8UAPS Failure-33% Extra Total Loss!
05-04-2002, 01:45 AM
#51
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: cary,
IL
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8UAPS Failure-33% Extra Total Loss!
Originally posted by navcom
Gentlemen,
All this means nothing if you dont work for Futaba and know
whats going on.
Keep guessing and write another 10 pages!!!!!! Keep yourselves entertained and lost.
Anyone work for Futaba willing to shed some light? We promise not to give your I.D. away. We need facts only.
Mark , you have to understand products are constantly discontinued and updated. You know , new and improved. Dont worry, take a look at all other products, they are constantly being disc and updated. Doesnt mean they are bad.
BTW, Ask futaba if you can get a detailed report from the tech working on the Radio. We will translate the technical jargon for you.
Gentlemen,
All this means nothing if you dont work for Futaba and know
whats going on.
Keep guessing and write another 10 pages!!!!!! Keep yourselves entertained and lost.
Anyone work for Futaba willing to shed some light? We promise not to give your I.D. away. We need facts only.
Mark , you have to understand products are constantly discontinued and updated. You know , new and improved. Dont worry, take a look at all other products, they are constantly being disc and updated. Doesnt mean they are bad.
BTW, Ask futaba if you can get a detailed report from the tech working on the Radio. We will translate the technical jargon for you.
Maybe entertaining for you, but there are people in these forums that have the technical wherewithal to repair and fix their own gear.....
HAMS and engineers and some technicians DO REAPIR their own stuff from time to time.
It was the users, NOT FUTABA, that originally identified the aforementioned problem. As I remember, they would not admit there was a problem, at least not in the news groups or the forums (rco).....It doesn't take much technical knowledge to inspect a solder joint and identify pins broken away from the solder.....
And forgive me Navcom, but you sound like you haven't been around in this hobby very long, as this was a very well known problem a few years ago......
I wish Mark would have opened the transmitter up before shipping it off.........
05-04-2002, 03:03 AM
#52
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: cary,
IL
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8UAPS Failure-33% Extra Total Loss!
here's a link to an old thread in rc.rec.air (news groups)....I'm sure there were more, but I don't go there much anymore since Deja bit the dust.........
Here's a link to a News Group posting from 1997- warning...you may need GOGGLE to view the link.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...coring=d#link1
Here's a link to a News Group posting from 1997- warning...you may need GOGGLE to view the link.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...coring=d#link1
05-04-2002, 07:18 PM
#53
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Auburn, WA
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8UAPS Failure-33% Extra Total Loss!
Just lost second plane today.. been flying 13 years no crashes in last 5 except 2 in the last two months. On startup of transmitter the programed reverse function reverses itself.. caught it four times before take off and lost two planes to aileron reverse in flite and elevator reverse... Have returned radio to hobby store the problem is intermittent. crashed planes was activated showed clearly that servos were reversed, over nine months has happend six times..... I do not want same radio back.. I want a different serial number or pay the differnce for a upgrade model... never had a problem with futaba stuff before.. especially when they made it in Japan not in Taiwan....
It is under warranty will keep posted as to how well futaba takes care of this problem... It is interesting they came out with 9c and it has very little improvements in overall functionality maybe they made some internal enhancments that were necessary!!!
It is under warranty will keep posted as to how well futaba takes care of this problem... It is interesting they came out with 9c and it has very little improvements in overall functionality maybe they made some internal enhancments that were necessary!!!
05-06-2002, 04:00 AM
#54
8UAF....The Real Fix
If you are not competent with a soldering iron then find someone who is. Remove the battery and back. Plug the transmitter module back in to keep the pins in alignment while you resolder them. Then elongate the two lower holes that support the antenna tower, such that when the antenna tower moves, it does not move the circuit board with it, else it is just a matter of time before it fails again. While you are there, cut off the excess pin length of the buddy cord connector. It has been known to touch the antenna, and fry the transmitter.
Pardon me if this exact remedy has been covered in the thread as I didn't read the whole thread.
Ken
Pardon me if this exact remedy has been covered in the thread as I didn't read the whole thread.
Ken
05-07-2002, 11:35 PM
#56
My Feedback: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis,
IN
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8UAPS Failure-33% Extra Total Loss!
Again Mark you fail to answer the question "How old is your radio?" If you don't answer this simple question, I believe IMHO you are trying to get something for nothing.. That's FRAUD!!!
