branded

My Feedback: (9)

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Gremlin Castle

The I-4C battery indicator is showing 6.25 volts on the 5 cell pack.

Why not test them with a fully charged 4.8 volt pack. The recievers have onboard regulators and they're thermally protected. If they get too hot, such as when sourcing lot's of servos and when the input voltage is high, they will shut down.

jjamesrb

My Feedback: (39)

I also had problems with the R149 DP.I lost a 40% aeroworks and a dave patrick extra with the same receiver.The throttle servo was twitching on the 40% and i did a range check and it cleared up so i decided to fly it and it went to failsafe and destroyed everything in the plane.I checked the reciever and flew it in a dave patrick ultimate for a month with no problem then put it in the extra, was at a fun fly took off and that was it lost all control (thankfully it headed for the woods or there would of been serious injurys) and i haven't used it since, i don't even want to send it in because after losing 2 planes with it, its staying on the ground.

Geistware

My Feedback: (16)

The servo power does NOT go through the receiver regulation circuit.
Please help to distribute factual information.

branded

My Feedback: (9)

You apparently do not understand signal distribution, Geist. I assume anyone that's technically astute will understand my simplistic explanation. I was wrong. Sorry.

I did not say that power was being sourced. As you say, and I agree, there's no power distribution via the receiver regulator but the signal sourcing (or sinking since you're hanging on my every word) via the servo driver output does source current to the input of the servos......This is an electrical "fact"...

Another fact is the reciever uses an linear regulator and if you're using a 6 volt battery, with the receiver powered up over "hours" it could feasibly get hot enough to shut down, thereby making the receiver look "dead".

In fact, having a heavy load on the servo supply, if using the same battery for both reciever and servos, could actually aid if this is the case whereby the battery voltage could be depleted over time such that the regulator would run cooler(no overhaeating and shutting down)....jeesh!

Geistware

My Feedback: (16)

branded,
While you may have mis-stated yourself and I can't read your mind then I see where the above statement may be valid. The statement you made was that the sourcing current such as when sourcing lot's of servos and when the input voltage is high, they will shut down the regulators in the reciever. This is in error. Nothing was said about signal distribution or sourcing of power. You DID say sourcing current. I for one know the difference and your statement above is flat out wrong!

Enough Said

branded

My Feedback: (9)

Uh, uh...Giest. Me thinks that you also insist that PPM is FM, correct?

Firstly, to say that I would not be technically astute enough to understand that an onboard regulator contained within a receiver packaged in an SOIC package and limited to perhaps 100 ma would distribute 1 amp. 5 amps, or more to the servos is an affront to my intelligience. You know that I'm smarter than that.

But that's what your response is all about, is it? You want to make me appear to be a fellow that doesn't know what he's talking about, correct? Well, Giest, frankly speaking I dwarf you in terms of understanding this hardware. That's a fact.

The common term used for the current distributed for signal distribution is "driving", "sourcing", or "sinking".
For power, it's "distribution", "power distribution", "distributed power".

I offered up a useful post to the orginator of this thread but you chose to take my explanation into the realm of minutia. I don't think anyone gives a rats ***** whether or not I said "source" or not. The substance of my reply was to offer up a reasonable and plausable explaination to the posters empirical observations.

Please, if you don't "talk the talk and walk the walk", then don't FLAME!
I see, given your rude behavior that you have an agenda- NO?...... Get over it Wiggling the stix on your transmitter doesn't allow you to put EE after your name![:'(]

jvolkes

Drum roll....pleeeeeeze..... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......Sounds reasonable to me, br!
What! Who says that PPM isn't FM?

Er...wait, I'm confused cuz PCM is FM( I read it on the internet so it MUST BE TRUE)...[X(][X(]

But, er, PPM is also AM...Um, I confused.......I (un)learn so much on the internet!

MikeEast

My Feedback: (3)

Getting out of hand guys.

Dont get sucked into this type of junk Geist, its not your style[8D].

No matter what you guys say now its going to come out wrong. I believe you are both good fellas who originally meant well and probably both fundamentally right, sometimes typed word makes it impossible to make a clear point. I would just let it go. No one except the two of you really understands what you are talking about anyways, Im pretty knowledgeable but this has gone over my head...

You both have too much credibility and value here to lose it over something this insignificant.

Just some friendly advice.






In nuclear war,,, everyone loses.

Gremlin Castle

My Feedback: (14)

Fellows you have hijacked a thread that was started to get input on the number and types of failures that people are having with the R-129 DP receivers.
There are plenty of other places to debate Definitions, theory, and syntax.

Gremlin Castle

My Feedback: (14)

I see in another current post that that the R-149 DP receiver still is a topic of conversation.

Panzlflyer

My Feedback: (15)

I lost 2 planes with R149DP in them, but the Transmitter was also of frequency. Gone back to using the R138.

Gremlin Castle

My Feedback: (14)

I am using a 9ZAPS which is the synthesized module and am flying several airplanes on the same frequency but with the older R129DP receivers.

In my case the receivers will operate for indeterminate periods and go deader than the proverbial hammer.

I have hooked up as many as three in a row and watched the two problem units black out while the other rocks on.

dirtybird

My Feedback: (5)

Not true.
I once range checked my model and prepared to fly. But the field I was visiting had a rule that your battery voltage must be checked prior to any flight. I found the battery had a shorted cell and was at 3.6 volts. The system worked so well I could not see any improvement when I put in a good pack. I had previously flown the aircraft at another field several times.
I don't know what the cut off voltage is but its less than 3.6. I would guess its 3.0 volts

Gremlin Castle

My Feedback: (14)

R 149s can fail for reasons other than the receiver itself just as any other receiver.

