Talk:Radio-controlled model

Power Systems
There is some inconsistent information throughout this article. Power systems include (but are not limited to) Gasoline, Glow, and Electric. Other power systems exist, such as solar, and rubber band power -- don't laugh -- it's true! In my humble opinion, electric power has not been given it's deserved praises in this article -- for example, "The fastest aircraft, with gas turbines, can reach speeds of up to 250 mph (400 km/h). Newer jets can achieve above 300 mph (480 km/h) in a short distance." <-- Electric powered "Hot Liners" have broken the 300 mph barrier. A "Hot Liner" is basicly a high-powered glider, which makes use of the glider's very low drag to achieve very high top speeds. Electric power is truly the future of RC, as well as the future of HUMAN travel! The automobile industry should study our LiPo powered aircraft, and learn! :)70.169.212.130 (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Electrical
"The following picture shows a typical brushless DC motor and speed controller used with these radio controlled vehicles." <-- Motors can be brushless OR DC, but not both. The photo shows a brushless motor and electronic speed control, so I'm deleting the word "DC".70.169.212.130 (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Top Image
This is not the best possible photo imho - that is, it's not a good illustration of the hobby/trade. perhaps we should use the photo from the RC heli page? --jazzle 13:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Actually, all the photos in this article are poor.  For example, electronic speed controls (ESCs) are very rarely larger than the motor they are driving.  That photo shows an Electronic Speed Control (ESC) with a built-in heat sink, which makes the ESC look larger than the motor -- most ESCs do not have a built in heat sink to save size and weight!70.169.212.130 (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup Suggested
This page needs some more involved tidying. Main suggestion is to split into sections, and to avoid duplication of content found in other pages (such as 'Radio controlled airplane').
 * I haven't got time now, but I might sort this out at some point. --Phatmonkey 22:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Done! --Phatmonkey 12:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Justin Grimes - Added some more info to the mass production section. Check out the last sentence and let me know if you feel it's relevant. :)

'Design' Section
I think we can just remove the whole thing tbh, or rewrite entirely. --jazzle 03:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Chat
I have edited the model warships information. The aim of model warship combat is to sink ships. The hull is targeted, not the superstructure. LowKey 13:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

What is AMA? I've never heard of it, have not seen their magazine in bookstores and you do not supply a working link. The fact that it exists in your country is hardly relevant, think global! 2004/04/15 MH


 * If you'd taken two seconds with Google, you'd have found out that it is a "worldwide" organization with a US focus, and that connects to a bunch of other national and international organizations, which are worth mentioning, and which will probably get their own articles at some point. Add information, don't take it away. Stan 22:31, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * > If you'd taken two seconds with Google...
 * Why didn't you, you added the line in the first place.
 * > will probably get their own articles at some point. Add information...
 * Exactly, go ahead. Do not add empty filler stuff - you already Googled for it..


 * > If you'd taken two seconds with Google...
 * OK, now so did I and found this AMA website. Looks like this organisation is not only about model aircraft but IMO also makes political and hypocrite statements (top right of page). Again deleted the AMA info. 2004/04/16 MH


 * You'd best cool it with the reverts, or your IP number will be blocked. Stan 21:40, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It's a matter of principle, nothing to harass you. Anyway, The AMA is an organisation specifically dealing with radio controled aircraft so it would be off topic in this article on radio controled models anyway. 2004/04/17 MH


 * I can't tell you how happy I am that the AMA is not mentioned in this article! I've been flying RC aircraft for the last 5 years, and I've learned that the AMA is nothing but a type of "Union" that AMA members insist you to join (if you don't, you're considered an "outcast", or "outlaw").  AMA members tend to think the AMA is solely responsible for the survival of the RC industry.  What ego! 70.169.212.130 (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Glossary Terms?
Are there different names for on/off and increasing speed/angle types of controls on a radio controller/transmitter?
 * Not sure what you're after here. There are on/off switches (such as landing gear switches).  Computer radios can add "exponents", set "dual rates", and modify "end points".  The servos which attach to these different transmitter functions are all the same.  Maybe you're thinking of "On/Off" and "Proportional"?70.169.212.130 (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Types
The headings under types (especially boats!) need some rewriting. I have just copied and pasted the first paragraph from the main article for now, which doesn't work particularly well. --Phatmonkey 14:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The whole TYPES section is heavily weighted on Tanks (for some strange reason). I know guys that fly airplanes, and helicopters, and drive cars; I've heard of people piloting boats; I've never heard of anyone driving an RC tank.  Similarly, you can visit any RC Hobby Shop, and you'll find cars (#1 most popular), airplanes (#2 most popular), helicopters (#3 most popular), boats (#4 most popular), and NO TANKS (least popular).  Let's balance out the TYPES section -- I'd be more than happy to take a stab at the airplanes and helicopters sections. 70.169.212.130 (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

