Author Topic: 2.4 ghz transmitters? (Read 2664 times)

Douglas Ames · « **on:** July 03, 2012, 09:18:41 PM »

The aircraft model side of things I could figure out but how would you set up a 2.4 ghz transmitter/ handle combo? Would you have to buy a 2 or more channel radio and gut the thing and start rewiring a custom box or ?

How would you go about it? Scale or Carrier.

Very curious! -Doug

John Rist · « **Reply #1 on:** July 03, 2012, 11:46:32 PM »

I have given it some thought but have not built anything. To date I don't think is contest legal yet may be legal soon. Anyway I would buy a cheep 2 channel car pistol grip radio and add a bar across the front with eyehooks for the controll lines. You could then use the throttle trigger for throttle and the steering channel for what ever. The steering knob could be replaced with a switch for retracts - or what ever. Would be an easy conversion. The other approach that has been used is take a standard airplane radio and mount it to your belt with a belt clip. It is then operated with the left hand at the belt. Will work great with an electric because the speed controller BEC will supply power for the receiver.

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #2 on:** July 04, 2012, 06:43:36 AM »

Tactic has a 2.4 Ghz system called "Any Link" and it converts my older 72 mhz transmitters to 2.4. I tried hooking this up to a single channel unit but it did not work. Look on the tower web site and search under "Any Link".

I will be buying a 2.4 Ghz transmitter and reciever when the rules passes later this year. If you look at the voting results 2.4 easily passed for CL general and CL scale. The carrier folks still have some heartburn with the system but it also passed for them.

I use the transmitters hanging off my belt and it works just fine, some folks don't like that. I like having a very light handle with nothing on it. I even fly my 12 lb model with one hand without any problems. If you were able to take a 2 or 3 channel 2.4 unit designed for a RC car that would work, the trigger could be used for the throttle (I think).

If the Any Link system could be made to work with Clancy's system that would be best solution. That might be worth a try.

I already have two of my sport models flying 2.4 Ghz, and it's the way to go, especially for electric powred models.

Fred Cronenwett

bill bischoff · « **Reply #3 on:** July 04, 2012, 01:32:37 PM »

In anticipation of 2.4 being legal for carrier, I obtained a cheap 2 channel car radio. At least initially, I am just going to hold the pistol grip tx in my left hand and work the throttle that way. It may work fine, or it may seem totally unnatural and I'll need a plan B.

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #4 on:** July 04, 2012, 02:39:44 PM »

After flying with electronic controls since 1991 I have flown with custom built handles that had a trigger much like the typical 3-line handle. We tested all sorts of systems in the 1990's including the infrared system, single channel, converted transmitters and the Bill Young handle that had the trigger built into the handle.

In the end you can put a transmitter on your belt and operate the throttle stick by feel, or put the trigger into the handle like most folks have done. Some people tell me they have been flying 3-line for so long that putting the transmitter on the belt feels un-natural. Some folks have even gotten a neck strap for the transmitter and hang the transmitter on thier chest and operate the switches that way.

However you decide to work the system is up to you and don't let anyone tell that one way is better than another. I have noticed that some pilots when flying 3-line will fly the model with the right hand and then reach up to the handle with the left hand and operate the throttle that way. When I flew with 3-line I used the trigger with my index finger. Then we tried the transmitter on the belt and had no problems switching.

You will find with the transmitter separate from the handle your right hand can focus on the flying portion while your left hand operates the throttle and the two never get in the way of each other. from a scale point of view I can't wait to convert my sport scale RV-4 to 2.4 Ghz from the down the lines system I use now.

land softly,
Fred Cronenwett

John Rist · « **Reply #5 on:** July 04, 2012, 08:06:00 PM »

Quote from: Fred Cronenwett on July 04, 2012, 02:39:44 PM

After flying with electronic controls since 1991 I have flown with custom built handles that had a trigger much like the typical 3-line handle. We tested all sorts of systems in the 1990's including the infrared system, single channel, converted transmitters and the Bill Young handle that had the trigger built into the handle.