05-08-2002, 12:53 AM
#57
8UAPS
Hey P-38, RELAX!!!!!! I have been away and haven't checked this thread for a few days. In fact, I DID answer the question as to the age of the Tx earlier in this thread, when I said that I received it in November of 1999. To be sure, I am not trying to get something for nothing (that is certainly not my style) and I am certainly not trying to defraud anyone out of anything. Frankly, your suggestion is insulting and unquestionably uncalled for. I have said repeatedly that I'm sure Futaba will make the situation right, no matter what they choose to do. I would prefer a different Tx from the one that malfunctioned only because I don't relish losing expensive large scale aircraft, nor holding my breath while wondering where (or upon whom) it my come crashing down. Soooo, take a chill and reserve your accusations of fraud for those who are acting fraudulently!
Other than that, thanks for your reply and interest in this thread.
Other than that, thanks for your reply and interest in this thread.
05-08-2002, 02:06 AM
#58
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: cary,
IL
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8UAPS Failure-33% Extra Total Loss!
Yes, I too have noticed the apparent deception.....
Mark, please stop destroying your $2~3k airplane to attempt to wrestle a free transmitter "tune up" or repair.
Be warned fella, we're on to you!
Mark, please stop destroying your $2~3k airplane to attempt to wrestle a free transmitter "tune up" or repair.
Be warned fella, we're on to you!
05-08-2002, 12:18 PM
#60
My Feedback: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis,
IN
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8UAPS SCAM
I still think you're running a scam here. Did you by the system new in 1999? Have you cycled your batteries? Have you ever replace the Tx battery? Your system is over 3 years old and you want a new one for it!!!!! I don't think so. You're attitude is what gives the hobby a bad name. SOOOOO CHILL.
05-08-2002, 12:27 PM
#61
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Tuscola,
IL
Posts: 2,636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8UAPS Failure-33% Extra Total Loss!
Friends,
Please let me try to step in and shed some light into this discussion.
First, the solder issue was with the original generation of 8U, about 4 years before 8U Super was released.
Second, 9C is a whole new generation of radio with a BIG jump forward in logic. The 8U S was a fantastic selling radio and its replacement had NOTHING to do with any type of hardware problems.
Third, as someone stated early on, RADIOS REQUIRE REGULAR CHECKUPS. I'm not sure how modelers got into the mindset that engines need after run oil and regular maintenance, and airframes should be checked every flight, but radio gear can be flown for eternity without any checks, but unfortunately it happens all the time.
There are parts that wear on a radio, just as there are in your car, on your airplane, and so on. On a modular radio, the pins take a real beating if the module is "manhandled" and changed regularly. Service of these pins is an important part of a radio's checkup and should be done at least bi-annually if not annually.
Don't misunderstand -- I'm certainly NOT saying the original 8 didn't have a problem. It did, and Futaba published a list of serial #s and to this day we still check for and repair that problem no charge as a standard factory update during any service. But that was numerous years ago -- roughly 1995 if I recall.
However, losing an aircraft on a 3+ year old radio as a result of a pin disconnecting from the board (had that been the cause), when the radio has had no maintenance checks is rather like blaming Ford when your car blows up at 80,000, and you never changed the oil.
Mark --
If you were flying PCM and the system went "insane" then it can not be your transmitter -- the PCM failsafe would take over. It would have to be a power supply problem to the receiver, that is the only thing that would cause the system to "lock out" and act like an FM receiver getting "hits". It could, however, have been a bad servo draining your battery pack so hard that the receiver stopped getting sufficient voltage.
I've checked over the notes on your radio system. The receiver's damage appears to be all resultant to your crash, although there is no way to know for sure. A damaged Ceramic Filter would act as you describe in flight, so it may have been damaged pre-crash. The same is true if the receiver was damaged pre-flight.
There are no problems at all found with the transmitter, and the solder joints have been confirmed to be fine. Please do know there are a thousand other things that can cause a loss inflight.
The radio has been sent to R&D to be test flown for you as a courtesy. We are very happy to do so. However, as your radio is long out of warranty, we will not be able to replace the transmitter.
Please let me try to step in and shed some light into this discussion.
First, the solder issue was with the original generation of 8U, about 4 years before 8U Super was released.
Second, 9C is a whole new generation of radio with a BIG jump forward in logic. The 8U S was a fantastic selling radio and its replacement had NOTHING to do with any type of hardware problems.
Third, as someone stated early on, RADIOS REQUIRE REGULAR CHECKUPS. I'm not sure how modelers got into the mindset that engines need after run oil and regular maintenance, and airframes should be checked every flight, but radio gear can be flown for eternity without any checks, but unfortunately it happens all the time.
There are parts that wear on a radio, just as there are in your car, on your airplane, and so on. On a modular radio, the pins take a real beating if the module is "manhandled" and changed regularly. Service of these pins is an important part of a radio's checkup and should be done at least bi-annually if not annually.
