rmh

You bind the rx at the same time - have both rx (ALL) on n blinkin - then initiate bind at the tx.
IF you bound one - then did a new bind to the next rx - it would be the same as doing another model-
Think about it -
IF there are different protocol rx in this "bind" sequence - the tx can only address one type .
I tried to trick mismatched rx and I could get one rx to work properly the other was bound but not working properly.
I don't do this anymore - simply because I don't need multiples but this is how it works - If you find this info is incorrect - please provide test info which is counter to what I found.
Not simply another opinion.

AA5BY

I've a JR 7202 that is also synthesized and agree with what your saying that its system while not fool proof, someone prevents accidentally shooting someone down because it doesn't transmit until the clear button is pressed, which very intuitively causes one to examine the screen to see what channel and frequency will be transmitted. In a sense it is like having a check list, because the screen begs the question of having the pin for that frequency before pressing the clear button.

Again... not fool proof but does go a long way to preventing transmitting on a frequency without having the pin.

rmh

Every little bit helps
Microsoft has the annoying but useful (Are you sure you want do this?)
Reminds me of old girfriends who were a bit nervous-

AndyKunz

We didn't have to change anything, it was there all along!

One common use is to have water steering in a float on a totally separate system from the main control unit, no unsightly wires going from the fuse down into the float.

The requirement is that your two receivers must be bound in the same class, that is, both DSM2 or DSMX, and both in 22ms or both in 11ms mode. We even make it easy - the Frame Rate screen allows you to select those parameters so two almost-the-same receivers will work.

Don't tell me you didn't know this already, it's been common knowledge for years.

Andy

ZAGNUT

My Feedback: (1)

no i didn't, still stuck on what i remembered from when it first came out...

still wouldn't work for me as the extra receiver is used in a takeoff dolly for steering, brakes and release. problem is that the dolly gets used for multiple models one after the other....rebinding every time would be a major pain. i still think that something like this is always better if the end user gets to decide if it's enabled or not.

ZAGNUT

My Feedback: (1)

at least microsoft gives you the option of turning the nag messages off...

and the nervous girlfriends could always be traded in...

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

I have been flying a long time and I am extra careful to check I have the right model number/name. I always fly the transmitter as I move the control sticks to make sure not only are the controls operational but moving in the correct direction. This habit dates back to the days when we had multiple models on the same radio that had no model memory. A short learning curve to make sure all your models controls moved in the same manner when building them was always proceeded by the first few that might have a reversed throw or two. If you wanted to keep your models you’d better darn well check every time. I wonder if people are becoming more reliant on the electronics and are getting slacker on what were/are considered good practices.

I’ve watched some really talented RC pilots and just like their full size counterparts they check and recheck movement and direction each and every flight. Model match may be a nice option but the really good pilots don’t seem to rely too much on it.

We and our neighbor club had a rash of incidences with Spectrum/JR equipment when 2.4 first hit the market it turned me off from the brand and as a personal preference I prefer another. I have had great success with 2.4 radios from Airtronics, Futaba and Hitec.

In certain applications redundant servo controls are a necessity as are multiple receivers to overcome larger distances and complicated wiring. For instance a UAV might well have two servos for each control rod. Both servos operating together give max throw but a complete failure of a whole system would only simulate a low rate situation all controls functional. A 14 ft SAE Aerodesign model I flew had 3 receivers. One out at the tip of each wing for each aileron and one in the nose for throttle, rudder/steering and elevator. This simplified wiring and removed the concern about voltage drop over longer wiring runs.

A case can be made for each and everyone’s preference that is why there are so many choices on the market. I don’t think anyone really cares what others fly I think one needs to concentrate on pleasing themselves rather than take others apart because they chose something different.

Dennis

AA5BY

Good words.

akcub

test

Luchnia

My Feedback: (21)

Agreed. I know a fellow flyer that has invested an extremely large amount of money flying quad copters now and the other day just after he got done flying I walked over and looked at all of his fancy equipment. He really has an nice setup and I thought to myself, take a look at what radio he is using.

I walked over to the flight stand where he had his radio and it was an el-cheapo Turnigy! For months now I thought he had a high-dollar radio and almost could not believe it when I saw that Turnigy. The radio has been flawless and it works for him and at a fantastic bargain! What could I say to him, you get what you pay for? Apparently he did get what he paid for and so much more!

I agree, I really don't care of what others fly and it is good that we have the many choices we do. Even now we have other radio competition and that helps to regulate the price some which is another big plus. I do grow tired of the bashers that blame radios for other problems because they don't know how to find out what really happened.