However the 149 seems to have some peculiar problem in greater numbers than other models.

Whether it is the result of process control, batches of marginal components, or some other problem they quit working in a manner that is not consistent with PCM failures in other models.

BaldEagel

Just to add to the information on here. I lost my 33% Edge last week end due to what could only be a system failier, not yet fully diagnosed, the Edge just twitched its self into the ground, did not go to fail safe or lock out, five miles in all directions clear no others transmitting on my frequency.
Tx Futaba WC2 Zap
RX Futaba 138 PCM

Tx and Rx sent too Futaba for examination, I will report back what they find if anything.

Mike

blikseme300

My Feedback: (118)

There is a known issue with some of the R129DP RX's and the synth 9Z TX combos. I had 3 of my RX's updated and the problem you describe is no more. Go to futaba-rc.com and check the service faqs for more about this.

My.2c IRT the apparent weakness of the R149DP: - this RX is more fragile than the 129 & 138 because of the higher density of the components on the smaller PC boards. I am of the opinion that the bulk of the failures in the field are caused by bad RX installations. Too often I see the RX separated from the mounting area by a piece of latex foam (good) but zip-tied to the mounting area (very bad). The rigidity of this setup IMHO literally shakes the RX into failure. There are numerous posts and articles out there that describe "floating" installations. The old-timers out there know what I am referring to. The better mechanical rigidity of the larger/older RX's seem to handle this abuse better so appear to be superior to the 149DP.

I use all of the above RX's mentioned in mostly 30% and larger aerobats running gassers. These have been used for many, many flights with no problems. I now only buy 138DP's as I don't need more channels and they are less expensive.

As a parting shot - I did some troubleshooting on a fellow members plane which has a 149DP. The ailerons would intermittently get the spastic shakes when doing a ground run. Sometimes the one aileron channel would die, but wake up when power was cycled. The cause was a servo lead negative pin which had backed out of the wye branch. The second servo on the wye also died. Additionally it would cause the elevator to go intermittent. So, the positive and signal lines were connected, but no negative. This messed up the output side of the TX and caused other channels to be non-op. The bottom line is, check all connections & preflight properly, don't just assume a bad RX.

Safe Flying!

Gremlin Castle

My Feedback: (14)

I too have seen numerous failures over the years that were connector or switch related but the type of failure that I am talking about will also happen on the bench where nothing is being strained vibrated or otherwise influenced. They will work for an indeterminate period, twitch and then go dead. It also doesn't matter if they are receiving the signal from a synthesized module or a crystal transmitter.

It seems to be one of those things that depending on your luck of the draw it is either going to happen to you or you will wonder why other people are making such a fuss about the problem.

BaldEagel

Just to update you all, the failier on my Edge was due to an intemintent airial connection in my Tx the wiper connections in the Zap Tx were corroded.

Mike

Geistware

My Feedback: (16)

Good Catch!
Hopefully everyone will realize that you need to send the TX off for service every couple of years!

acroguy

I also have had the dreaded R149 receiver semi-failure (semi because somehow I have managed to get the plane on the ground).
I have been flying a 40% Comp-ARF YAK for almost 4 years. I have had 5 - R149 receivers fail in almost the same manner each time.
I go to the flying field, do my usual control test, range test & check all battery voltages. Fuel the airplane and then fly.
3 out of the 4 times, I felt and detected the airplane going into lock-out and managed to get the airplane back on the ground. A range test after the airplane landed yielded range of only 2-5 feet with antenna collapsed (normal for my installation is about 50 feet). Install another receiver and everything back to normal. I have tried different transmitters, servos on or off, engine on or off, antenna outside the aircraft...no change in range to the failed receiver (definately a receiver failure).
The other failure I had was on first turn on at the flying field and I had ground range of only 2-4 feet - another receiver failure.
My recent failure was Monday, November 27, 2006 - same scenario as the other 3 failures on the 2nd flight of the day, managed to get the airplane on the ground - no ground range.
I have been flying RC for over 40 years and flying Futaba for over 20 years - In my opinion Futaba has a major problem with the R149DP receiver and I wish they would not ignore the problem.

Geistware

My Feedback: (16)

What they will tell you is to pad the RX more.
I have tried this and while it makes them last longer, I still need a filter replaced.
That seems to be the failure mode for the R149DP

japan3d

How do you have your antennas routed on the Yak?

Flyjets

My Feedback: (51)

AcroGuy

U made this comment......... (normal for my installation is about 50 feet)

This is to short a range check I also own the CARF 3.3M Yak and I am getting 120 feet. It took much antenna routing and experimenting to do this.

The Antennas need to be outside of the Carbon Weave to get best signal. Seems the Carbon Weave in the Fuselage is causing the Signal to bounce around and Kill reception.

The same problem is on the CARF SuperXtra again my Antenna is outside and my range is 120 feet plus with the motor running.

I am using the Futaba 149 receiver with a 14MZ Transmiter.

Ian

acroguy

I have the antenna routed down the inside of the fuselage.
My normal range check is with the transmitter antenna totally collapsed (9ZAP-WC2) - if I extend 1 section per the manual, I get well over 120 feet of range.
My concern is that the receiver's totally fail and are unusable when I have a flight that the range is lost.
I can't believe the installation would cause the receivers to fail???
I have placed the receivers in different places in the fuselage, wrapped them in foam, all with no success.

3D Joy

I assume you use only one receiver. Do you have some sort of power distribution system?

What I understand is this receiver's problems are heat related and a 40% Yak electrical system can generate some heat and if all that heat is centralised into the receiver then you got problems.