Don't misunderstand -- I'm certainly NOT saying the original 8 didn't have a problem. It did, and Futaba published a list of serial #s and to this day we still check for and repair that problem no charge as a standard factory update during any service. But that was numerous years ago -- roughly 1995 if I recall.
However, losing an aircraft on a 3+ year old radio as a result of a pin disconnecting from the board (had that been the cause), when the radio has had no maintenance checks is rather like blaming Ford when your car blows up at 80,000, and you never changed the oil.
Mark --
If you were flying PCM and the system went "insane" then it can not be your transmitter -- the PCM failsafe would take over. It would have to be a power supply problem to the receiver, that is the only thing that would cause the system to "lock out" and act like an FM receiver getting "hits". It could, however, have been a bad servo draining your battery pack so hard that the receiver stopped getting sufficient voltage.
I've checked over the notes on your radio system. The receiver's damage appears to be all resultant to your crash, although there is no way to know for sure. A damaged Ceramic Filter would act as you describe in flight, so it may have been damaged pre-crash. The same is true if the receiver was damaged pre-flight.
There are no problems at all found with the transmitter, and the solder joints have been confirmed to be fine. Please do know there are a thousand other things that can cause a loss inflight.
The radio has been sent to R&D to be test flown for you as a courtesy. We are very happy to do so. However, as your radio is long out of warranty, we will not be able to replace the transmitter.
05-08-2002, 03:39 PM
#62
8UAPS
AnnMarie, thanks so much for taking the time to reply via this forum. While I certainly appreciate what you have said, inlcuding your speculation on the possible cause of the loss, I am still not convinced that the Tx is not the culprit. As I mentioned in my letter to Futaba accompanying the Tx, I had two other models, with two different receivers, experience the exact same loss of control. Again, as mentioned in the letter, one model was lost and the other was saved after control was reestablished to the model. I too believed that these instances were somehow related to the on-board set up, until the latest crash. Too much of a coincidence for me, and the only common factor being the Tx used for each model. Again, as suggested in my letter, the problem is intermittant because I have had numerous successful flights in between the instances mentioned.
In my opinion, the crash was not resultant from loss of battery power to the receiver. I was running two like new JR 6.0 volt batteries along with a Jomar Ultimate Battery Backer and a voltage regulator. The batteries were 1800mah and 1200mah, respectively. After the crash, I verified via a voltage meter that both batteries were still fully charged. This voltage reading was made at the end of the voltage regulator, indicating no interruption of current between and through the main battery, Jomar UBB and the voltage regulator itself.
As for the PCM receiver that accompanied the Tx, the obvious damage to the antenna was definately caused as a result of the crash. I did not inspect the receiver internally, however.
Finally, I truly appreciate you having the Tx flight tested before sending it back to me. Honestly, however, I doubt that I'll be using it again for fear of another failure.
Thanks again, and if you wish to speak with me (it would be my pleasure), please refer to my letter for my telephone number.
In my opinion, the crash was not resultant from loss of battery power to the receiver. I was running two like new JR 6.0 volt batteries along with a Jomar Ultimate Battery Backer and a voltage regulator. The batteries were 1800mah and 1200mah, respectively. After the crash, I verified via a voltage meter that both batteries were still fully charged. This voltage reading was made at the end of the voltage regulator, indicating no interruption of current between and through the main battery, Jomar UBB and the voltage regulator itself.
As for the PCM receiver that accompanied the Tx, the obvious damage to the antenna was definately caused as a result of the crash. I did not inspect the receiver internally, however.
Finally, I truly appreciate you having the Tx flight tested before sending it back to me. Honestly, however, I doubt that I'll be using it again for fear of another failure.
Thanks again, and if you wish to speak with me (it would be my pleasure), please refer to my letter for my telephone number.
05-08-2002, 05:00 PM
#63
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Tuscola,
IL
Posts: 2,636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8UAPS Failure-33% Extra Total Loss!
Hi, Mark!
Thanks again for the input. Assuming you were PCM, however, there is no way the transmitter caused what you describe. It physically can't have done so....the receiver stores the PCM data and obeys it at loss of signal.
I understand what you're saying about the TX; however, in a case such as this where the problem simply CAN NOT be at the TX, I can honestly say that I believe your fears to be mislaid.
Thanks again for the input. Assuming you were PCM, however, there is no way the transmitter caused what you describe. It physically can't have done so....the receiver stores the PCM data and obeys it at loss of signal.
I understand what you're saying about the TX; however, in a case such as this where the problem simply CAN NOT be at the TX, I can honestly say that I believe your fears to be mislaid.