In the end you can put a transmitter on your belt and operate the throttle stick by feel, or put the trigger into the handle like most folks have done. Some people tell me they have been flying 3-line for so long that putting the transmitter on the belt feels un-natural. Some folks have even gotten a neck strap for the transmitter and hang the transmitter on thier chest and operate the switches that way.

However you decide to work the system is up to you and don't let anyone tell that one way is better than another. I have noticed that some pilots when flying 3-line will fly the model with the right hand and then reach up to the handle with the left hand and operate the throttle that way. When I flew with 3-line I used the trigger with my index finger. Then we tried the transmitter on the belt and had no problems switching.

You will find with the transmitter separate from the handle your right hand can focus on the flying portion while your left hand operates the throttle and the two never get in the way of each other. from a scale point of view I can't wait to convert my sport scale RV-4 to 2.4 Ghz from the down the lines system I use now.

land softly,
Fred Cronenwett

Fred, All true. If you fly RC the right hand controlles the up-down and right-left. The left hand controlles the throttle. I suspect it would be very natural to do the same for control-line.

Douglas Ames · « **Reply #6 on:** July 04, 2012, 10:30:17 PM »

I'd be careful converting a car Tx to control line. Not sure what's inside the handle but they must survive a pull test!
Maybe cut the handle off leaving the trigger and Tx then attaching it onto a proper C/L handle, battery pack on your belt.

It's only a matter of time before 2.4ghz is passed (or already has?). I welcome it, although pitch axis should be via the lines/ handle.

I was just curious if you could take the circuit board(s) out of a radio and repackage it in a box above or side of a control line handle.

John Rist · « **Reply #7 on:** July 05, 2012, 05:24:15 PM »

Quote from: Douglas Ames on July 04, 2012, 10:30:17 PM

I'd be careful converting a car Tx to control line. Not sure what's inside the handle but they must survive a pull test!
Maybe cut the handle off leaving the trigger and Tx then attaching it onto a proper C/L handle, battery pack on your belt.

It's only a matter of time before 2.4ghz is passed (or already has?). I welcome it, although pitch axis should be via the lines/ handle.

I was just curious if you could take the circuit board(s) out of a radio and repackage it in a box above or side of a control line handle.

I may well buy a cheepy Hobby King radio and see what it takes to use it as a handle. If I do a posting will follow.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #8 on:** July 06, 2012, 08:37:59 AM »

Quote from: Douglas Ames on July 04, 2012, 10:30:17 PM

I'd be careful converting a car Tx to control line. Not sure what's inside the handle but they must survive a pull test!
Maybe cut the handle off leaving the trigger and Tx then attaching it onto a proper C/L handle, battery pack on your belt.

It's only a matter of time before 2.4ghz is passed (or already has?). I welcome it, although pitch axis should be via the lines/ handle.

I was just curious if you could take the circuit board(s) out of a radio and repackage it in a box above or side of a control line handle.

I did a search and could not find it. But, I vaguely remember someone posting pics of a car/boat transmitter that had been modified for CL flying. They had pics and details. Maybe it was over on the Stuka Stunt site.

bill bischoff · « **Reply #9 on:** July 06, 2012, 08:03:00 PM »

I think it was in a recent Model Aviation. Somebody had converted a car transmitter into a CL handle.

Bill Little · « **Reply #10 on:** July 07, 2012, 02:15:10 PM »

This may come out really "dumb", but the way I am understanding the 2.4 systems is that you will rig up your C/L scale model with a normal 2 line Bell Crank then install a receiver and servos for all your functions of "options". Basically an R/C model with a regular bell crank?

This would really make it a lot easier for a neophyte like myself to build a scale model with various functions like retracts, flaps, and any others.

