know, Bob Fiorenze fly Multiplex. A good reason for that is that
Top gun is mostly a US competition, and Multiplex is not sold in the US
since a very long time.....look at non US centered competitions to have a
better point of view...
Bernard Grosperrin
> their anachronistic cases.
maybe flying without a tray IS anachronic.....
Bernard Grosperrin
> So, one more time. Why is Multiplex superior?
I don't know what is the policy now, but for Years, in Europe, multiplex as
the only one with a life warranty on their radios. That does not make them
superior, but that says a lot about how much they are confident in their
products.
BTW, Paul, may I suggest you that you takes a MPX radio, and study it by
yourself ?
Jim McIntyre
"Bernard Grosperrin" <bgr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > Then why don't I see that fact reflected at top competitions like
'Top
> > Gun' where money does not appear to be much of an object?
>
> for what I know, Bob Fiorenze fly Multiplex.
>A good reason for that is that
> Top gun is mostly a US competition, and Multiplex is not sold in the
US
> since a very long time.....look at non US centered competitions to
have a
> better point of view...
I could almost accept that explanation except that I've noticed that
these guys know no artificial barriers to buying the best equipment. In
fact, the most irritating comment associated with any noteable equipment
they use is that it's "not yet available in north america". :(
--
Jim McIntyre
Green River (NE of Toronto) Ontario, Canada
http://members.tripod.com/Jim_McIntyre
aerogra...@my-deja.com
and Futaba, I don't remember who makes what. As for Multiplex, are
totally German made by Multiplex. This is why the others are allways
following and not leading.
"If your not the lead dog, the view never changes"
Roger
http://www.geocities.com/roger_forgues/index.html?946317473920
In article <3880E0B3...@specs.com>,
Bernard Grosperrin
> (I still hope to meet the other mode-1 pilot in the US.... #8-)
If mode 1 is throttle on the right, elevator on the left, with rudder, I am
this one.... ;-)
kak...@my-deja.com
"Bernard Grosperrin" <bgr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > I've long stated that my ideal radio would be a Multiplex system
> > inside a JR case, so please don't think I hate Multiplex - just
> > their anachronistic cases.
>
> maybe flying without a tray IS anachronic.....
...and that's precisely the kind of limited viewpoint that can
keep Multiplex sales much lower than those of the big three.
Gordon
kak...@my-deja.com
aerogra...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> As for Multiplex, are
> totally German made by Multiplex. This is why the others are allways
> following and not leading.
Yeah, the others are all following Multiplex... that's why right now
JR, Futaba Airtronics etc. are all developing top-secret pizza-box
styling for their radios.
Gordon
Jim McIntyre
kak...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <85vo8k$lra$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> aerogra...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > As for Multiplex, are
> > totally German made by Multiplex. This is why the others are allways
> > following and not leading.
>
> Yeah, the others are all following Multiplex... that's why right now
> JR, Futaba Airtronics etc. are all developing top-secret pizza-box
> styling for their radios.
>
> Gordon
Just saw an ad for some new low-end Multiplex radios (can't quote model
#, I didn't buy the mag). They had rounded edges! Looked like a plastic
case too!
Maybe a wave of the future? Do you think JR will follow suit? :)
--
Jim McIntyre
Green River Ontario, Canada.
http://members.tripod.com/Jim_McIntyre
aerogra...@my-deja.com
to the Forum 2000 in Guelfe Jan 29th, it would be nice to see you. The
Multiplex radio I beleive you refered to is the Cockpit
http://www.multiplexrc.com/tx_cockpit.htm
Regards
Roger
http://www.geocities.com/roger_forgues/Aerografixs.html?946562498480
In article <85vt8g$pmq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
kak...@my-deja.com
Ingo J Donasch <in...@specs.com> wrote:
> kak...@my-deja.com wrote:
> ...
> >
> > Interestingly enough, most of the people I know who fly Multiplex
> > also use a tray. Wonder if this is true in general, rather than
> > just in the group that I know ?
> >
> > If so, that could explain why they don't care about the feel of the
> > box.
> >
> > Gordon
>
> the argumentation is the other way around: poeple who like to fly with
> a tray would never consider a JR style transmitter (if they have
> another choise). for them only the MC24, FC28 or MPX4000/3000 are in
> the discussion.