05-08-2002, 06:07 PM
#64
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: cary,
IL
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8UAPS Failure-33% Extra Total Loss!
Originally posted by amcross
Friends,
Please let me try to step in and shed some light into this discussion.
Third, as someone stated early on, RADIOS REQUIRE REGULAR CHECKUPS. I'm not sure how modelers got into the mindset that engines need after run oil and regular maintenance, and airframes should be checked every flight, but radio gear can be flown for eternity without any checks, but unfortunately it happens all the time.
Hello AnnMarie!!
I'm not sure about this, so I'll pass on it other than to ask, what the heck would you be checking up on periodically?
There are parts that wear on a radio, just as there are in your car, on your airplane, and so on. On a modular radio, the pins take a real beating if the module is "manhandled" and changed regularly. Service of these pins is an important part of a radio's checkup and should be done at least bi-annually if not annually.
I don't agree. If the correct connector is used, the MTBF (mean time between failure) is into the millions of mating cycles. I make my living designing, and developing the worlds most sophisticated automated test equipment to maintain, and repair some of the most complex military "black box" weapon system components and safety of flight items. Our repair and replace instructions never even consider connector mating failures. The likely hood is just too remote to even call them out as a possible fault. And as I've asserted before, it's just poor design practice to install a connector such as this one, subjected to lateral mechanical forces, without adequate mechanical support. I know this to be just a design snafu. We don't design perfect stuff either And no, I'm not comparing military electronics to hobby electonics. I have enough perspective to know there's essentially no difference in the design cycle concerning matters such as these.
Don't misunderstand -- I'm certainly NOT saying the original 8 didn't have a problem. It did, and Futaba published a list of serial #s and to this day we still check for and repair that problem no charge as a standard factory update during any service. But that was numerous years ago -- roughly 1995 if I recall. Yep, it was probably around that time
However, losing an aircraft on a 3+ year old radio as a result of a pin disconnecting from the board (had that been the cause), when the radio has had no maintenance checks is rather like blaming Ford when your car blows up at 80,000, and you never changed the oil.
Again, this is a reliability issue. IMO, this is not something that should be necessary, but if it gives a user a nice warm fuzzy feeling, then so be it. How often do you haul your TV over to the authorized Panasonic dealer for a "checkup". Or VCR, Computer, Printer......
Mark --
If you were flying PCM and the system went "insane" then it can not be your transmitter -- the PCM failsafe would take over. It would have to be a power supply problem to the receiver, that is the only thing that would cause the system to "lock out" and act like an FM receiver getting "hits". It could, however, have been a bad servo draining your battery pack so hard that the receiver stopped getting sufficient voltage.
Sorry AnnMarie, I don't agree with this assertion. Your assertion assumes the complete loss of signal, as this is the only way the receiver will invoke "failsafe". The signal must be errant, or missing for a number of successive iterations before entering failsafe. This process is not unique to hobby receivers. Some receivers use a "watchdog" timer that periodically gets reset if the signal is present. If the signal is not present, the timer begins counting out till it invokes "failsafe".
A transmitter that sends packets intermittantly, say missing every other one, or forth, or so on, would cause the receiver to go in and out of "HOLD", without ever going into 'Failsafe". The appearance to the flyer would certainly be erratic flight, jerking from extreme to extreme, depending on how intermittant the control input is. This would, or could explain the observation that Mark had.....Agreed that this probably would be a rare mode of failure, as most transmitters probably fail sending no packets at all, it is a legitimate mode of failure.
I've checked over the notes on your radio system. The receiver's damage appears to be all resultant to your crash, although there is no way to know for sure. A damaged Ceramic Filter would act as you describe in flight, so it may have been damaged pre-crash. The same is true if the receiver was damaged pre-flight.
Friends,
Please let me try to step in and shed some light into this discussion.
Third, as someone stated early on, RADIOS REQUIRE REGULAR CHECKUPS. I'm not sure how modelers got into the mindset that engines need after run oil and regular maintenance, and airframes should be checked every flight, but radio gear can be flown for eternity without any checks, but unfortunately it happens all the time.
Hello AnnMarie!!
I'm not sure about this, so I'll pass on it other than to ask, what the heck would you be checking up on periodically?There are parts that wear on a radio, just as there are in your car, on your airplane, and so on. On a modular radio, the pins take a real beating if the module is "manhandled" and changed regularly. Service of these pins is an important part of a radio's checkup and should be done at least bi-annually if not annually.
