Its not specified on here or on the manufacturers site . The set is based on serial modem modules similar to the xbee and I so would expect they have a similar spec. We can make an educated guess based on the facts that they are CE'd & therefore must be below 100mw, and as the range is fantastic I would guestimate they are above 10mw. Current consumption of the whole set including the LED and decoder is 100mA (measured), and if you generously allow 20ma for the LED, 10ma for the encoder, and a total of 10ma across the pots (they are voltage dividers into A/D inputs) that leaves 60ma used by the rf modem. These usually run at 3.3v which is 200 milliwatts input and so 100 mw out would be a reasonable expectation. I stress this is educated guesswork, what we do know is that they are legal and have suberb range. Hope this gobbledygook helps, its a great set and unbelieveable value I'm just waiting for Rob to get some more receivers in stock. Cheers Phil

Thanks Phil for the reply. My main concern was the range and as you say it is exceptional I'll give the system a try. I have read that some low cost systems only run 10mW and that is generally accepted as marginal for model aircraft especially with only a single antenna due to multipath effects and antenna shadowing. Thanks again, Alan

Thanks Phil for the reply. My main concern was the range and as you say it is exceptional I'll give the system a try. I have read that some low cost systems only run 10mW and that is generally accepted as marginal for model aircraft especially with only a single antenna due to multipath effects and antenna shadowing. Thanks again, Alan Radiated (ERP) is not quoted by the manufacturer. Phil's assumptions above are very reasonable and I would agree with his figures. PCf

tghj,

my 2.4ghz radio set came this morning very pleased with the speed it got here / wishing to buy a sping kit for the lift hand joy stick / to replace the rachet / is this somthing i can buy if so how much / would allso like to buy 5x receivers to go with this set when you have them yours mike michael stamp ------------------------------------- Michael, The receivers are due in stock on 30 Sept 09 Phil W

Hi, Can you tell me if the GiantCod 2.4GHz sets like this one are CE approved? There does not appear to be and approval sticker on them. I note that the part number on the back starts with "CE" but this is not in the correct format for an approval mark and therefore cannot be regarded as such. Thanks, Alan

I have to agree with balsaman on this one. If unhappy just buy Futaba or JR/Spektrum and pay the money. Talking of illegal flying...I wonder how many people out there are park flying models with no BMFA insurance. Kinda takes the edge out of worrying whether the radio has a CE sticker or not...

The majority of issues regarding 2.4GHz radios and CE approval is down to the power output. I can confirm that these sets are within the UK spec and are 100mw or less. Other points of CE specification can be a grey area on much of the equipment emerging from China however I’m sure most UK resellers will have hopefully checked these issues before selling them on to the public.

I was hoping for a more definitive answer. A search on the the www indicates that in the EU the CE marking is required by law and it is illegal to sell and also illegal to use non-CE marked transmitters. If it is CE certified then the seller must be able to provide an "EC declaration of conformity". Alan

Does it matter - The stuff is so cheap , if it works and is safe , why make a fuss The CE is a formality and most regulations are there just for burocrats who have time on there hand . If it is not CE aproved , it probally is anyway , it will not bite your leg off . If you are so concerned , get a Futaba Fasst system I recomend a 14mz . t is very good and is fully certified .

Hi, Great news Rob, it would be worth making it available via a link. All that's missing now is a sticker on each system. It matters to people who want to stay on the right side of the law (even though the probability of individuals being prosecuted is very low) and want to buy legal equipment. Most importantly it matters to GiantCod because the long arm of the law will prosecute the seller, ie the big fish , rather than the end user, whether there are problems with the equipment or not. The whole point of CE testing is to protect the user! I am sure most flyers would be upset if little Timmy spent his pocket money an a non CE system and shot their plane down - can't blame little Timmy can we? We could blame the seller though as they ought to know better! CE testing adds less than £1 to a volume product so has to be worth it. The system would "probably be OK", is not good enough, it's like saying "my car will probably pass the MOT so I wont bother to get it tested". Bureaucracy, yes it is a pain. Mentioning such an emotive subject always rallies support to ones views.... 14MZ is a great system but there are now many sub £100 2.4GHz systems that are CE certified too, so you really don't need to go to that extreme! Happy flying and long live GiantCod.