I guess that the JR and Futaba pilots I know who are flying with a
tray are just plain ignorant then.
> finger tip pilots need a flat tx surface,
> thumb pilots need a case that fits in their hands.
Beg to differ. I fly with thumb and forefinger on each stick - which
makes me a finger-tip pilot... but my *other* fingers wrap around the
sides of the case, so I still want the radio to be comfortable.
Gordon
Jim McIntyre
Good, that's how it was meant. :)
> but never the less Jim are you going
> to the Forum 2000 in Guelfe Jan 29th, it would be nice to see you.
You too. BTW, what's your real name, I can't go around asking for
'aerografixs251' now can I? :)
Hadn't heard of Forum 2000 until I saw your posts about it on this
newsgroup today. Any more details? Guelph is just over an hour away so I
*might* slip it past the wife. :)
> The
> Multiplex radio I beleive you refered to is the Cockpit
> http://www.multiplexrc.com/tx_cockpit.htm
Yep, that's the one. Kewl look. Is Mutliplex caving in and accepting
North-American ergonomics? :)
--
Jim McIntyre
Green River Ontario, Canada.
http://members.tripod.com/Jim_McIntyre
aerogra...@my-deja.com
Here is the Forum 2000 web site,
http://tor-pw1.netcom.ca/~ivankris/Forum_2000.html
Regards
Roger
http://www.geocities.com/roger_forgues/Aerografixs.html?946562498480
In article <860534$vob$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
msh...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> keep Multiplex sales much lower than those of the big three.
OK I've come in rather late in this, as I'm new to this newsgroup so I'm
not sure what the origin of this thread was...
If anyone is puzzled by all the fuss about Multiplex, or if you are
already an owner of the 3030, you'll find the some comprehensive Multiplex
resources on the Net at http://www.rc-soar.com :
* Detailed review of the MPX Profi MC 3030
* Feedback from users about the 3030
* A programming quiz for the 3030
* Plans for a neckstrap rod extender
Also in the pipeline is an "alternative" programming guide.
If you visit, do let me know if you find it useful. Regards,
- Mike Shellim (Ivinghoe Soaring Association, UK)
Bernard Grosperrin
> > maybe flying without a tray IS anachronic.....
>
> ...and that's precisely the kind of limited viewpoint that can
> keep Multiplex sales much lower than those of the big three.
So what's the point ? what Chronos, the Greek god, and time, the measure
unit, have to do with ergonomics ? Granted, Multiplex radios are not made to
be used with thumbs up, but with a tray. Does that make them anachronic ? I
don't think so.
I see most of the Copters fliers use a tray, as well as ALL of the IMAC guys
at my club. MPX took the last step for them.....
Paul Nesbitt
>
> Paul,
>
> > So, one more time. Why is Multiplex superior?
>
> I don't know what is the policy now, but for Years, in Europe, multiplex as
> the only one with a life warranty on their radios. That does not make them
> superior, but that says a lot about how much they are confident in their
> products.
>
That's an impressive warranty. I too wonder if it is still offered and
if not why.
> BTW, Paul, may I suggest you that you takes a MPX radio, and study it by
> yourself ?
>
I wouldn't be opposed to trying an MPX. But I am a thumb flier. So,
for fear of being blamed of having already made up my mind, I can tell
you that I can tell from the pictures that I would not be comfortable
holding any of the MPXs I've seen.
Just to show you that I am not partial against MPX. I looked at the
Futaba 9ZAP and Airtronics before I bought my latest 10X. The Futaba is
getting a nice feel to it, but with the antenna extended, it still felt
unbalanced to me. Maybe I'm picky, maybe not. For me, there are a
number of radios out there that have the capabilities I want. Since I
don't need to fly what radio everyone around me flies, and I don't care
too much about the money, the only deciding factor left for me is feel.
Interestingly enough, that has always been a pretty important thing to
me anyway.
BTW, I am anxious to try some of their servos.
Paul Nesbitt
Marcel van Nimwegen
it at the hobby store for $220, just the transmitter and a battery charger.