Be kind and thanks!
Bill

John Rist · « **Reply #11 on:** July 07, 2012, 09:53:45 PM »

Quote from: Bill Little on July 07, 2012, 02:15:10 PM

This may come out really "dumb", but the way I am understanding the 2.4 systems is that you will rig up your C/L scale model with a normal 2 line Bell Crank then install a receiver and servos for all your functions of "options". Basically an R/C model with a regular bell crank?

This would really make it a lot easier for a neophyte like myself to build a scale model with various functions like retracts, flaps, and any others.

Be kind and thanks!
Bill

Bill,

You nailed it on the head!

Douglas Ames · « **Reply #12 on:** July 07, 2012, 11:42:50 PM »

It increases the number of options available.
You could conceivably have elev. (b/c), ailerons, rudder, canopy, cowl flaps , flaps, gear, brakes, mixture trim, lights, ordinance, effects/ sound, even an ejection seat for your pilot when you forget "what switch does what", lol

John Rist · « **Reply #13 on:** July 08, 2012, 08:17:41 PM »

Multi channel down the wire is not that hard to accomplish. A picture of my 7 channel handle. However it would have been easier and cheaper with a 2.4 ghz rig.

Paul Smith · « **Reply #14 on:** July 09, 2012, 04:59:44 AM »

All of that, plus eliminate the BOM and pay somebody to install the two-line bellcrank. That should make it easy enough.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #15 on:** July 09, 2012, 08:01:48 AM »

Hey it still takes someone that knows what they are doing to get all that to work and work the right way. The plane still has to be controlled by the handle for elevation changes. This just might get more people into scale or even just everyday flying. I still have the stuff I got from Fred C. Just haven't decided which plane to start on.

Avaiojet · « **Reply #16 on:** July 09, 2012, 10:11:02 AM »

Gentleman,

I'm following this in great detail. Scale is what I did in R/C and I'm converting what models I can to CL.

"RCCL" Is this the future?

Anyway, Flaps, gear and a whole bunch of other stuff was mentioned, as just setting everything up as R/C and flying the model CL.

I went to Tower to read about the "Any Link," that was mentioned. I never had a 2.4 TX, I'm still a bit confused. How do you tune the RX to the TX using the "Any Link?"? Did I miss that?

Old school, I have a three line bellcrank for the Gee Bee Z I have. Just having control of the throttle is fine for that model. Seems like the three line method may be outdated? I do have Clancy's gismo for a single operation.

Multi-operations, I like the idea of R/C equipment in a CL model.

If you get "hit" it doesn't matter.

I'm converting a H9 Corsair to the F2G #57, and will need to operate a bunch of stuff.

Obviously, I now realise I will need much more than Clancy's gismo.

Also, I see in your photo, all R/C type pushrods/servos. Nice application. What model is that?

Scale is really what I do and the direction I'm going in with CL. So, I'll be reading your Tech and will probably ask a few questions as my Corsair build continues. I believe I will need some help.

Your replies and information, really helpful.

Thanks,

Charles

John Rist · « **Reply #17 on:** July 09, 2012, 11:49:42 AM »

Quote from: Avaiojet on July 09, 2012, 10:11:02 AM

Gentleman,

Also, I see in your photo, all R/C type pushrods/servos. Nice application. What model is that?

Thanks,

Charles

It's an Extra 300S 60 size RC kit from Great Planes. It has alerons, rudder, throttle, and smoke as auxeral functions.

John Rist · « **Reply #18 on:** July 09, 2012, 11:54:28 AM »

Quote from: Avaiojet on July 09, 2012, 10:11:02 AM

Gentleman,

I went to Tower to read about the "Any Link," that was mentioned. I never had a 2.4 TX, I'm still a bit confused. How do you tune the RX to the TX using the "Any Link?"? Did I miss that?

Charles

The Any Link plugs into the trainer outlet to get the Tx stick location information. You remove the radios christal to stop it from normal transmation. You then have to have a 2.4 receiver that you bind to the Any Link like any other 2.4 setup.