I don't agree. If the correct connector is used, the MTBF (mean time between failure) is into the millions of mating cycles. I make my living designing, and developing the worlds most sophisticated automated test equipment to maintain, and repair some of the most complex military "black box" weapon system components and safety of flight items. Our repair and replace instructions never even consider connector mating failures. The likely hood is just too remote to even call them out as a possible fault. And as I've asserted before, it's just poor design practice to install a connector such as this one, subjected to lateral mechanical forces, without adequate mechanical support. I know this to be just a design snafu. We don't design perfect stuff either
And no, I'm not comparing military electronics to hobby electonics. I have enough perspective to know there's essentially no difference in the design cycle concerning matters such as these.Don't misunderstand -- I'm certainly NOT saying the original 8 didn't have a problem. It did, and Futaba published a list of serial #s and to this day we still check for and repair that problem no charge as a standard factory update during any service. But that was numerous years ago -- roughly 1995 if I recall. Yep, it was probably around that time
However, losing an aircraft on a 3+ year old radio as a result of a pin disconnecting from the board (had that been the cause), when the radio has had no maintenance checks is rather like blaming Ford when your car blows up at 80,000, and you never changed the oil.
Again, this is a reliability issue. IMO, this is not something that should be necessary, but if it gives a user a nice warm fuzzy feeling, then so be it. How often do you haul your TV over to the authorized Panasonic dealer for a "checkup". Or VCR, Computer, Printer......
Mark --
If you were flying PCM and the system went "insane" then it can not be your transmitter -- the PCM failsafe would take over. It would have to be a power supply problem to the receiver, that is the only thing that would cause the system to "lock out" and act like an FM receiver getting "hits". It could, however, have been a bad servo draining your battery pack so hard that the receiver stopped getting sufficient voltage.
Sorry AnnMarie, I don't agree with this assertion. Your assertion assumes the complete loss of signal, as this is the only way the receiver will invoke "failsafe". The signal must be errant, or missing for a number of successive iterations before entering failsafe. This process is not unique to hobby receivers. Some receivers use a "watchdog" timer that periodically gets reset if the signal is present. If the signal is not present, the timer begins counting out till it invokes "failsafe".
A transmitter that sends packets intermittantly, say missing every other one, or forth, or so on, would cause the receiver to go in and out of "HOLD", without ever going into 'Failsafe". The appearance to the flyer would certainly be erratic flight, jerking from extreme to extreme, depending on how intermittant the control input is. This would, or could explain the observation that Mark had.....Agreed that this probably would be a rare mode of failure, as most transmitters probably fail sending no packets at all, it is a legitimate mode of failure.
I've checked over the notes on your radio system. The receiver's damage appears to be all resultant to your crash, although there is no way to know for sure. A damaged Ceramic Filter would act as you describe in flight, so it may have been damaged pre-crash. The same is true if the receiver was damaged pre-flight.
05-08-2002, 06:15 PM
#65
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Tuscola,
IL
Posts: 2,636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8UAPS Failure-33% Extra Total Loss!
Hi, Injunear!
I don't want to get in a long drawn out debate, so i'll try not to...
There are a hundred things (rough number, not an actual count) to check for any time a radio is in for service. Just a few are pot wear, wear on the leads to the pots, module/crystal connection/contacts, etc.... all of these are things that should be checked upon regularly.
I wont argue that the design to support the module connection is not as robust as it could be ... however, the modules have been designed as they are for years and have not seen a recurrent problem except the 1995 issue with the solder on the 8Us.
Please remember that you're talking about multibillion dollar equipment in your industry, we're not....
Regarding his failure -- if i understand his description properly, "hold" would not fit his description at all, the model was responding erratically, all over the sky, acting like an FM receiver getting hit from another radio....that doesn't fit a PCM system's failure mode at all, no matter what's incoming.... sluggish, sloppy, clumsy responses, yes, but not what he describes.
I don't want to get in a long drawn out debate, so i'll try not to...
There are a hundred things (rough number, not an actual count) to check for any time a radio is in for service. Just a few are pot wear, wear on the leads to the pots, module/crystal connection/contacts, etc.... all of these are things that should be checked upon regularly.
I wont argue that the design to support the module connection is not as robust as it could be ... however, the modules have been designed as they are for years and have not seen a recurrent problem except the 1995 issue with the solder on the 8Us.
Please remember that you're talking about multibillion dollar equipment in your industry, we're not....
Regarding his failure -- if i understand his description properly, "hold" would not fit his description at all, the model was responding erratically, all over the sky, acting like an FM receiver getting hit from another radio....that doesn't fit a PCM system's failure mode at all, no matter what's incoming.... sluggish, sloppy, clumsy responses, yes, but not what he describes.