It looked nice, but it is all plastic and the feel of the sticks was not
that good.
I used to have a pizza box styled radio, it was a Microprop (German) radio.
I liked
it a lot but now I am used to a JR radio.
Marcel.
Jim McIntyre wrote:
> In article <85vsij$p4g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> kak...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <85vo8k$lra$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > aerogra...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > As for Multiplex, are
> > > totally German made by Multiplex. This is why the others are allways
> > > following and not leading.
> >
> > Yeah, the others are all following Multiplex... that's why right now
> > JR, Futaba Airtronics etc. are all developing top-secret pizza-box
> > styling for their radios.
> >
> > Gordon
>
> Just saw an ad for some new low-end Multiplex radios (can't quote model
> #, I didn't buy the mag). They had rounded edges! Looked like a plastic
> case too!
> Maybe a wave of the future? Do you think JR will follow suit? :)
Marcel van Nimwegen
Pé Reivers
I fly thumbs too, and I fly MPX's, one at least as old as but probably older
than 20 years. The newer 3030 I fly is large, but the distance from the
gymbals to the radio side is the same as on the old models, giving the same
"feel'' in flight
Pé
Paul Nesbitt <paul.d....@boeing.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
38838914...@boeing.com...
Ton C. Jaspers
>Beg to differ. I fly with thumb and forefinger on each stick - which
>makes me a finger-tip pilot... but my *other* fingers wrap around the
>sides of the case, so I still want the radio to be comfortable.
Seems a little uncomfortable. My guess is that once you try a tray you
will be hooked for life.
Ton
Jim McIntyre
Hi Roger. Your name sounds familiar to me, have we met before?
> Here is the Forum 2000 web site,
> http://tor-pw1.netcom.ca/~ivankris/Forum_2000.html
Thanks, looks good. Looks doubtful if I can make it though, my wife will
be at Guide camp and I'll be looking after our 11-month old girl who
doesn't like to travel. :(
You going to Toledo?
> Regards
> Roger
> http://www.geocities.com/roger_forgues/Aerografixs.html?946562498480
Nice website, we DO have to talk. I've been considering a fiber optics
unit.
kak...@my-deja.com
"Bernard Grosperrin" <bgr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > maybe flying without a tray IS anachronic.....
> >
> > ...and that's precisely the kind of limited viewpoint that can
> > keep Multiplex sales much lower than those of the big three.
>
> So what's the point ? what Chronos, the Greek god, and time, the
> measure unit, have to do with ergonomics ?
Simple really - ergonomically designed radios are a relatively modern
concept. Modern vs old-fashioned is a time-based comparison.
Gordon
kak...@my-deja.com
Actually, it's *extremely* comfortable. My neckstrap takes the weight
of the radio, which is properly balanced at the hook (unlike some
radios I've used), and the radio just blends perfectly into my hands.
The fingers that I have on the side of the radio are perfectly
positioned for the flap control (etc) which is on the side of the PCM10.
I can control flaps, brakes etc with those fingers on the side, without
ever taking my thumb or forefinger off of the joysticks.
I flew with a tray a couple of times (test flying an aircraft for a guy
who had his TX on a tray). I found it to be very uncomfortable.
Anyway, the tray suits some people, but not others. You should use
whatever you prefer. Given that I know people who are very happy
using JR or Futaba TX's on a tray, it seems obvious that you don't
*have to* have a pizza-box TX to use a tray... I mean, come on...
how does the shape of the edge, or the BACK of the TX stop you being
able to use a tray ??? ... yet that's where a lot of the "feel" of an
ergonomically designed TX comes from.
aerogra...@my-deja.com
on going to Toledo, wish I could but there is just too much on my plate
lately.
As for Fiber Optic, I am presently working on an installation for a guy
with a 7.5 meter saiplane in Singapore. He will be using 12 units, 5 in
each wing panels and 2 in the fuse, beautifull setup. But these are
installations that I never looked at before as they are not the same as
with IMAC style airplanes.
Write to me privetaly for the fibers 927...@ican.net
Roger
http://www.geocities.com/roger_forgues/Aerografixs.html?946562498480
n article <861srl$6l7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
msh...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> whatever you prefer. Given that I know people who are very happy
> using JR or Futaba TX's on a tray, it seems obvious that you don't
> *have to* have a pizza-box TX to use a tray... I mean, come on...
