Gray Beard

My Feedback: (-1)

I have seen one person using the Airtronics radio here at the two fields I fly at. I have read the reviews on there new 10 channel and I think it has some very good programming but it is just one of those radios not often seen. We have two Hobby People stores here selling them too?? They just haven't caught on?
Gene HBHS 66!!
Where are you guys now flying? I have a buddy that is just moving there to OC>

gmeyer-RCU

My Feedback: (9)

I probably should have given more info the ar 400 rx's are genuine spektrum and are advertised as being full range just small enough to be parkflyer size. Greg

mike31

My Feedback: (67)

You get what you pay for. Usually very true. All boils down to craftsmanship and quality control.

GoBeach75

I fly at PVMAC in Chino. Its a great field and they just re paved the runway and pits. Lots of room to fly. If your friend wants to check out the field here is the website for the field.

GoBeach75

Safety is the number 1 priority and should be in everyones book. Buying good reliable receivers is the best way to go just for the safety of the others around you. I always recommend Airtronics, but if you arent going to get that, please please get one of the other good brands. Especially if you are flying around me.

P.S. Please always range test your receivers, especially in a new radio

goirish

probably should range check at the beginning of your flying day, every time.

opjose

What a load of nonsense.

A lot of subjective conjecture, with no real world basis or scientific methodology used to test, check or rate items.

I've done the latter with ALL of the Orange RX's and can tell how incredibly wrong some of these speculative posts are....


Note: I have no special interest in all of this or horse in the race, other than to save on purchasing RX's.


- Build quality:

I've put Orange RX's, Spektrum and other "clone" receivers under magnifying lenses & lights to view the workmanship.

Those "cheap" receivers use almost identical substrate boards as found on the more expensive receivers.

The boards are all wave soldered, and given the size of the SMD components, the chip insertions must be done electronically.

So unless you somehow believe that there is such a thing as "inferior workmanship" attributable to "inferior machine placement" the playing field is equal here.

Somehow I don't think the electronics house that souces the boards would purposely try to make their machines place things incorrectly.


The SMD mount components are sourced from all over the world, so the very same caps, resistors, etc. are found on the cheapie Orange receivers. If anything the only part where they really differ is the single large controller chip. The cheaper RX's use a chinese processor chip.

I don't know where the Spektrum/JR processor chip is sourced, but it is most likely Asian anyway.



- There only seems to be one major Chinese manufacturer of these "clone" RX's.

I've taken off the covers of other DSM2 clone receivers only to find the exact same component layout, chip count, etc. The boards are merely included in rebranded cases. So far I've opened three other "clones" of the "clones" and all have been identical in layout and manufacture.


- Performance:

I've tested and flown all of the currently available Orange RX's. Except for the V1.0 and V1.1 six channel versions, all have performed flawlessly.

I've taken the small single and dual antenna four channel Orange RX's out to 2200 foot slant range distances without any LOS or degradation.
At this distance I could not see the large glider I used for testing, and I had to have someone else spotting the plane downrange.

Great results on an inexpensive four channel RX often used by people for Park Flyers... If anything I now trust these more than the 800' range Spektrum Park Flyer RX's for this application.


- Noise and image rejection seems to be on par with the Spektrums, especially if you add the satellite units to the higher channel receivers.

Loggers record no loss of signal to any servo on multiple flights. Unfortunately the Spektrum Fade/Frame loggers do not work with all of the clone RX's but where they do the results have been good to comparable.

The exception to this has been the V1.0 and V1.1 six channel RX's. I've been able to reproduce LOS at short range NOT due to brownout or any factors in the test plane. I was about to give up on the small six channel RX's as being "no good" but on a whim I picked up another recently. There seemed to be slight changes in the build, so I've been flying the small six channel on sacrificial aircraft to test.

So far it seems that the problems have been corrected but I cannot definitely say that these units are not problematic.