05-08-2002, 06:17 PM
#66
My Feedback: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis,
IN
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad 8UAPS
Mark, I'll take a load off your shoulders and purchase your system as is for $50. That way you can have some funds toward getting your new 9C system you really want. I have a student flyer who has only trainers and if the system fails the loss won't be as great. You don't have to thank me for my generosity. If you decide to put this system up for sale on eBay, or others sales avenues, I hope you are up front and explain the circumstances of this thread.
05-08-2002, 06:28 PM
#67
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: cary,
IL
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8UAPS Failure-33% Extra Total Loss!
Originally posted by amcross
Hi, Injunear!
I don't want to get in a long drawn out debate, so i'll try not to...
There are a hundred things (rough number, not an actual count) to check for any time a radio is in for service. Just a few are pot wear, wear on the leads to the pots, module/crystal connection/contacts, etc.... all of these are things that should be checked upon regularly. Again, IMO unecessary, and certainly an issue with quality. BTW, I hope that you enjoy my new color.
I wont argue that the design to support the module connection is not as robust as it could be ... however, the modules have been designed as they are for years and have not seen a recurrent problem except the 1995 issue with the solder on the 8Us.
Please remember that you're talking about multibillion dollar equipment in your industry, we're not....
Again, I have that perspective....I'm not comparing "multibillion dollar" equipment to the design of this hobby equipment. I look at this stuff with the same critical eye. I have the perspective when it comes to the economies of design....The government doesn't just open up their (or our) wallet and give us liberty to spend whatever we want, whenever we want. They do expect reliability, and quality. These issues should be non-issues as they are related to quality.....
Regarding his failure -- if i understand his description properly, "hold" would not fit his description at all, the model was responding erratically, all over the sky, acting like an FM receiver getting hit from another radio....that doesn't fit a PCM system's failure mode at all, no matter what's incoming.... sluggish, sloppy, clumsy responses, yes, but not what he describes. [/B]
Hi, Injunear!
I don't want to get in a long drawn out debate, so i'll try not to...
There are a hundred things (rough number, not an actual count) to check for any time a radio is in for service. Just a few are pot wear, wear on the leads to the pots, module/crystal connection/contacts, etc.... all of these are things that should be checked upon regularly. Again, IMO unecessary, and certainly an issue with quality. BTW, I hope that you enjoy my new color.
I wont argue that the design to support the module connection is not as robust as it could be ... however, the modules have been designed as they are for years and have not seen a recurrent problem except the 1995 issue with the solder on the 8Us.
Please remember that you're talking about multibillion dollar equipment in your industry, we're not....
Again, I have that perspective....I'm not comparing "multibillion dollar" equipment to the design of this hobby equipment. I look at this stuff with the same critical eye. I have the perspective when it comes to the economies of design....The government doesn't just open up their (or our) wallet and give us liberty to spend whatever we want, whenever we want. They do expect reliability, and quality. These issues should be non-issues as they are related to quality.....
Regarding his failure -- if i understand his description properly, "hold" would not fit his description at all, the model was responding erratically, all over the sky, acting like an FM receiver getting hit from another radio....that doesn't fit a PCM system's failure mode at all, no matter what's incoming.... sluggish, sloppy, clumsy responses, yes, but not what he describes. [/B]
05-08-2002, 08:02 PM
#68
8UAPS
Thanks again AnnMarie for your concern and participation in this discussion. Also, thanks to Injun_Eer not only for his insight and obvious expertise on the subject, but for his continued support.
As for me, I am only an attorney from Miami without any electronics background whatsoever! That is why I defer to the experts such as Injun_eer and yourself. All I can accurately comment on is what I and my two friends saw when the Extra went wildly out of control. My understanding of the Fail Safe feature is that in the event of a loss of signal, the flight surfaces will go to pre-designated positions. In my case, I used the default setting for the fail safe, which results in the control surfaces remaing in the position they last were in, just prior to the signal loss. As I described both in this post and in my letter to Futaba, the loss of control occurred while on the climb out, seconds after takeoff. The model yawed severely to the right, as if full left rudder was being applied. The model continued to climb out in this heavily yawed position just prior to flipping on its back, reversing itself upright again and then going through a series of out of control manuevers, ultimatley crashing. There is no indication whatsoever that the receiver had stopped receiving a signal. If it had, the fail safe would have kicked in and the model would have simply continued to climb out. My supposition, as a layperson, is that the Tx was sending out intermittant "involuntary" signals. Again, I am no elecronics expert and don't even know if this is possible. All I do know is that all other systems checked out positively following the crash and to me, it seems, the only possible variable is the Tx.
The batteries were like new and fully charged. The servos were Hitec 5645 digitals and had been used successfully in all prior flights.