> how does the shape of the edge, or the BACK of the TX stop you being
> able to use a tray ??? ... yet that's where a lot of the "feel" of an
> ergonomically designed TX comes from.
I tend to agree. I come from a slope soaring perspective. The 3030 for all
it's programming flexibility is something of a pig's ear as far as the
ergonomics are concerned, at least with the basic unit. The main problem
IMO is the neckstrap attachment point is way too low down for decent
balance, so the aerial tends to dig into the ground when you limber up for
a launch. Better with the rubber ducky aerial however, that's at the
expense of reduced range.
Having said all that, I still wouldn't go back to a Japanese unit and all
the inflexible channel assignment nonsense, not to mention restrictive
high level programming interfaces. In the UK the 3030 and 4000 are
probably the most popular unit on the F3F (slope racing against the clock)
circuit where the programming flexibility is genuinely useful. Horses for
courses as we say.
- Mike
http://www.rc-soar.com
Bernard Grosperrin
> I wouldn't be opposed to trying an MPX. But I am a thumb flier. So,
> for fear of being blamed of having already made up my mind, I can tell
> you that I can tell from the pictures that I would not be comfortable
> holding any of the MPXs I've seen.
>
I understand and now that. They have released, with the cockpit, their first
"thumb compatible" radio. Maybe others will follow ?
.
> BTW, I am anxious to try some of their servos.
I happens to know a guy who is Aeronautical engineer, and who sometimes,
build models for work . In the big stuff kind, with 4 turbines, 250 mph ,and
so on.... I don't know exactly in which research department he is, but,
anyway...He use EXCLUSIVLY MPX servos at work......
Bernard Grosperrin
> Simple really - ergonomically designed radios are a relatively modern
> concept. Modern vs old-fashioned is a time-based comparison.
I agree with that, but you could agree that FOR TRAY PILOTS, MPX 30xx and
4000 are extraordinary well designed about ergonomics. What I am trying to
tell you is that there is not ONE ergonomy, but at least 2, if not
more......The brand new Futaba, JR, and such, usually found on the US
market, are an ergonomic nightmare for a tray pilot !!!!
RBarkus
Bernard Grosperrin wrote:
>
> tell you is that there is not ONE ergonomy, but at least 2, if not
> more......The brand new Futaba, JR, and such, usually found on the US
> market, are an ergonomic nightmare for a tray pilot !!!!
Now how can that be.... I see many, many US pilots using a tray with JR,
Futaba and Airtronics radios!!! I have even seen some top pilots using
trays. Such generalizations......
Robert
Bernard Grosperrin
> Now how can that be.... I see many, many US pilots using a tray with JR,
> Futaba and Airtronics radios!!! I have even seen some top pilots using
> trays. Such generalizations......
I have seen the same, that does not mean these radios are well suited to
that use. It's not a generalization, it's just common sense. Just like, even
if a F16 seat is perfectly adapted to his goal, and is perfectly ergonomic
to his pilot, you don't see them in liners like a 737....
Buttons on the side of the radio are unusable from a tray, small sticks are
not very good, flat display are unreadable, and so on....
Ton C. Jaspers
can be handled when the TX is in a tray ?
I hav not seen a tray yet that creates a flat surface without a gap
for those JR syle radio's.
Ton
msh...@cix.compulink.co.uk
or otherwise of JR style Tx's for use with trays. I can't comment on trays
because we don't use them, all I know is that the MPX is not all that
comfortable to hold to start with, but you do get used to it.
While we're here the the stick tops are also crap, the single best
improvement in my flying was when I junked the old knobs and substituted
some Futaba metal serrated tops (instructions on my web site). You just
can't fly confidently if your thumbs are going to slip off at any moment.
- Mike
Randy Brown
<G>
Randy
>Jim, my name is Roger Forgues from Cornwall, Ontario.
