Berg 4l - WattFlyer RC Electric Flight Forums - Discuss radio control eflight

RC Radios, Transmitters, Receivers, Servos, gyros Discussion all about rc radios, transmitters, receivers, servos, etc.

Berg 4l

Old 01-03-2006, 09:10 PM
  #1  
ragbag
Super Contributor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,344
Default Berg 4l

Recieved part of my Berg order a few minutes ago.

The Berg 4L, it is a lot smaller than the other Bergs that I have. I hope they stand up to the original Bergs. I know I have some 5's that are going to be replaced with the 4L.

Have a Skimmer 400 that I stole the Berg out of waiting for it's replacement.
By George
ragbag is offline  
Old 01-03-2006, 09:31 PM
  #2  
Rugar
FAA# OUTLAW!
 
Rugar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Ca. USA
Posts: 2,621
Default

Keep us up to date on how they work out for you. I love my Berg 5's. I have 6 of them and have never had a glitch. I'm waiting on the new 7 channel Bergs to hit the market.
Rugar is offline  
Old 01-03-2006, 09:49 PM
  #3  
Rugar
FAA# OUTLAW!
 
Rugar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Ca. USA
Posts: 2,621
Default

I just set up a Poll to see how many would be interested in a Radio forum here on WattFlyer where this kind of discussion on RX's and Radio's could all be put together in one Forum.
Please click on the link and vote.
http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3464
Rugar is offline  
Old 01-03-2006, 10:56 PM
  #4  
Turbojoe
Mountain Models Minion
 
Turbojoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 1,247
Default

Just voted yes. I'm all for it.

I'm waiting for my Berg4 to get here. I've had zero luck with SC receivers to date but I'm going to give it one more shot. I've been using Electron 6's with zero glitches or problems. To me, glitches simply are not acceptable. If I get them with the new Berg it'll be up for sale.


Joe
Turbojoe is offline  
Old 01-03-2006, 11:00 PM
  #5  
Rugar
FAA# OUTLAW!
 
Rugar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Ca. USA
Posts: 2,621
Default

Originally Posted by Turbojoe View Post
Just voted yes. I'm all for it.

I'm waiting for my Berg4 to get here. I've had zero luck with SC receivers to date but I'm going to give it one more shot. I've been using Electron 6's with zero glitches or problems. To me, glitches simply are not acceptable. If I get them with the new Berg it'll be up for sale.


Joe
Well hopefully CC got it all right. They sure spent enough time on it. I guess time will tell as more of them get put in use.
Rugar is offline  
Old 01-03-2006, 11:16 PM
  #6  
jperch
Member
 
jperch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Round Rock, Texas
Posts: 35
Default

Originally Posted by Turbojoe View Post
Just voted yes. I'm all for it.

I'm waiting for my Berg4 to get here. I've had zero luck with SC receivers to date but I'm going to give it one more shot. I've been using Electron 6's with zero glitches or problems. To me, glitches simply are not acceptable. If I get them with the new Berg it'll be up for sale.


Joe
Hey, Joe. It's good to see you around. We haven't spoken in a while.

If I understand correctly, I don't think glitch free operation necessarily requires dual conversion receivers. I think it has more to do with the over all design of the receiver. All the dual conversion does for a receiver is move its image frequency farther away from the intended frequency. There are quite a few more sources of glitches than just the image.

For example, many people feel that JR makes some of the best performing receivers around. I have not personally used very many JR receivers. But I have had setups where glitches were solved by replacing whatever I had been using with a JR receiver. The fact is that many JR receivers (in fact I think most JR receivers) are single conversion. I don't fully understand how they do it. But they make some pretty good receivers with a single conversion architecture.

I do agree with you that for most applications, glitches are simply not tolerable. I do have a couple of planes that are pretty bullet proof and if I get a glitch every so often it doesn't upset me.

Later,
Joe

P.S. I will go vote for the radio forum also.
jperch is offline  
Old 01-03-2006, 11:45 PM
  #7  
Turbojoe
Mountain Models Minion
 
Turbojoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 1,247
Default

Joe,

Yeah, I'm a very infrequent visitor to the other site now. WattFlyer has almost none of the problems they do. It's very, very nice here.

My SC experiences have only been with GWS, Cirrus and the newest Hitec Micro 5 channel RX. All of them sucked for me. In the "Devil's Triangle" area at our field (not the Chandler Bowl) all the SC's get major hits. I can fly anywhere I want with the Electron 6's though. I hope the Berg works out because I want it for one of the Cox $20.00 warbirds. I've been flying the P-51 with a Medusa 4000kv motor and it's a BLAST! I just hate the glitching but there isn't enough room for an Electron 6. The P-47 will get the new RX when it gets here.