The radio is always easy to blame, especially the so-called "lock out." The nice side of that is many of us get great bargains buying the "troublesome" radio they had and we get years of trouble free service.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

After I posted that I felt sometimes the new electronics and programing made some get sloppy with their setups I had to give my own head a shake. Prior to the 2.4 era I remember all of the considerations that went into planning a trouble free gas model especially thinking back to the old ignition systems. When 2.4 first came onto the market and some teething problems came to light caused me to pause before jumping on the band wagon. When I did finally take up 2.4 I still used my old 72 system to set up and make sure I was interference free then replaced the 72 receiver with the 2.4 for flying. This was my way of making sure I wasn’t just using the 2.4 to mask problems. I now no longer own any 72 equipment and directly install the 2.4 system. I still practice what I consider good installation techniques but you could argue till the cows come home whether it is laziness or confidence in the new system that no longer has me checking my setup with a more vulnerable radio system. Two pilots I know of still check their setup with the old system before installing their state of the art 2.4 and they both fly versions of the Spectrum/JR without ever suffering a so called brown out. From the beginning they have always flown 5 cell or LiFe receiver packs as well.

I personally think installation techniques, pilot error and poor maintenance and/or less than stellar vigilance causes 99 % of any problems we suffer with our radios and models.
Dennis

AA5BY

An old friend, a retired AT&T electrical engineer used to say, "I'd never bet that an ant couldn't eat a bale of hay" when referring to the mysterious things that can happen in the world of electronics. It might be that the combinations of possible events are too numerous to chronicle, repeat and understand.

I had a two meter FM Ham transceiver in my truck for a great many years. The processor locked up on it one time in all those years and needed a hard reset. The most plausible explanation to an otherwise super reliable piece of electronics is that it experienced what the electronics community calls a 'single event upset'.

An SEU occurs when a radiation particle collides with hardware and flips a binary bit confusing the hell out of the program. I've no idea if this occurs in RC Tx & Rx but it certainly happens with regularity in space and though rare within the atmosphere, does happen.

It wasn't pilot error.... it was a SEU.

Four Stroker

Mil Spec chips used to be in a metal case for shielding. Like the decoder chips in a Bonner 4RS. We laughed a tubes in fighter planes but they were planning for an atomic war.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Zagnut, I'll give you this, you've described the one and only instance I've seen discussed that would be a legitimate hinderance for model match.

I've seen plenty of people that dont think they can make a mistake plow in expensive aircraft while making stupid mistakes, it happens. Personally, a layer of protection that works every single time and doesn't hinder any of my setups, I'll take it.

Luchnia

My Feedback: (21)

I really enjoy the experience and the input on this now. It shows a level of sensibility and understanding that is welcomed. Working in IT, I occasionaly see the unexplained "bit" flip or single event upset. Most in my field just say it was this and that, yet never really knowing the root cause. Maybe it was SEU. One thing is for sure, not even then experts can tell you what causes it. I think they just say, "crap happens" and let it go at that while they try to figure it out.

Most of our equipment is very trouble free and pretty amazing if you ask me. The fact that a guy can fly his quad copter all over the place doing all sorts of wild moves with a cheap Turnigy radio is a blast in my book!

BTW, maybe your HAM transmitter was getting tired and just needed an SEU to get motivated again

Luchnia

My Feedback: (21)

I really like model match. One day I forgot to switch models and I was trying to figure out why it would not work, then it dawned on me that I had a brain lapse and forgot to select the model. The cool thing is it taught me just how good model match is. It simply would not do anything until it is on the correct plane.

Model match has turned out to be one of my all time favorite features, although I am not crazy enough not to make absolute sure I do a good pre-flight check. I am not as thorough as others are (mainly on smaller planes) and that may bite me one day. I do expend much more energy in pre-flight with larger planes, since I lost one last year because I had the ailerons reversed - what a "duh" moment that was!

joebahl

My Feedback: (2)

I used my two 6 channel futabas up till last summer when i picked up another dxm radio in a trade . They worked fine for me with no problems so i gave them and the recievers to a kid and he is still flying them at my club field. Being iam a little on the cheap side and hate to waste money for something new i realy dont need i would use your old radios as long as you can . joe

AA5BY

On the JR XG DMSS series, absolutely nothing visible happens when turning on flight power without a transmit signal... no lights on the RX or Tel Xmit module or servo buzz or anything. RX can be turned on before TX without issues.. it just doesn't do anything until getting signal.