>Here is the Forum 2000 web site,
>http://tor-pw1.netcom.ca/~ivankris/Forum_2000.html
>
>Regards
>Roger
>
>http://www.geocities.com/roger_forgues/Aerografixs.html?946562498480
>
>
>
>In article <860534$vob$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Jim McIntyre <jimmc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> In article <8600gq$s8e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> aerogra...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > Of course I take that as a Joke,
>>
>> Good, that's how it was meant. :)
>>
>> > but never the less Jim are you going
>> > to the Forum 2000 in Guelfe Jan 29th, it would be nice to see you.
>> You too. BTW, what's your real name, I can't go around asking for
>> 'aerografixs251' now can I? :)
>>
>> Hadn't heard of Forum 2000 until I saw your posts about it on this
>> newsgroup today. Any more details? Guelph is just over an hour away
>so I
>> *might* slip it past the wife. :)
>>
>> > The
>> > Multiplex radio I beleive you refered to is the Cockpit
>> > http://www.multiplexrc.com/tx_cockpit.htm
>>
>> Yep, that's the one. Kewl look. Is Mutliplex caving in and accepting
>> North-American ergonomics? :)
>>
Paul Nesbitt
what is the evolution of transmitters anyway? I'll warn you now, this
is intended to be a light hearted post, so please take it that way.
Early transmitters started out so heavy you had to have a neck strap or
tray or even a cart to hold them. In fact, some had antennas that were
many feet long and couldn't even be directly affixed to the transmitter
because of size and weight. In addition, the reason many radios may
have been single stick is because it took one arm to hold the radio and
the other to control the plane.
Then, as electronic technology progressed, radios got lighter and
smaller. No longer were trays and neck straps REQUIRED. Two sticks
could be used. It became easy to grip the case and have very finite
control with just thumbs or thumbs and forefinger. In this period of
history, radio manufacturers had to make a choice between taking
advantage of the programming technology or the micro technology. This is
because the most capable electronics were still bulky, while many of the
common components were being mircosized. An example of this is the
early Futaba 9Z where the radio was very capable, but was still very
heavy because of all of the stuff inside.
Now the present. Microelectronics are the standard and radios can be
very light and very capable at the same time. So, why haven't
transmitters gone the same way as digital phones and tvs that are as
small as watches. Well I think the only reason, is that we need
something to mount our gimbals and switches to. So, if that is the
case, what would be the best, most ergonomic solution to this
requirement. Would it be:
a) An enclosure that is best used with a tray?
-or-
b) A light well balanced enclosure that is easy to hold in your hands?
Maybe it's neither of the above. With todays technology (heck
yesterdays technology), virtual reality gloves are a reality (is that
redundant?). There really is no need for gimbals and switches at all.
Maybe our discussion about ergonomics and anachronic cases is a moot
point. Perhaps, instead of pushing MPX to make cases like JR or JR to
make cases that fit in trays better, we need to push all of them to make
the next generation of transmitter. Qhat I like to call "The Virtual
Radio". It consists of a pair of virtual reality gloves and a heads-up
display headset. All of the airplane functions are controlled via hand
and eye movement. In fact, there should also be a control feedback
mechanism that lets the pilot FEEL when the plane is pulling too many
gees or when flutter is induced. On the heads-up display, there would
be indicators if interference occurs and at to what extent. There could
be a display for RX battery level and fuel level. Heck, there really is
no limit is there?
So, what do you think, trays, cases, or none of the above?
Paul Nesbitt
kak...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <8602r1$ev$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Bernard Grosperrin" <bgr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > maybe flying without a tray IS anachronic.....
> > >
> > > ...and that's precisely the kind of limited viewpoint that can
> > > keep Multiplex sales much lower than those of the big three.
> >
> > So what's the point ? what Chronos, the Greek god, and time, the
> > measure unit, have to do with ergonomics ?
>
> Simple really - ergonomically designed radios are a relatively modern
> concept. Modern vs old-fashioned is a time-based comparison.
>
> Gordon
kak...@my-deja.com
Paul Nesbitt <paul.d....@boeing.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe it's neither of the above. With todays technology (heck
> yesterdays technology), virtual reality gloves are a reality (is that
> redundant?). There really is no need for gimbals and switches at all.