When are you coming back to Arizona for another visit?

Joe
Turbojoe is offline  
Old 01-04-2006, 01:10 AM
  #8  
ragbag
Super Contributor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,344
Default

I am just hoping they either improved or match the old Berg. A couple of guys tried an experiment. Both on the same channel, one went up high so he would have time to recover, the other turned on his transmiter, no glitches.

I'm not saying I would do that, they did it.

They surived that time, I do know that I've had no complants with the older Bergs, that is why I will give them an honest try.

Always go with the Electron six, if I have to. I do like the size of the little 4L.

By George
ragbag is offline  
Old 01-04-2006, 01:24 AM
  #9  
Rugar
FAA# OUTLAW!
 
Rugar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Ca. USA
Posts: 2,621
Default

Originally Posted by ragbag View Post
I am just hoping they either improved or match the old Berg. A couple of guys tried an experiment. Both on the same channel, one went up high so he would have time to recover, the other turned on his transmiter, no glitches.

I'm not saying I would do that, they did it.

They surived that time, I do know that I've had no complants with the older Bergs, that is why I will give them an honest try.

Always go with the Electron six, if I have to. I do like the size of the little 4L.

By George
Ive done the same test with a Flash 5 and a Optic 6 both on the same frequency, but not in the air.
Rugar is offline  
Old 01-04-2006, 11:16 AM
  #10  
ragbag
Super Contributor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,344
Default Longest 8 seconds

Tried the Berg 4L this AM.

With a 4 cell battery set up on channel 4 it took what seemed a long time to set up, glitches and wiggles, before it recognized the transmitter.

Every thing was great after that. Satisfied I went in to installing it in the Skimmer 400. I fly the Skimmer with a Skysport 4, so after the install I tried a 6X and it took about 8 seconds to settle down. That is what I called a long time to settle down, this time I watch the clock. Turned the Skysport on with the 6X on and it held the same settings, oh, I hadn't set the fail safe either, turned off the 6X and it still held the same settings.

The only range check so far is only in the garage, two car with several flourescent lights, old eyes, and it functioned as it should. This garage has never had a car in it.

After all of that, everytime I turned the Skysport on it took one second to recognize it. That is with the flight battery in and ready to go.

I know from past experience with GWS and Plantraco receivers that I have a very "noisey" work area, so I am pleased so far.

I am grounded for the time being, just had some eye surgery a week ago and wasn't supposed to be in the shop, dust and dirt,etc.

Will keep you posted.

By George
ragbag is offline  
Old 01-04-2006, 11:35 AM
  #11  
Rugar
FAA# OUTLAW!
 
Rugar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Ca. USA
Posts: 2,621
Default

Thanks for the update George. I could always test it for you if you wanted to send it this way . Now go rest your eye so it heals quickly so you can get back to flying.
Rugar is offline  
Old 01-07-2006, 02:37 AM
  #12  
LuckyArmpit
Rehab is for quitters
 
LuckyArmpit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: West Middlesex
Posts: 218
Default

For size and cost, I think Berg makes the best rx's and that even includes the big boys (futaba, jr, hitec etc.). I have the older version 4 channel micro stamp. It has had the antenna pulled out twice, I soldered back on board. It has been in a tree for 2 weeks during thunderstorms. It has been in numerous crashes. And each time, the rx has never ever failed or glitched. Peter Berg did an outstanding job on this rx. I'm hoping to get some more. My only fear though is it used to be the 5 and 6 channel DSP versions would not work correctly if you had a futaba radio that used the module instead of the xtal for channel selection. Maybe the new ones being Castle Creations don't have this problem? Bergs and FMA M5's seem the best to me for rx's. Never a problem. Hitec, have had cold solder joints which caused demolitions to two models. Fractured xtal (hitec).
And feather rx's, well, you guys know all about them!!!

Dave...
LuckyArmpit is offline  
Old 01-07-2006, 02:58 AM
  #13  
Rugar
FAA# OUTLAW!
 