- Endurance

I've been flying the four channel units since they first came out almost two years ago without a single failure or hiccup. I find these to be good values for the money.

I've also been flying the seven & nine channel units on 50cc gassers since their release, also without a single problem or hiccup.


At this point I have a nice collection of over 30 of the Orange RX's and 8+ of the other clones. I also own 12-14 Spektrums.

-

None of this is based upon "what someone else said...".


-

Rodney

opjose, you confirm the same finding I have made. In general, there is very little difference in quality of materials or parts.

DenverJayhawk

i have one orange rx 6 ch. It works fine with both my DX6i and DX8. That said, i'm only using it in cheaper foamies.

acdii

I have a friend using the Orange Spectrum RX with a DX6i. The RX will outlast the plane with how he lands it.  He has it in a Mustang ARF that noses over WAY too easily.  Has not had one problem with it.

rcjetflyer0718-RCU

My Feedback: (1)

That's why I fly Airtronics. You can't find anyone whose had a mysterious crash with that equipment.
[/quote]
I have An Airtronics RD8000 2.4 radio that I have had unexplained crashes. Sent under warranty sent back with explanation "updated software", year later locked out again, sent in radio charged $58.95 to replace trans and receiver antennas. 4 months later locked out again. totaled 4 planes and 2 engines. Im not the only one at my field who has ploblems with the Airtronics RD8000.

jester_s1

I guess I stand corrected then. I've now heard of one person who had trouble with one Airtronics radio. That makes it Airtronics 1, Spektrum about 150.

opjose, I'm glad you have had good experiences with the cheap receivers. I'd be all over those things if I trusted them, but there are simply too many stories of failure here and on RCG for me to ever do that. Kudos to you for giving them a close inspection though. It's good to hear that they are using the automated manufacturing methods that the higher end makers are using. There's still some reason though that the failure rate is so high. I don't run an electronics factory so I can't speculate beyond spotty QC, but something is causing it.

opjose

Again this is speculation and while my intent is not to belittle you, you are continuing the innuendos by the very response you've given and THAT I'll refute...

As you said, they are "stories" often repeated to justify views, not based upon actual facts.

If you actually search for "failures" here you'll find that you'll have a very hard time finding real posts about a true RX related failure.

Yet you say "There's still some reasons though that the failure rate is so high?"

Where did that come from? How many failures have YOU had with the Orange RX's?

The statement in itself purposely implies that YOU have direct non-anecdotal experience when we both know that is not true.

Re: Airtronics

Airtronics, like all manufacturers have had their own share of problems. That is not unexpected given the technical nature of this stuff.
Airtronics quickly corrected their problems as did Spektrum.

The "150 to 1" is again an example of a poor argumentative method known as "faulty distribution or invalid sampling - aka proof by selected instances".

I'd just as easily speculate that if there was only ONE report that you've found, that there would be hundreds of undocumented instances, yet both your statements and mine would be nothing but conjecture, neither are based upon actual facts.

-

In the mean time I'll happily continue paying far less for my RX's while being able to afford more as a result.

And there is no need to bemoan JR/Spektrum's perceived loss of sales, because the availablity of cheaper RX's has caused me to go out and by a couple more high end TX's to match.

acdii

I had a failure with Spektrum, until I found out it was the ESC that caused it and not the TX/RX.  Most RX/TX "failures" stem from some other cause and are unrelated to the actual radios as the cause. 

jester_s1

Well if you want to make it all scientific opjose, I can respond. I doubt it's going to change anything, but I'm not a fan of having solid data be dismissed based on a faulty scientific principle, and I'm certainly not a fan of being spoken to like a dummy because my conclusion differs from someone else's.