> Maybe our discussion about ergonomics and anachronic cases is a moot
> point. Perhaps, instead of pushing MPX to make cases like JR or JR to
> make cases that fit in trays better, we need to push all of them to
make
> the next generation of transmitter. Qhat I like to call "The Virtual
> Radio". It consists of a pair of virtual reality gloves and a
heads-up
> display headset. All of the airplane functions are controlled via
hand
> and eye movement. In fact, there should also be a control feedback
> mechanism that lets the pilot FEEL when the plane is pulling too many
> gees or when flutter is induced.
Nah.. I need the sticks there. I have a very unsteady hand, so could
not hold it in one place consistently if I were not holding onto
something.
People get too carried away with VR stuff anyway, failing to realise
that some reality is still required. A perfect example of this was
when I was doing research into VR cockpits for the RAF. The basic idea
involved a totally artificial stereo helmet mounted display (coz the
pilot would be inside a titanium sphere - kind of an extension of the
A-10's titanium bathtub approach, so he couldn't see outside), plus
voice recognition, and datagloves to allow all controls to be VR. This
was sort of okay for the virtual control panels etc., but when they
started suggesting a virtual joystick too, that was a bit too much for
me.
The bigwigs were getting all excited about this, and losing all touch
with reality. I couldn't believe how hard it was to make them
understand that if you are holding a non-existent joystick, your hand
will MOVE whenever you pull Gs. That movement in turn becomes another
input which can generate more G, causing more input etc... so that
you get in a totally out-of control vicious circle.
Bottom line is - make some stuff VR if you want, but for goodness sake
keep the stick and some of the more basic controls REAL.
BTW Paul - which part of Boeing do you work for ? I worked with some
of your cockpit design people about 5 or 6 years ago.
msh...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> mechanism that lets the pilot FEEL when the plane is pulling too many
> be indicators if interference occurs and at to what extent. There could
> be a display for RX battery level and fuel level. Heck, there really is
> no limit is there?
>
> So, what do you think, trays, cases, or none of the above?
OK, but we'd need on-board live video:-)
How about a half way house - a more ergonomic transmitter.
The requirements of a transmitter system whether they are German pizza
boxes or Japanese porcupines is:
1. Provide a stable reference for the movement of fingers and thumbs.
2. Provide a means of radio transmission.
The problem with classic tx design is that (1) is implemented in a pretty
dim way - a box with knobs on is not necessarily a stable platform - ask
any cross country glider flyer. Also traditional boxes combine (1) and (2)
in a single unit, so you end up having a ruddy great rod sticking out of
your box to get in the way of things.
Why not split the ergonomic and transmission functions? Instead of using a
box, how about using your own arm a reference for hand movements, after
all you always know where your hand is in relation to your arm without
looking down. An arm spint with a three axis gymbal at the end for a
handle/joystick should do the trick!
That way you could fly your plane with your arm in any position, leaving
it free to flow with your body. This would give you pitch, roll and yaw
via natural whole hand movements. The splint could be connected to a
separate transmission unit with an aerial, perhaps this could be in a
small backpack.
For a prototype system, it wouldn't be a good idea to modify a
transmitting unit, however it should be possible to do modify a "pupil"
transmitter. The arm splint gymbal pots could be attached by a cable to
the pupil transmitter replacing the normal stick pots, with a buddy box
lead from the pupil transmitter to the entirely unmodified "teacher" which
could be rested on the ground or on a table while flying.
- Mike
aerogra...@my-deja.com
toyed with the idea of having to game style joysticks supported from
shoulder straps and use this. I also have started to build full size
seat with full size controls attached to a modern radio control and
using your feet for rudder and all.
Regards
Roger
http://www.geocities.com/roger_forgues/index.html?946317473920
In article <3885DB75...@boeing.com>,
Paul Nesbitt <paul.d....@boeing.com> wrote:
> Maybe it's neither of the above. With todays technology (heck
> yesterdays technology), virtual reality gloves are a reality (is that
> redundant?). There really is no need for gimbals and switches at
all.
