Radio Technique
INTERFERENCE TESTS. This morning, I received in the mail copies of correspondence between Mr. Geoffrey E. Styles, Director of Public Relations at AMA HQ, and Mr. George M. Weigman, Secretary of the Lake Shore RC Club (in Illinois). The gist of it is that members of the Lake Shore RC Club cooperated in an attempt to discover the minimum spacing between two RC fields-that is, minimum for their situation. A test plan was written and tests were executed using standard RC equipment, a CB for communication, and an automobile for distance measurement. The test airplanes orbited the Lake Shore RC Club field at various altitudes from 400 to 1,500 feet (we presume that there are no airfields for man-carrying aircraft nearby), and deliberate attempts were made to interfere, using same-channel transmitters at specified distances.
Radio Technique
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE for your RC transmitter? Our AMA, acting in its capacity as National Representative of Aeromodeling for the United States, has two missions: 1) To promote aeromodeling; 2) To keep records. In performing those missions, our AMA does the following: 1) Advertises the benefits of model aviation and the accomplishments of AMA members; 2) Codifies and publishes rules for competition; 3) Sanctions contests conducted by members; 4) Conducts national and international contests; 5) Homologates (certifies) records, both nationwide and worldwide.
Radio Technique
"Dear George: " . . . I am especially interested in ultra-miniature RC. The problem is to find a source of ultra-miniature equipment. Remember the Albin Superregen receiver (May 1968 AAM)? I built one for an .010 aircraft, using MS76 Silver Oxide batteries and a Bentert Actuator and never did get consistent enough control to be happy, but the receiver only weighed six and the actuator 6.5 grams. Surely, there have been advances in the state of the art, but I haven't found them. Can you help? My goal is CO-2-powered Peanut Scale RC. I'll keep you posted when I put it all together. Thanks."
Radio Technique
WHAT INTERFERENCE? For the past two years, I have been loaning out (on request) an AMA frequency monitor to clubs in District II. You know what they have found? Nothing! They haven't found any interference on the new RC channels. Oh sure, they have found a bridge tender here, and a pocketpager there, located on the old, even-numbered channels (72.080, 72.160, 72.240, 72.320, 72.40, 72.96, 75.64 MHz). But we knew that would happen. It was happening before we got the new channels. That's why we got the new channels! By law, there shouldn't be any interference on the new RC channels, which we have for our exclusive use (except for interference we get from other modelers). According to this small set of tests, we have what is expected.
WRAM Show 1985: New Beginnings
I WENT TO THIS SHOW looking for narrow-band dual-conversion receivers. We have needed them ever since the new RC channels were authorized, and the only ones to hit the market so far have been the Novak NER-91 AM and the Kraft KPR-8FD and FDS models. The Kraft synthesized receiver had some teething problems, which seem to have been taken care of. The big question now: "What is Kraft up to?" The company didn't show up at White Plains, so I couldn't ask the question. All I can report is that Kraft must still be making FDS receivers, because I traveled to the show with my friend, Norm Rosenstock, who received a new one in the mail a few days earlier. I looked at it, and it looks exactly like my old one. We haven't opened it up to look for the new dual-gate MOSFET, but I'll bet it's in there!