Douglas Ames · « **Reply #19 on:** July 28, 2012, 11:34:26 AM »

Quote from: Paul Smith on July 09, 2012, 04:59:44 AM

All of that, plus eliminate the BOM and pay somebody to install the two-line bellcrank. That should make it easy enough.

"Always with the negatives Moriarty"

Clancy Arnold · « **Reply #20 on:** July 28, 2012, 08:20:53 PM »

Charles
Besides the Single Channel unit I offer U/Tronics Control systems in 4 channel, 5 channel and 7 channel configurations.

Do you need more than 7 channels?
Clancy

Clancy Arnold · « **Reply #21 on:** October 21, 2012, 07:25:49 PM »

Food for thought!

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1747947

Clancy

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #22 on:** October 22, 2012, 02:26:29 PM »

I really hate to see this 2.4 thing come along. But who the heck am I but other than a stodgy old fool that resists change of any kind. Look how long it took me accept electrics, and now it is all I have.

I really don't recommend trying to use or modify the 2.4 transmitters as a flying handle. I am sure that the manufacturers would look at you cross-eyed if you ask how much "pull test" it will stand. It should be fairly simple, however, to attach the transmitter to the flying handle. That would let you control the elevators of the airplane with your flying hand (left or right) and let you perform the other functions of the airplane through the attached transmitter - all at eye level. Attached is a picture of my latest system showing how this can be easily done. The system consists of a wood Brodack handle with two attached offsets, a Radio Shack project box, and a Clancy Arnold 4 channel U-Tronics system with four slide pots. The proposed 2.4 transmitter would replace everything but the wood handle.

I am assuming the the current rule of the elevation of the airplane must be via the flying lines must still remain in effect. Otherwise we would just become "R/C planes on a stick". As I said before, however, I resist. Whatever the rules are, I will comply.

Jim Fruit

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #23 on:** October 22, 2012, 06:59:00 PM »

Go next door to Carrier and checkout "2.4 ghz flying experience".

Jim Fruit · « **Reply #24 on:** October 22, 2012, 10:17:29 PM »

Quote from: Bob Heywood on October 22, 2012, 06:59:00 PM

Go next door to Carrier and checkout "2.4 ghz flying experience".

Thanks Bob. Why reinvent the wheel? Lots of great craftsmanship shown there.

Jim Fruit

phil c · « **Reply #25 on:** January 03, 2013, 12:37:46 PM »

Quote from: John Rist on July 05, 2012, 05:24:15 PM

I may well buy a cheepy Hobby King radio and see what it takes to use it as a handle. If I do a posting will follow.

I got a cheapie Hobby King car set. I wouldn't consider using it as a handle. The plastic is pretty flimsy. I've used it simply holding it in my left hand. I agree with Fred C. separating the throttle from the elevator funtion is easier to learn. I've tried both. I found trying to control the throttle with a trigger on the handle was hard to coordinate smoothly. I had to use my left hand for the throttle.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #26 on:** January 03, 2013, 12:43:27 PM »

Quote from: phil c on January 03, 2013, 12:37:46 PM

I've used it simply holding it in my left hand.

I got a Hobby King car radio to use for a pair of Reniger ET-1's that I'm building for my nephews. Holding the handle in my right hand and TX in my left works very well for throttle only on the radio. I'm not sure how things would go for more functions than that -- lessee, handle in your right hand, TX in the left, then I want flaps down so I just reach over with my middle hand and...

I don't know if the correct solution is to mount the whole thing on the handle so that you have your left hand fully free to play with switches and sliders and whatnot, or if the correct solution is to try to make all of the "auxiliary" functions accessible from your left hand (probably by putting them where you could reach them with your thumb). But I can visualize doing this with everything mounted on the handle, and not otherwise...

chuck snyder · « **Reply #27 on:** January 03, 2013, 01:41:10 PM »

I fly my down the line system and transmitter (in direct servo control mode) with a transmitter tray. I can operate trhrottle, flaps, retracts, and bomb drop with my left hand.
Chuck