> Maybe our discussion about ergonomics and anachronic cases is a moot
> point. Perhaps, instead of pushing MPX to make cases like JR or JR to
> make cases that fit in trays better, we need to push all of them to
make
> the next generation of transmitter. Qhat I like to call "The Virtual
> Radio". It consists of a pair of virtual reality gloves and a heads-
up
> display headset. All of the airplane functions are controlled via
hand
> and eye movement. In fact, there should also be a control feedback
> mechanism that lets the pilot FEEL when the plane is pulling too many
> gees or when flutter is induced. On the heads-up display, there would
> be indicators if interference occurs and at to what extent. There
could
> be a display for RX battery level and fuel level. Heck, there really
is
> no limit is there?
>
> So, what do you think, trays, cases, or none of the above?
>
> Paul Nesbitt
>
> kak...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <8602r1$ev$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Bernard Grosperrin" <bgr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > maybe flying without a tray IS anachronic.....
> > > >
> > > > ...and that's precisely the kind of limited viewpoint that can
> > > > keep Multiplex sales much lower than those of the big three.
> > >
> > > So what's the point ? what Chronos, the Greek god, and time, the
> > > measure unit, have to do with ergonomics ?
> >
> > Simple really - ergonomically designed radios are a relatively
modern
> > concept. Modern vs old-fashioned is a time-based comparison.
> >
aerogra...@my-deja.com
don't look for extravagance, it will be very basic, for the Fiber
Optics.
Roger
http://www.geocities.com/roger_forgues/index.html?946317473920
In article <3885adb4...@news.execulink.com>,
Bernard Grosperrin
> it free to flow with your body. This would give you pitch, roll and yaw
> via natural whole hand movements. The splint could be connected to a
> separate transmission unit with an aerial, perhaps this could be in a
> small backpack.
I am afraid of an "hangar tale" results, if you forget to switch off... <g>
Paul Nesbitt
>
> > That way you could fly your plane with your arm in any position, leaving
> > it free to flow with your body. This would give you pitch, roll and yaw
> > via natural whole hand movements. The splint could be connected to a
> > separate transmission unit with an aerial, perhaps this could be in a
> > small backpack.
>
> I am afraid of an "hangar tale" results, if you forget to switch off... <g>
>
Paul Nesbitt
>
> In article <3885DB75...@boeing.com>,
> Paul Nesbitt <paul.d....@boeing.com> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe it's neither of the above. With todays technology (heck
> > yesterdays technology), virtual reality gloves are a reality (is that
> > redundant?). There really is no need for gimbals and switches at all.
> > Maybe our discussion about ergonomics and anachronic cases is a moot
> > point. Perhaps, instead of pushing MPX to make cases like JR or JR to
> > make cases that fit in trays better, we need to push all of them to
> make
> > the next generation of transmitter. Qhat I like to call "The Virtual
> > Radio". It consists of a pair of virtual reality gloves and a
> heads-up
> > display headset. All of the airplane functions are controlled via
> hand
> > and eye movement. In fact, there should also be a control feedback
> > mechanism that lets the pilot FEEL when the plane is pulling too many
> > gees or when flutter is induced.
>
> not hold it in one place consistently if I were not holding onto
> something.
>
> People get too carried away with VR stuff anyway, failing to realise
> that some reality is still required. A perfect example of this was
> when I was doing research into VR cockpits for the RAF. The basic idea
> involved a totally artificial stereo helmet mounted display (coz the
> pilot would be inside a titanium sphere - kind of an extension of the
> A-10's titanium bathtub approach, so he couldn't see outside), plus
> voice recognition, and datagloves to allow all controls to be VR. This
> was sort of okay for the virtual control panels etc., but when they
> started suggesting a virtual joystick too, that was a bit too much for
> me.
>
> The bigwigs were getting all excited about this, and losing all touch
> with reality. I couldn't believe how hard it was to make them
> understand that if you are holding a non-existent joystick, your hand
> will MOVE whenever you pull Gs. That movement in turn becomes another
> input which can generate more G, causing more input etc... so that
> you get in a totally out-of control vicious circle.
>
> Bottom line is - make some stuff VR if you want, but for goodness sake
> keep the stick and some of the more basic controls REAL.
>
> BTW Paul - which part of Boeing do you work for ? I worked with some
> of your cockpit design people about 5 or 6 years ago.