The data that I'm quoting comes from anecdotes. That's a fact. No, it's not my own personal experience because I don't trust the Orange receivers and won't buy them. But if you've formally studied statistical analysis you are likely aware that the best data is both deep and broad ie, one should use data where one source has multiple experiences AND from multiple sources with varied numbers of experiences. It's bad analysis to go on just one man's experience with a product. To illustrate, I knew a guy in high school who had a Yugo car. It was about 8 years old and had right near 150k miles on it. He had never had to put it in the shop or fix anything, so he said his Yugo was a good car. But the industry as a whole has remembered the Yugos as arguably the worst built car brand of the last 4 decades, and when they went out of business it was to no one's regret except maybe mechanics who had invested in training to fix them. The product, across the board was junk, but that particular one worked well. In statistics, that's what we call an anomaly.

So on the receiver topic, I'm glad you've had good luck with them, all except for the 6 channel ones you mentioned that were problematic. How a company could release a product in the most popular size category that was junk but make all the other ones quality is beyond me, but that's what you're saying happened. Your experience is one piece of data, deep yes, but not broad. There are many other pieces of data (and yes, a search on "Orange receivers" or "Orange RX" will turn up a number of failure anecdotes) that shows varied experiences. The question one has to answer is "Where is the anomaly?" Is it the people, possibly few in number, who have had unexplained crashes, or is it the ones who have had nothing but good performance? And even if there is no anomaly, the question still is there as to how often do these things fail? If they have a significantly higher failure rate than other branded receivers, then there is a problem with them. I believe, based on gathering data from first hand accounts (yes, I do consider the source and the level of general knowledge and the quality of the description of what happened) that these Orange receivers are sub-par. Considering the cost of a crash, I think it's a bad investment to use them.

acdii

OOH maybe thats the Yugo I saw going 110 on the highway one day!

opjose

That's just it, you HAVE NOT given ANY "solid data".

If that makes it seems like I'm speaking to you like a dummy, take what you will from it, that's not my intent.

But I DO have to point out how your conclusion is illogical and illogically reached.

To reach a solid conclusion, you need to perform testing. Something you've not done.

Relying on unfounded bias diminishes your ability and credibility to make such sweeping statements.

I agree. Which is why I can and do cite numerous other people who have had the same DIRECT experience as I have.


How do you know they were "junk". Did I call them "junk"? I said I had a PROBLEM. I did not call them JUNK...

There you go again purposely and shamelessly extrapolating in a manner that attempts to shed the worst light possible and selecting words when possible that cast unfounded doubt. THAT is why I'm taking you to task.

You said it, most of those failure post are repeats of "what they heard elsewhere" and not direct experience.

I did check this out before purchasing them, just to see what others said too. Then for yuks I - ACTUALLY - tested.

You can find a large sampling of those who have had direct experience reporting good results as you are already seeing here in this thread.

Experience says that the failure rate is no higher than branded RX's and if anything may be lower.

( You use the word "possibly" as you do with others throughout your argument to cast doubt. )

How often do planes with Airtronic's RX's fail or crash? If I choose that as my touchstone, I would foolishly assume that the Airtronic RX's must be junk... I don't though.


The bigger question is why are you so quick to dismiss real world experience instead of conceding that you simply don't know?


Where ARE those "first hand accounts" that are definitively attributable to the RX's?

C'mon throwing out platitudes doesn't make a point.


Considering the cost of a crash, it's a bad investment to purchase any engine too!

It's also a bad investment to fly RC aircraft, yet we do.


Everything has risks. What you're doing is taking advantage of doubt to try to get others to agree with unfounded assertions.

If instead you were pointing to something factual, I wouldn't be having this discussion with you.


Usually I tend to agree with most of your posts, but here you're just flat out wrong.

Zeldinio

As much as I appreciate all of the valuable input and advice received in this topic, it was not my intention to start a full blown argument. LOL cool it guys, this is the internet, we are allowed to be idiots sometimes.

jester_s1

I wasn't looking to argue either to be honest, and won't anymore on this topic. I think everyone should buy the equipment they feel confident in and enjoy it. If it turns out you chose poorly, bash it on RCU and go buy something else.