Ebay bargains & tip-offs

[Wayne_H]

Lovely aeroplane and radio Stuart - congratulations

Upon closer examination, I learnt something new - 2.4Ghz converted Kraft Signature radios apparently date back to 1952...... Amazing!! They really were ahead of their time

[Shaun]

Wayne ...
Not sure you would have been able to fit all the valves and batteries in the Signature Tx case back in 1952 - they were from the mid 1970's.

Shaun

[tiptipflyer]

As far as I know, James Garner was flying a Bücker BU181 Bestmann in the Great Escape.

Frank

[Shaun]

At least I got the country of origin correct Frank.

Shaun.

[Wayne_H]

Wayne ...
Not sure you would have been able to fit all the valves and batteries in the Signature Tx case back in 1952 - they were from the mid 1970's.

Shaun

Totally correct Shaun - it was my warped sense of humour and a (too?) 'subtle' joke - take a closer look at the name plate. On all the Signature sets I ever saw in the flesh or in pictures, Kraft use to engrave the name of the owner and the year of manufacture

[Shaun]

I'd need my glasses on to see that

Shaun.

[Wayne_H]

I'd need my glasses on to see that

Absolutely - I did

[Mike_K]

Not sure what the issue is but I've only ever had good results with them. The hack modules have occasionally had some question able solder joints though.

Shaun.

Hi Shaun

The problem is a certification problem (or lack of) and not a hardware/firmware problem. They never bothered with FCC approval and just relied on saying that it was the responsibility for users to ensure they complied with local regulations on their website. This was not adequate for the FCC. I have a few issues with this.

1. The OrangeRx DSMX/DSM2 modules would near certainly be compliant with FCC regulations, but it would appear HK didn't want to spend the money to have them approved. Maybe they thought that as they were selling them from Hong Kong, the FCC regulations didn't apply to them? Or is it that they would have had to release the source code for the modules which may have incriminated themselves if they were using stollen Spektrum code (as it's widely alleged). Either way, Hobby King knew what they were doing and decided to take the cash rather than do it legally as far as the FCC was concerned.
2. But isn't the FCC also being arrogant in applying their regulations on a company based in a foreign country? The DSMX/DSM2 modules were only ever sold on the HK based international site, that is based in Hong Kong and hosted on Chinese servers. What makes the FCC think they have any jurisdiction over the HK international site?
3. This applies just as much to us in Europe as it does the USA. If I understand correctly, all rf emitting products used in the EU should be tested by a EU recognised notified body and can't be self certified as most other products can. HK haven't had them independently tested/certified, so it is the responsibility of the importer (me and you) to ensure they are certifified. And this wouldn't be technically possible as the DSM2 protocol they provide would not meet current EU directives.
4. I don't think it will be too long before the FCC go after Jumper transmitters and their 4IN1 modules either. They have valid FCC and CE approvals, but if you read through the certification, they only mention the CC2500 chipset and no mention is made of the nRF24L01 or CYRF6936! So using FrSky or Futaba protocol is OK, but not DSM2 or DSMX! Where will it all finish?

Mike

[Martin]

The FCC also made the mistake of saying the DSM2/DSMX module was for audio/video transmission. It's the sort of mistake that well-paid lawyers (if Hobby King could afford them) would use to get them off the hook - the media would then report this as "got off on a technicality."
But the ruling doesn't only apply to the Orange module - it's a range of transmitters that Hobby King sold - most of them were video transmitters intended for FPV use, as far as I know - so Hobby King probably couldn't use the same technicality argument for those.

Getting things tested does cost a fortune - and where does it end? Could the FCC argue that transistors, capacitors and other low-level components could be used to build a transmitter, and therefore must be certified? Probably not - but then there's a slippery slope leading from simple components up to transceiver chips such as the nRF24L01+, and then circuit boards containing such chips, and eventually complete consumer-ready transmitters. The line has to be drawn somewhere across that slope, I suppose.

[Shaun]

I'm sure HK can afford the best lawyers on the planet. The Hextronix group turned over £150,000,000.00 last year.

Shaun