Hi this guy has a point , fact he has a few points and I wish he was a member of all the clubs I belong to,they would be very safe to belong to, I would even vote him on the committee, with gusto! But I think a lot of us have soldered resisters in, some have two lots of resisters in, for dual rates, even swapped wires around, so would this make the EU (lets all have a job at a quarter of a million a year, including expenses) sticker void. I think IMHO, don,t fly over people, there cars, dogs or a football pitch while they are playing and yes cricket if you live in a nice place, also don't pi$$ off whitemouse. Good night and cod bless.

Hi this guy has a point , fact he has a few points and I wish he was a member of all the clubs I belong to,they would be very safe to belong to, I would even vote him on the committee, with gusto! But I think a lot of us have soldered resisters in, some have two lots of resisters in, for dual rates, even swapped wires around, so would this make the EU (lets all have a job at a quarter of a million a year, including expenses) sticker void. I think IMHO, don,t fly over people, there cars, dogs or a football pitch while they are playing and yes cricket if you live in a nice place, also don't pi$$ off whitemouse. Good night and cod bless. Not wishing to knock all of this "essential legislation"? regarding our model flying activities and CE approval for imported RC equipment, but it would be reasonable to suggest the Chinese are "tuned in" to such matters and most wouldn't run the risk of flogging junk stuff which possibly radiates spurious RF emissions or at power levels considered to be inapplicable for UK. What is interesting to note but maybe slightly off topic is how BMFA have suggested that supporting your local model shop is really the best way to go and suggests the possibility of receiving damaged goods from online transaction suppliers.Then as one randomly flicks through the latest issue of said BMFA news, one couldn't help but notice how many large adverts there are. BMFA have already warned against using 2.4ghz "hack" modules to convert existing equipment, and modifying any existing gear could/almost certainly will void any such CE compliance. There must be more than a few who have taken such steps and are enjoying the benefits of such inexpensive equipment conversions with complete safety. Perhaps vested interest may come to mind by some?? This particular online hobby store can singularly be thanked for making our nice model flying pastime even more affordable and has surely introduced many new prospective modeller's to the joys of cheap electric flight. This in turn generates the possibility of many more new subscribers to the BMFA insurance scheme. Reading between the lines, it appears that certain parties are doing their best to stifle or restrict the activities of budget suppliers. They would much rather we all pay through the nose, but that's certainly not going to happen. I'll take up another hobby before having to pay almost times 3 the price for a Lipo pack with inferior performance to those I can buy here. I therefore ask and suggest that Giantcod furthers its business interest within the hobby trade and expands its range of modelling products. The above by Mugidude regarding safety has to be applauded of course, each and every one of us has to be a safety officer. No kidding, I've really have had a great days flying with my Giantcod Predator, Emax motor, a "Cod prop", Black Mantis ESC, Corona RD820II receiver, 4 8.5g digital servos, and several LoongMax Lipo's all charged using a Giantcod charger!!!! Victor Mildew. aka PCf

After a little more research.... on the Radio Link website: http://www.radiolink.com.cn It does say: 5) Totally comply with FCC & CE standards. Our product has obtained FCC & CE certificates, and they can beyond the testing requirements for big volume order totally and completely. Making allowances for the translation, this indicates all is well. Alan

Only the one advertised I'm afraid...

Only the one advertised I'm afraid... What a pity. Please let me know if, at some time, you have a smaller receiver suitable for use with the 2.4Ghz 4-channel Mode 2 Transmitter.

Mark (Whitemice) takes them out of the case and pops a bit of shrink wrap around them. Would that be small enough? Phil

Excellent idea. Unfortunately, the most critical dimention for me is the width of the unit and since the circuit board occupies all the width of the case, removing the case is not an option. So, if you do have a smaller unit at some time in the future, please let me know. Thank you again for your suggestion Regards John B

"...Unfortunately, the most critical dimention for me is the width of the unit and since the circuit board occupies all the width of the case, removing the case is not an option. So, if you do have a smaller unit at some time in the future, please let me know...." I assume it's unlikely that a smaller version will be created, since these are standard high-volume designs. A special would be very costly. But have you noticed how few components there are in the receiver? Ignoring surface mounts, there are four on the motherboard. I am not an electronics specialist, and I know that component placement is important, particularly for high frequencies, but the receivers are low cost, and it might be possible to experiment by rearranging the board a bit. For a starter, you could lose the connecting pins and go to direct wiring - that would knock off 12 mm to give you 30mm length. The edges could be shaved to 25mm, possibly 20mm by replacing board with wire. The height is already less than 15mm. Of course, you would lose your guarantee. It might be interesting to hear an electronics wizard comment on what could be done...

