Re: Aircraft Frequency for Ground Vechicles?? [TANKS]

[w moser <wkmoser-at-gmail.com>]

Steve,

Its not invalid at all. I am not denying it could have been another flyboy turning on their radio. I was just giving an example of why there are seperate radios for ground and air by taking one potential problem out of the mix. But the botom line is they are different and should be used correctly.

 

Warren

 

On 1/9/06, James StewartNewman <jstewa41-at-earthlink.net> wrote:

I am very new to this but it seems to me that the radio's transmitters and recievers need to be "keyed" to prevent this kind of crosstalk(mac address if you will) .  If cell phones can be used right next to each other without cross talk it can be done. Yes it may make the radio's more expensive but it would be cheaper then a new plane caused by ground interferance of a Tanker and take less time then it does to scrape paint off the tank when some flyboy screws up your flanking attack.

Regards,

James



-----Original Message-----
>From: Steve Tyng <STyng-at-acptrust.com>
>Sent: Jan 9, 2006 1:39 PM
>To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com
>Subject: RE: Aircraft Frequency for Ground Vechicles?? [TANKS]
>
>Moser wrote:
>
>> Well it just so happens that down the street someone
>> put an AIRCRAFT radio in their car,boat, tank or other GROUND
>> vehicle and turned it on while I was in the air. The signal
>> from your radio interfered with my signal and resulted in a
>> total loss of my plane
>
>This is the same argument that flyers have been using for years and it
>is totally invalid.  It could have just as easily been another flyer
>down the street that crashed your plane, and no rules would have been
>broken.
>
>
>Steve Tyng
>