Having once investigated an electrocution death in connection with my work, I am fully aware that identifying intermittant electrical faults is, by nature, very difficult. I truly do respect your opinion, AnnMarie, but would you honeslty feel comfortable putting up one of your more expensive models under the control of this particular Tx? Would you do so particularly in light of its history as I have described it to be?
At any rate, I do thank you for your personal attention to this matter, and look forward to speaking with you soon.
Finally, who the heck is this P-38nut guy? Boy is he ever out there!
As for me, I am only an attorney from Miami without any electronics background whatsoever! That is why I defer to the experts such as Injun_eer and yourself. All I can accurately comment on is what I and my two friends saw when the Extra went wildly out of control. My understanding of the Fail Safe feature is that in the event of a loss of signal, the flight surfaces will go to pre-designated positions. In my case, I used the default setting for the fail safe, which results in the control surfaces remaing in the position they last were in, just prior to the signal loss. As I described both in this post and in my letter to Futaba, the loss of control occurred while on the climb out, seconds after takeoff. The model yawed severely to the right, as if full left rudder was being applied. The model continued to climb out in this heavily yawed position just prior to flipping on its back, reversing itself upright again and then going through a series of out of control manuevers, ultimatley crashing. There is no indication whatsoever that the receiver had stopped receiving a signal. If it had, the fail safe would have kicked in and the model would have simply continued to climb out. My supposition, as a layperson, is that the Tx was sending out intermittant "involuntary" signals. Again, I am no elecronics expert and don't even know if this is possible. All I do know is that all other systems checked out positively following the crash and to me, it seems, the only possible variable is the Tx.
The batteries were like new and fully charged. The servos were Hitec 5645 digitals and had been used successfully in all prior flights.
Having once investigated an electrocution death in connection with my work, I am fully aware that identifying intermittant electrical faults is, by nature, very difficult. I truly do respect your opinion, AnnMarie, but would you honeslty feel comfortable putting up one of your more expensive models under the control of this particular Tx? Would you do so particularly in light of its history as I have described it to be?
At any rate, I do thank you for your personal attention to this matter, and look forward to speaking with you soon.
Finally, who the heck is this P-38nut guy? Boy is he ever out there!
05-08-2002, 09:52 PM
#70
Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: FL
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8UAPS Failure-33% Extra Total Loss!
Mark,
Put that system in a $99 ARF kit. Test it in a cheap way. I have an old O.S. 40 FP you can use. I'm sure someone else can donate something,..even if it's just a wheel collar.
Come on folks! See if the problem happens again and then you will know for sure.
Just a last thought.........why didnt the problems happen on the ground before the flight???????????????????????????????
Put that system in a $99 ARF kit. Test it in a cheap way. I have an old O.S. 40 FP you can use. I'm sure someone else can donate something,..even if it's just a wheel collar.
Come on folks! See if the problem happens again and then you will know for sure.Just a last thought.........why didnt the problems happen on the ground before the flight???????????????????????????????
05-08-2002, 11:19 PM
#72
8UAPS
Hey Navcom, thanks for your post. I was wondering the same thing. That is, why didn't the problem happen while the plane was on the ground? Simple answer, I don't know. I did the range check, as I always do (particularly with my giant scale gassers). No apparent problem. The reality is that we really do have to expect that sooner or later there is going to be a glitch along the way that could cost an airplane. Even a giant scale plane. Your suggestion of experimenting with an inexpensive trainer, etc. is a good one, but like I have said in earlier posts, the problem seems to be intermittant. I would expect the Tx to perform without incident the way it usually had in the past. It's those unexpected episodes that I have experienced which really give me pause about using this particular Tx in my remaining big birds. Bottom line. . . it may be time to buy a new Tx. Thanks to all who have responded. Mark.
05-09-2002, 11:33 AM
#73
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Tuscola,
IL
Posts: 2,636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8UAPS Failure-33% Extra Total Loss!
Hi Mark,
Unfortunately you and I are looking at the same symptom and seeing two different things -- I have never, ever heard of a TX sending out 'spurious instructions'....and just don't see any way it can be at the transmitter at all. Especially not a transmitter apparently sending out perfectly logical instructions and then, suddenly, sending out logical commands (in the proper language) but at random, and then not doing it again....
Would I fly the radio myself in my aircraft? Particularly after its been through the hands of our R&D staff, yes, with comfort and without concern.
One thing that comes strongly to mind for me is the gasoline ignition. If you weren't PCM I would point immediately to ignition interference, particularly as you're in a climb out, pointing the antenna at the aircraft, getting the minimal possible signal.
How are your twin batteries supplied to the receiver?
