arti
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by arti on Feb 17, 2006 6:23:47 GMT -5
I have never used it.Never needed too but after my mate lost his bird yesterday in the high winds in the mountains and was extremely well tamed its got me thinking.
I have been offered secondhand a Luksander 216 3 channel.
I understand the channel bit but what is the difference between say the 173 and the 216?
Are there any advantages
Stronger Signal?
I am from the 'old school' so wondered on your thoughts and explanations
cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by Weasel on Feb 17, 2006 9:44:10 GMT -5
The Higher the frequency, the longer the range, but the easier that it can be blocked by obstructions such as hills, tree's etc. 216 is the most popular over here in the states and i think that 173 is the main one used in the UK. I thought I heard a Brit at the NAFA meet mention that they where not really supposed to use the 216 frequency as it was illegal in the UK....Don't quote me on that, but it's something to look into.
|
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Apr 8, 2006 5:21:22 GMT -5
i have been on 173 for 10 years and have never lost the signal but now you have me thinking i always thougt 216 was illegal in the uk . i will find out . i have to use 173 as 216 gives me feed back on my pa system .. all ways use luksander . www.falconry-displays.co.uk .. look at the price in the uk |
|
|
|
Post by Miguel on Aug 2, 2006 20:39:34 GMT -5
216 is illegal in the UK and most countries in Europe. Despite that quite a few people use it (including me). Never tried 173 but I heard that range it's not very good.
As for a manufacturer, I'd go for Marshall!! The one & only for me... I've used other transmitters and nothing beats Marshall...
|
|
|
|
Post by Weasel on Aug 3, 2006 7:53:31 GMT -5
I have used Marshall and found hem to be OK, But for the money, i will spend it on the cheaper LF series transmitters
|
|