>
I work in the Boeing Delta IV factory. You know, the next generation
rockets. So ok, some of us really are rocket scientists. <VBG>
Paul Nesbitt
Paul Nesbitt
>
> > In fact, there should also be a control feedback
> > mechanism that lets the pilot FEEL when the plane is pulling too many
> > be indicators if interference occurs and at to what extent. There could
> > be a display for RX battery level and fuel level. Heck, there really is
> > no limit is there?
> >
> > So, what do you think, trays, cases, or none of the above?
>
>
> How about a half way house - a more ergonomic transmitter.
>
> The requirements of a transmitter system whether they are German pizza
> boxes or Japanese porcupines is:
>
> 1. Provide a stable reference for the movement of fingers and thumbs.
>
> 2. Provide a means of radio transmission.
>
> The problem with classic tx design is that (1) is implemented in a pretty
> dim way - a box with knobs on is not necessarily a stable platform - ask
> any cross country glider flyer. Also traditional boxes combine (1) and (2)
> in a single unit, so you end up having a ruddy great rod sticking out of
> your box to get in the way of things.
>
> Why not split the ergonomic and transmission functions? Instead of using a
> box, how about using your own arm a reference for hand movements, after
> all you always know where your hand is in relation to your arm without
> looking down. An arm spint with a three axis gymbal at the end for a
> handle/joystick should do the trick!
>
> it free to flow with your body. This would give you pitch, roll and yaw
> via natural whole hand movements. The splint could be connected to a
> separate transmission unit with an aerial, perhaps this could be in a
> small backpack.
>
> transmitting unit, however it should be possible to do modify a "pupil"
> transmitter. The arm splint gymbal pots could be attached by a cable to
> the pupil transmitter replacing the normal stick pots, with a buddy box
> lead from the pupil transmitter to the entirely unmodified "teacher" which
> could be rested on the ground or on a table while flying.
>
> - Mike
Ya, now that is the kinda of thinking we need to be doing. Now if we
can just get the radio manufacturers to listen to us and start making
prototypes, I'm sure we can get plenty of volunteers to do the beta
testing.
Paul
Ton C. Jaspers
wearing strange sunglases, with their arms spread wide making
'VROOOOOOMMM' like sounds?
I just hope no ignorant spectator calls for psychiatric help.
Ton
Paul Nesbitt <paul.d....@boeing.com> wrote:
>Maybe it's neither of the above. With todays technology (heck
>yesterdays technology), virtual reality gloves are a reality (is that
>redundant?). There really is no need for gimbals and switches at all.
>Maybe our discussion about ergonomics and anachronic cases is a moot
>point. Perhaps, instead of pushing MPX to make cases like JR or JR to
>make cases that fit in trays better, we need to push all of them to make
>the next generation of transmitter. Qhat I like to call "The Virtual
>Radio". It consists of a pair of virtual reality gloves and a heads-up
>display headset. All of the airplane functions are controlled via hand
>and eye movement. In fact, there should also be a control feedback
Paul Nesbitt
funny sunglasses now. In addition, is see lots of body english used by
some pilots, expecially on landings. I don't exactly know if they are
making a "VROOOOOMM" sound, because I try not to get that close. (I
wouldn't want to interfere with that body english.) <VBG>
And as far as the spectators go, they all think we are overgrown
children anyway.
Oh yea, insofar as running around the field. My vision is to do my
flying from a comfortable chair, not running around. <G>
Paul Nesbitt
Pé Reivers
VROOM castor in your face. You guys just made my day :-)
If worst meets worst, the quay tends to turn the ship doesn't it? (Dutch
saying)
Pé
Paul Nesbitt <paul.d....@boeing.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
38871E7B...@boeing.com...
Randy Brown
where is the pictures of the G-300?
Randy
aerogra...@my-deja.com
http://www.geocities.com/roger_forgues/Skunk.html
Regards
Roger
I still have some work to do, as you can tell, but its comming along.
I didn't cover the wing because it will be part of the display for the
Fiber Optics in Guelph this coming week end.
See you there.
Roger
In article <388d9760...@news.execulink.com>,
rab...@execulink.com (Randy Brown) wrote:
> Ok..I'm on your webpage
>
> where is the pictures of the G-300?
>
> Randy
>