The other way around is different, then of course it yields blinking lights.

wallace.tharp

Dear Prop. A little harsh in your begining but you make some great points. It is a matter of choice and it is a little like Ford & Chev debates. I have owned the majors except Airtronics, didn't ever buy one because I had no luck with their servos. I had a Hi Tec Spec. 72 Mhz with the dial a Frq. and I loved it. Funny how many people told me Hi Tec was no good. Never had a problem. I have JR 9303 now & I love it. Probably update within a year or so. The only problem I have had is very few people at my field, ARCS in PHX fly JR. I have trouble doing mix and other set ups that I am not famaliar with. Unless you are really a computer geek, I would consider how many people can help you with your new radio. wallace.tharp

skippy7399

The only thing I didn't see mentioned before is the availability or lack there of for crystals on your channel. I work in a hobby store and we just recently (in order to clear old inventory) pulled all our old air crystals because we would get one or two inquires a year. If you can still find the right channel and your radios work, fly 'em!

Red B.

Here in Europe, THE radio to have at the moment is the JETI DC-16 and the soon to come JETI DS-16.
All over Europe JETI has a dead-solid reputation for reliability and the transmitters are top quality with CNC-milled casings, Hall effect sensors instead of potentiometers for the sticks etcetera. They are obviously built to last.

That being said, most of us will be very happy with any of the major brand radios, which one depends mostly on personal preferences.
I am like my JR radios (9303 / PCM 9XII) converted to 2.4 GHz using Graupners HoTT-system and will probably continue using them for several more years.

My advice is to download manuals for the transmitters you consider, in order to get an idea of how user friendly they are and what the feauteres are

rmh

If one looks at the focus point of inquires and the aftermarket bits n pieces -plus the compatibility of tx /rx and models on the market - the picture is different as compared against the highest priced equipment.
My own take on all this is:
decide what type models you are really going to buy n fly.
Then buy what has the best compatibility for your tastes .
Buying a bunch of features which don't relate to your use - is a waste of money .
Buying a bunch of extra features in a radio which also does what you presently like to fly - makes better sense economically
Of course some guys just like to try anything new or whatever has the latest n greatest extras . The old sales adage of make what is necessary - you will make a living -but make what people want - and make a killing - still holds true

BuschBarber

My Feedback: (2)

Every year, technology advances exponentially. "Built to Last" means work as designed until newer models, with newer hardware, become necessary to take advantage of the newer technology. Firmware updates can only take you so far. I would expect that from now on, I would be purchasing a replacement transmitter every 3 years.

Look at Personal Computers. You only get perhaps 2 or 3 firmware updates in the first few years of a new computer's life and then there is nothing more for that model.

People are not going to be using the same transmitter for 5-10 years like they used to.

wallace.tharp

Luchnia, can happen to anyone. When I was flying UAVs 2000 to 2003 for Continental RPvs my good bud launched one of our 78 lb 1/5 scale SU-25s and did a beautiful, (until it hit the terra-firm), aileron roll. He is an expert pilot and obviously very competent. I said, "reversed ailerons, reversed ailerons!" He says, "I checked them on the launcher, no way." We do the post mortem. Reversed ailerons! Probably 95% fo all 1/1 scale pilots run a checklist prior to takeoff & landing not to mention descent etc. Some verbalise them but non the less, same applies to R/C. If you do not check for the correct movements of control surfaces and throttle before every takeoff you, we, are just looking for big trouble. Some guys use right turn, right aileron up etc. It works. Just sayin. wallace.tharp

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Full size pilots sitting in the seat operate the controls and can relate to the movement of the surfaces. Also you don’t get reversed controls once a full size has been in service.

Newby’s especially may easily mistake ailerons or rudder moving in the proper direction depending where they stand in relation to the model. I try and get them to make a habit of flying the transmitter. To do this you always stand behind the model. First if you can see the throttle make sure it’s moving in the right direction. Flaps/airbrakes are also easily checked. Now we fly the transmitter. As you deflect each stick move the transmitter like you would expect the model to react. For instance if you were to deflect the ailerons to the right lean the transmitter to the right and while doing this look down at the ailerons and are they deflected in such a manner that the model would roll in the same direction as the transmitter? Try the opposite direction. Now the elevator, pull the stick back tilt the transmitter up while looking at the elevator deflection. Would it cause the model to rotate upwards? Now down. With the rudder you swing the transmitter in the direction of stick deflection noting both the steering and rudder control surface. I know this is very elementary but it’s easily taught to beginners and if they practice it every time there will be no reversed control surfaces. I test fly quite a few planes and each and every one of them I check this way. Often times the owner and a buddy are talking away and it’s easy to become distracted for even the most experienced pilot. Physically moving the stick and transmitter while observing the deflection causes one to concentrate. I have done this for so long its second nature and many of those who I have had the pleasure of teaching to fly do this as well. Some are instructors and are passing it on to the next group.

Like the full size finding a routine that leaves nothing to chance is a mater of survival. Find a system that works for you and make it something you do each and every time and you will find your brain farts will be far and few between. Along this line has anyone else noticed that with the 2.4 systems there seem to be fewer and fewer actually doing range checks? I have.

Dennis