Unfortunately you and I are looking at the same symptom and seeing two different things -- I have never, ever heard of a TX sending out 'spurious instructions'....and just don't see any way it can be at the transmitter at all. Especially not a transmitter apparently sending out perfectly logical instructions and then, suddenly, sending out logical commands (in the proper language) but at random, and then not doing it again....
Would I fly the radio myself in my aircraft? Particularly after its been through the hands of our R&D staff, yes, with comfort and without concern.
One thing that comes strongly to mind for me is the gasoline ignition. If you weren't PCM I would point immediately to ignition interference, particularly as you're in a climb out, pointing the antenna at the aircraft, getting the minimal possible signal.
How are your twin batteries supplied to the receiver?
05-09-2002, 04:32 PM
#74
8UAPS Failure-33% Extra Total Loss!
Hello AnnMarie: The batteries are connected to the receiver as follows: The main battery pack (1800mah, 6.0 volts) is wrapped in foam and tie wrapped to the servo tray at its designated position in the GP 330L. The battery lead goes into a JR heavy duty switch. The switch lead is then connected to the "main" lead of a JOMAR Ultimate Battery Backer. The UBB is also wrapped in foam and securely tie wrapped to a bulkhead on the port side of the model. The backup battery (1200mah, 6.0 volts) is tie wrapped to the underside of the wing tube sleave for CG purposes. It is connected to its own (second) JR switch, which is then connected to the backup lead of the UBB. The UBB is then connected to a voltage regulator which is then put into the receiver's battery port. The Engine's ignition is tie wrapped to the top of the engine box, at least 12" away from either JR switch or any other electrical component. The ignition battery is tie wrapped next to the ignition itself.
Pre-flight range testing, with the engine run through its full range of power, was performed with no problems detected or noted.
I fully agree that an in-flight loss of control situation may be caused by any number of factors. As previously stated, I am no expert when it comes to electronics. The first thing that came to mind, after I thought about the instant as well as past scenarios, was that the Tx must be at fault. I fully trust your opinion and your R&D's work. If it's not the Tx, then it's not the Tx. My thought that the Tx could have sent out "involuntary" signals is a good example of my ignorance on the subject of electronics. Again, I thank you for your concern and effort in responding to my situation. Mark.
Pre-flight range testing, with the engine run through its full range of power, was performed with no problems detected or noted.
I fully agree that an in-flight loss of control situation may be caused by any number of factors. As previously stated, I am no expert when it comes to electronics. The first thing that came to mind, after I thought about the instant as well as past scenarios, was that the Tx must be at fault. I fully trust your opinion and your R&D's work. If it's not the Tx, then it's not the Tx. My thought that the Tx could have sent out "involuntary" signals is a good example of my ignorance on the subject of electronics. Again, I thank you for your concern and effort in responding to my situation. Mark.
05-09-2002, 04:43 PM
#75
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Tuscola,
IL
Posts: 2,636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8UAPS Failure-33% Extra Total Loss!
Mark,
Not a problem at all. Happy to discuss it together!
I spoke at length this morning with our Electronics design engineer (he's not gotten to your radio yet, he hopes to today). He concurred with my thought that something on board had such a high current drain that insufficient current was flowing to the receiver for the receiver to respond to the TX OR to obey the failsafe settings. He's also going to look at the failsafe settings in the radio as well to double check.
His thoughts on current drain were flutter, a bad servo, a bad regulator, a bad miracle Y or other electronic splitter, a problem with the battery backup unit, a bad switch (that battery backer doesnt regulate between 2 packs, it forces to the second pack and stays there, so possible but highly unlikely).
I'm anxiously awaiting his feedback. Thanks again for the continued discussion, Mark. Having had a similar loss some years ago (but mine went into failsafe for no apparent reason), I recall the frustration all too well, and hope I can help resolve it for you to your satisfaction.
Not a problem at all. Happy to discuss it together!
I spoke at length this morning with our Electronics design engineer (he's not gotten to your radio yet, he hopes to today). He concurred with my thought that something on board had such a high current drain that insufficient current was flowing to the receiver for the receiver to respond to the TX OR to obey the failsafe settings. He's also going to look at the failsafe settings in the radio as well to double check.
His thoughts on current drain were flutter, a bad servo, a bad regulator, a bad miracle Y or other electronic splitter, a problem with the battery backup unit, a bad switch (that battery backer doesnt regulate between 2 packs, it forces to the second pack and stays there, so possible but highly unlikely).
I'm anxiously awaiting his feedback. Thanks again for the continued discussion, Mark. Having had a similar loss some years ago (but mine went into failsafe for no apparent reason), I recall the frustration all too well, and hope I can help resolve it for you to your satisfaction.