RC Subs
I came across an article with this title and moved it to Radio-controlled submarines. On second thought, I suggested it be merged here, since it was pretty short. Comments? -- MatthewDBA 11:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It could be part of a radio controlled boats article! I might start that page sometime, but I have no knowledge in boats at all. --Phatmonkey 15:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Eek, we don't really need the merge thing on this page. It doesn't look that good for what's a bit of a small matter. --Phatmonkey 15:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Tanks?
There are RC tanks - some that fire BBs, some that don't. I've seen some modified to fire .22 air rifle pellets, and have come across several groups who hold tournaments and similar events. Shouldn't this be included? I'll await your input as I have yet to learn more about this subject. -- ▫Bad▫ harlick♠ 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Bikes
Any chance of putting this in? When I get more confident then I will write a specific page about rc bikes but I need to do some research as well:-)

Bikes
Any chance of putting this in? When I get more confident then I will write a specific page about rc bikes but I need to do some research as well:-) Yianni1071 (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

RC subs
Please add it to the list! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.166.59 (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Split?
As it stands, this article has a name about "models", but is dominated by a long slab of text that's about radio control as a technology. I would suggest the following as a route to improvement:


 * Remove most of the electronics technology content to a separate article. This could be either radio control, or a new article under a new name. Radio control must inevitably cover the extensive military and commercial use too, so there's scope for a distinct article on, "The technology of mass-market radio control for models".


 * Re-work the electronics history article to be better-structured and more readable.


 * Reduce the electronics content still in this article so that it primarily covers modern systems, frequency bands, their capabilities and the distinction between receivers and servos.


 * Rework the "models" section gradually as a list of model types, with a short (1-3 para) section on each type. This would be deeper than just land/sea/air models, so it would have sections for model yachts, submarines, quadcopters etc. Most of the "meat" of such articles would be in individual articles, linked by hatnotes.

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm more concerned by a severe lack of references for most of this article. But it would be entirely in keeping with the Wikipedia tradition to fragment the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The lack of references is a problem too, but I can't start to fix an article when I can't even discern the structure of it. Are you asking to merge it though because it gives the best structure for the readers, or because you just want to argue or blank anything I write? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Jeez...No, actually, I think the article has a more pressing problem than needing to be broken up into fragments. We should not give a catalog of what's on sale at the RC hobby shop this week and instead try to document the history and development. But parts catalogs are *so* much easier to make than encyclopedia articles. I misinterpreted your comment on the talk page as a general solicitations on ways to improve the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The biggest problem here at the moment seems to be covering two big topics at once, each of which could warrant its own article. Why should an article primarily about models also have to be the place where we cover the history of RC electronics? Both warrant coverage, but they don't both fit into one article. Also a lot of readers will only be interested in one, not the other.
 * As to your regular complaint of parts catalogues, the distinctions between making models work for either submarines or quadcopters are far more interesting that this. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Robotics project attention needed

 * Check through (Refs, content, copyedit)
 * Add detail if necessary
 * Reassess

For example, the whole article only has 5 refs - an impossibly low amount for such a vast topic, and one which has thousands of books and magazine articles on it in publication. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Radio-controlled model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090113205448/http://www.fortsmithflightmasters.com/fp/fp040701.html to http://www.fortsmithflightmasters.com/fp/fp040701.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120122010641/http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/norcimradiocontrol/Radio6.htm to http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/norcimradiocontrol/Radio6.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Frequencies?
What frequencies were used before 2.4 GHz began to be used recently? The article doesn't say. --ChetvornoTALK 16:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It varied a bit internationally. The bands were similar, but the permitted frequencies within them could be local. Often this restricted international use of equipment.
 * Historically and for the UK there were three main bands, and one little used.
 * 27MHz was the main and oldest one. This began with six 50kHz-spaced frequencies, controlled by plug-in crystals and identified by coloured flags. As equipment got better, this changed to twelve flagged crystals. Later there was 10kHz spacing, although this was fairly rare (by this time, there was a shift away from 27MHz)  27MHz is also the Citizens' Band, which caused a lot of interference problems.
 * 35MHz in the UK was only permitted for airborne models. This was a move to avoid CB interference for flying models. Also most of the cheap RC toys (and their poorly controlled transmitters) were for land-based toys and this kept the airborne band a little cleaner. Channels were at 10kHz spacings and the first sets were again pluggable and flagged crystals, later with frequency synthesis.
 * 40MHz was for surface vehicles (boats or land) and covered 40.66 – 41.00 with a series of 10kHz channels centred on UK channels 665 to 995 (40.665MHz centre frequency, etc.)
 * For these short wave bands there wasn't (AFAIK) any restriction on the modulation method, other than the band and the channel spacing. Early sets were AM, later sets were FM and the only practical 10kHz sets would have been FM and probably with frequency synthesis.
 * 459MHz was used in the UK, although (AFAIR) only for the UK and wasn't widely used. It ran from 458.5 to 459.5 MHz, with 25kHz spacing. The lower half was shared  (with garage door openers too) and the upper half was restricted to flying models.    Similar international bands were provided at 413 MHz, 433 – 435 MHz   although these were mostly termed "industrial" or "telemetry" bands and were filled with car door locks and other cheap junk.
 * 2.4 GHz has several advantages. One is that all equipment is inherently frequency agile and self-tuning to avoid interference and other transmitters (this requires them to work bidirectionally too). That said, I was at a teapot racing event recently (don't judge) and we had problems with some 2.4 GHz equipment, owing to the indoor environment being already filled with 2.4GHz Wi-fi equipment and one of the RC sets finding itself unable to cope. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)