Rugar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Ca. USA
Posts: 2,621
Default

Originally Posted by LuckyArmpit View Post
My only fear though is it used to be the 5 and 6 channel DSP versions would not work correctly if you had a futaba radio that used the module instead of the xtal for channel selection. Maybe the new ones being Castle Creations don't have this problem?
I'm wondering the same thing. I have 5 Berg 5's, a Berg channel expander, and a Berg 4. I love my Optic 6 but would like to get a Futaba 9C Super with a Module. Only thing stopping me is the incapability of the Futaba with the Bergs.
Rugar is offline  
Old 01-08-2006, 03:28 AM
  #14  
Deereret
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 76
Default

Only thing stopping me is the incapability of the Futaba with the Bergs.
I am thinking of getting a couple of the new Bergs. I have a Futaba 6EXAS and now wonder if the Berg will work with it. Do you know?
Gene
Deereret is offline  
Old 01-08-2006, 08:55 AM
  #15  
ragbag
Super Contributor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,344
Default

A definite yes. (I'd use caps and red, but that is another story).

I have several Bergs that I have been using for a while, so long I can't remember when I started using them. I have Skysport 4, 6X and 9C Futaba's.

Miine is the original 9C and I have not run into the compatability problem yet.

The nice thing about the Berg's is you don't have to think high or low crystal as you are supposed to do with the Futaba receivers. In the past they have been a solid receiver.

The only thought is did CC keep up the standards that the original Berg had.

From their PR I would say yes, they have been a good company, so there realy isn't a question there.

By George
ragbag is offline  
Old 01-08-2006, 09:44 AM
  #16  
Rugar
FAA# OUTLAW!
 
Rugar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Ca. USA
Posts: 2,621
Default

George,
Do any of your Futaba's use a adjustable frequency module in them, or are they fixed frequencies? And also are your older Berg 5's the ones with the DSP II, or the first edition Berg's? The reason I ask is because I was under the impression that Futaba Radio's with the adjustable frequency module such as the 9C, were not compatible with the Berg 5's and 6's that had the DSP II technology. That is why I stopped considering getting a new 9C Super, as I didn't want to have to replace my Berg 5's which are all DSP II. This is why we were wondering if the new Berg's from CC would be capable or not.
Rugar is offline  
Old 01-08-2006, 11:27 AM
  #17  
Azarr
Electric Junkie
 
Azarr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 258
Default

I'd verify this before I bought, but my understanding is that the only compatability problem with digital receivers (not just the Berg) is with the 9Z synthesized module. I know both the Berg and FMA work fine with the 14MZ (but not with my 9Z) and I've heard they work with the module with the 9C also. I'd check with Castle, they should know for sure.

Personally I think I'd wait till spring to buy a new radio, I have a feeling we're going to see some interesting stuff on the 2.4G freqs.

Azarr
www.ecubedrc.com
Azarr is offline  
Old 01-08-2006, 11:44 AM
  #18  
LuckyArmpit
Rehab is for quitters
 
LuckyArmpit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: West Middlesex
Posts: 218
Default

I've been running my futaba 9C with FMA M5's for quite a while now with no problems. My 9C has the module but the channels are not changeable.
I would have tried the DSP II's but was afraid they wouldn't work. I also have 4 channel Berg microstamps that the radio is fine with. No problems.
And as Azarr has stated, 2.4G freq's will be very interesting in the next stages of the system. They are already testing spektrum systems for larger aircraft with more range.

Dave...
LuckyArmpit is offline  
Old 01-08-2006, 12:49 PM
  #19  
ragbag
Super Contributor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,344
Default

Originally Posted by Rugar View Post
George,
Do any of your Futaba's use a adjustable frequency module in them, or are they fixed frequencies? And also are your older Berg 5's the ones with the DSP II, or the first edition Berg's? The reason I ask is because I was under the impression that Futaba Radio's with the adjustable frequency module such as the 9C, were not compatible with the Berg 5's and 6's that had the DSP II technology. That is why I stopped considering getting a new 9C Super, as I didn't want to have to replace my Berg 5's which are all DSP II. This is why we were wondering if the new Berg's from CC would be capable or not.
Mine is the 9CA, fix frequency, modules for more storage,IE other model setups. That is why I said I had one of the first of the 9c's. Yes, they are the dsp II 5's and the dsp 4 (I think that's what the 4's are called). I don't know how old the 4's are, they were the first that I started using, then went to the fives for dual servos in the wing. The first ones You had to make your own jumper to set up the 5th channel.


I do know that the nw 4L is much smaller than the original 4. Looks the same, just smaller. fell in the hole the other Berg was in in the Skimmer 400.

George
ragbag is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 08:45 AM
  #20  
Rhondas
Member
 
Rhondas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 296
Default berg instructions say to turn on receiver

Originally Posted by ragbag View Post
Tried the Berg 4L this AM.

With a 4 cell battery set up on channel 4 it took what seemed a long time to set up, glitches and wiggles, before it recognized the transmitter.