I use the smaller 35mHz 4ch coronas on all my pan-tilting kite rigs and have had great results even in 'crowded' airspace when all my mates are flying their kites too, we have great days out when it's too windy for slope soaring and i always take my tartan 'thermos' and matching anorak..

"...Unfortunately, the most critical dimention for me is the width of the unit and since the circuit board occupies all the width of the case, removing the case is not an option. So, if you do have a smaller unit at some time in the future, please let me know...." I assume it's unlikely that a smaller version will be created, since these are standard high-volume designs. A special would be very costly. But have you noticed how few components there are in the receiver? Ignoring surface mounts, there are four on the motherboard. I am not an electronics specialist, and I know that component placement is important, particularly for high frequencies, but the receivers are low cost, and it might be possible to experiment by rearranging the board a bit. For a starter, you could lose the connecting pins and go to direct wiring - that would knock off 12 mm to give you 30mm length. The edges could be shaved to 25mm, possibly 20mm by replacing board with wire. The height is already less than 15mm. Of course, you would lose your guarantee. It might be interesting to hear an electronics wizard comment on what could be done... Thank you Dodgy Good idea. On reflection however, I have decided that it would be less work to modify my rig than to make an attempt to modify the receiver. An added complication has become apparent. See my reply to Mark below.

I use the smaller 35mHz 4ch coronas on all my pan-tilting kite rigs and have had great results even in 'crowded' airspace when all my mates are flying their kites too, we have great days out when it's too windy for slope soaring and i always take my tartan 'thermos' and matching anorak.. Mark/Dodgy/Phil I bought the 2.4Ghz kit to extend the range at which I could control the pan/tilt/shutter operations on my kite aerial photography (KAP)rig So far, so good. Improved range - wonderful. However..... I have been using a 2.4Ghz transmitter on the rig to transmit a live picture down to a monitor on the ground. In this way, I can compose the pictures I take. Is the snag becoming apparent ? Interference between rig-control transmitter and monitor - necessarily close to each other because the whole set-up is hand-held so that I can move about whilst flying kite and taking photographs. Interference with all 4 channels on the receiver ! A clear case of an ill-thought-out plan ! Either I move to 35Mhz to avoid interference, or I use some other means of getting my picture down to the monitor. I do apologise for wasting everyone's time. I think the hood of my anorak obscured my view of common sense ! John B

Not sure if this is what you want, if not shout again... Channel 1 is the right-hand stick, side to side Channel 2 is the right-hand stick, forward & back Channel 3 is the left-hand stick, forward & back which stays put (not spring centred) Channel 4 is the left-hand stick, side to side the remainder are unused when you're using the 4-channel transmitter. Power from the ESC or rx battery can go in any of the connectors. Did you know the T4U has a transmitter mixer, which might be of use in a twin engined model, I dont know. The switch can be reached through the battery compartment. Cheers Phil

Phil, what a star you are ..... That's just what I wanted to know, I've built a WWII American Landing Craft (LCT6), powered by two motors with two speed controllers and have been sat at the table scratching the old grey matter through my bald spot. As you do when you get to my age. The idea came to me about building a landing craft when I purchased a 1/35th American Sherman tank from the model boat show late last year .... picture this .... landing craft drives up to the beach, ramp drops and out drives a small tank, guns blazing with sound as well .... great for a kids party (big kids as well). I will be leaving plenty of posts in the near future because all this mumbo jumbo about brushless motors and lipo batteries is really taxing the old brain. If you want a giggle, log on to http://www.holtcraft.co.uk and check out Droitwich Model Boat Club .... look at the section regarding pictures in 2010 and then January and you can get an eyefull of my model .... don't laugh too much .... it's my first scratch build. Thanks again for the info Alan

Alan, thats a pretty amazing first scratch-build! and an unusual choice of subject(s). Very well done. You may be able to use the tx mixer to give forward/back on the right-hand stick (ch 2) and differential-speed to the tracks for steering (ch 1). There are a quite a few model boat peeps on here, I recall one had a twin-screw boat which steered like that. Cheers Phil

There is a port for it but I haven't tried it. I would be interested to hear from anyone who has...