Every thing was great after that. Satisfied I went in to installing it in the Skimmer 400. I fly the Skimmer with a Skysport 4, so after the install I tried a 6X and it took about 8 seconds to settle down. That is what I called a long time to settle down, this time I watch the clock. Turned the Skysport on with the 6X on and it held the same settings, oh, I hadn't set the fail safe either, turned off the 6X and it still held the same settings.

The only range check so far is only in the garage, two car with several flourescent lights, old eyes, and it functioned as it should. This garage has never had a car in it.

After all of that, everytime I turned the Skysport on it took one second to recognize it. That is with the flight battery in and ready to go.

I know from past experience with GWS and Plantraco receivers that I have a very "noisey" work area, so I am pleased so far.

I am grounded for the time being, just had some eye surgery a week ago and wasn't supposed to be in the shop, dust and dirt,etc.

Will keep you posted.



By George
================================================== =====
I noticed in the 2nd paragraph you turn on your transmitter last , the instuctions with the berg 4 says to turn on transmitter first
Rhondas is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 10:50 AM
  #21  
ragbag
Super Contributor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,344
Default

Originally Posted by Rhondas View Post
================================================== =====
I noticed in the 2nd paragraph you turn on your transmitter last , the instuctions with the berg 4 says to turn on transmitter first

And you are right

But this was a test of the system and was trying the good, the bad and the ugly. I was trying to upset the "new" Berg and it out smarted me.

Since the previous post's I have recieved the Berg 4 and it is identical to the 4L except for the hard case and a few grams of weight. Not sure why I would want the hard case, but have them in hand should I need one.

I now have 4 of each and have a nice collection of programing jumpers started.

I believe we have another winner and am glad as I realy liked the Berg and the new size is great. Just put a 4L in a THistledown Glider that came in at 13.6 oz, TP 2s1p on board.

http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5581

Wont get to do the honors till after SEFF, leaving in about an hour.

.
ragbag is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 04:47 AM
  #22  
fay
New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3
Default

hi all,

Just to clear some sky, I just wana order Castle Creations Berg 4L MICRO STAMP Rx 72Mhz for my 7CAP.

1. does it run with 7CAP
2. for 7CAP setting what should i use is PPM(FM) or PCM set in the tx? readed from other web told it's FM

thank you in advance.
fay is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 12:50 PM
  #23  
Solid Hit
Just call me ... Bill
 
Solid Hit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Upstate of SC
Posts: 1,186
Default

Welcome to WF. Great place to come for answers and comments!

I use the Bergs with my Optic 6 and Eclipse 7 set to ppm. One of the my friends flies Futaba (although I don't know which one) and uses Berg. BTW, if, for some unknown reason, the ppm setting doesn't work, just switch it. I had to play with the shift on mine Hitec.
Solid Hit is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 01:19 PM
  #24  
jperch
Member
 
jperch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Round Rock, Texas
Posts: 35
Default

I believe that the PCM setting on your Futaba Tx will only work with genuine Futaba receivers. This will also be true of JR and Hitec Tx's. The PCM setting is a manufacturer specific binary coded system. So, you have to use the same manufacturer of Rx as Tx.

However, the PPM setting is a standard FM function. You should be able to use just about any receiver with any transmitter. The only caution is that you use the correct shift. Futaba and most Hitec transmitters use "negative" shift, where JR and Airtronics use "positive" shift. Some Hitec transmitters, like the eclipse and optic 6, have a setting to use either positive or negative shift.

As far as I know, the berg receivers use an automatic shift select algorithm. This means that when you train them to a transmitter, they will automatically select the correct shift.

What this all boils down to, fay, is set your Tx to PPM. It should work fine with the 7CAP.

Joe
jperch is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 02:22 PM
  #25  
Rhondas
Member
 
Rhondas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 296
Default berg postage stamp

Originally Posted by Solid Hit View Post
Welcome to WF. Great place to come for answers and comments!

I use the Bergs with my Optic 6 and Eclipse 7 set to ppm. One of the my friends flies Futaba (although I don't know which one) and uses Berg. BTW, if, for some unknown reason, the ppm setting doesn't work, just switch it. I had to play with the However, the PPM setting is a standard FM functionshift on mine Hitec.
I leave mine on PPm and never a hit , However, the PPM setting is a standard FM function yes have had this little puppy [postage stamp Berge } I had it in a micro steath bomber no problem and I had it in a large scale spitfire with no problem flew it almost out of site.
Rhondas is offline  

Quick Reply: Berg 4l


Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.

Page generated in 0.16718 seconds with 14 queries