Mine doesnt have a port at all, my lads T4 (a later version) does but its output only. So, provided the levels are correct, you could use it as the student, but not the tutor. Phil

They're 44x29x17. The servo plugs come out of the top so that inreases the 17mm as a general note a lot of the GC goodies give sizes if you click on the pictures Gerry

I have just been looking at this system for use in Antweight Combat Robots and found the receiver a little heavy and bulky. Antweight robots have to fit into a 4 inch cube and weigh less than 150 Gms. I have for some time been building my own small speed controllers for driving small motor gearboxes and have come up with a size and weight saving mod. First I removed the case which is 6 gms and almost half the weight http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n66/ ... MG0922.jpg Then removed most of the servo connector (all but 5 pins chans 1,2,3 plus 5v and 0v) and replaced the two tall capcitors with smaller surface mount devices. http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n66/ ... MG0937.jpg I then redesigned my controller board so that it fitted directly onto the remaining pins next to the existing RF daughter board. The controller board provides two 1.2A full bridge motor drive outputs from ail/ele channels a 5v regulated supply to the receiver and brings the throttle channel out to a servo connector for a weapon. http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n66/ ... MG0939.jpg Finally a case made of laminated paper to tidy it up. http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n66/ ... MG0942.jpg Original receiver...44x30x17mm and 12.7gms Modified unit.......42x27x11mm and 11.5gms

Thats brilliant Peter, your motor controller boards are excellent, do you have an SMD workstation at home? Those large macro shots disguise how tiny those SMD tracks are - thats very intricate work. I love to see this kind of thing, a bit of innovation, GC seems to be a good place to find it! Cheers Phil

Under the FRA (Fighting Robot Association) rules who control my hobby all radio gear must CE or FCC approved. I have seen various discussions about the approval status of this equipment but I don't think I have seen a difinitive answer. The fact that the CE label on the equipment is not that specified by the CE standards raises doubts. Can someone please clarify this matter and maybe publish a copy of the approval documentation. thanks Peter

Sorry Phil I missed your reply. No I have a weller soldering iron with a fine tip, a tube of solder paste and a magnifier. For really trickey bits I have a USB microscope camera. The pads on the driver chip are 17 thou wide(I wish PCB's could go metric). If you are interested in this type of electronics projects try my site http://www.antweightwars.co.uk I like to build many of my robots using the PCB as the main chasis Peter

44mm long, 29mm wide, 4mm high plus a raised edge around the plugs. Weight is 14 grammes (measured) The antenna varies in length (only the coax bit, obviously) but is around 8cm They can be de-cased & shrink-wrapped, Whitemice will tell you how much that saves. Cheers Phil

Thanks Very much Phil, it will fit in just. cheers chris

Just wondering if anyone has tried this TX with the parkzone bind'n'fly family of planes? I'm pretty sure they're only for use with spektrum TX's, but I'd be intrested to know if anyone has tried. Thanks, Chris.

Corona receivers only work with a Corona module Tony - the box most people call the 'transmitter' isnt a transmitter at all - just the battery, sticks and encoder. The transmitter is in the module, ie its a Corona transmitter. Theres nothing generic out there on 2.4, they're all different... except JR & Spektrum which are actually the very same thing. Cheers Phil

Since all these systems use the same basic rf transmission, the only difference between the different manufacturers would appear to be the software protocol. In theory it would be possible to program a transmitter to be universal and generate the code for any make receiver. You could alternatively re-program the Rx micro to match any transmitter, and it would then be possible to automatically select the corrrect protocol. But is it really worth the effort?

Yep, sounds like a piece of cake. Let us know how you get on! Phil

Thanks for the replies. But if the 2.4ghz tech is proprietry, how come the corona 2.4 rx's work with the transmitter? I might just be displaying my complete ignorance, but does that mean that corona and other cheapo 2.4 bits are 'generic', and big names (spektrum, futaba,etc) have their own protocol, to stop skinflints like me using bits of their technology?

So, I've bought this radiolink TX and RX, and I can only use radiolink gear? Unlike 35mhz, where I used a Sanwa TX with Hi-tec,futaba, GWS, etc RX's? (I'm not whinging, just trying to understand the difference.) I bought it due to interference issues, which the 2.4 gear is supposed to eliminate. But I honestly thought I'd be able to use other Rx's beyond the manufacturers.

i have just brought this tx (heli version) and i brought an extra 3 receivers you can buy 4 receivers for the price one rx speckrum.futaba etc i have just flown my system in a helicopter without any problems and range as far as i can see,and i am very pleased with it,so just buy some more receivers and equip all your models for little cost