dragonpilot

My Feedback: (38)

Hello Bax,

A question here if you would, I've witnessed turbine powered jets flying with the competitors DX-7 and the 10X spread spectrum modules with no problems, at least 25 flights I've seen. These were Fiberglass with some carbon fiber fuses. The receivers were mounted inside the jets under the cockpit/canopies. I understand what you are saying about frequency hi low blocking. This is common knowledge. I'd like to think Futaba has the superior technology with regards to 2.4G and is what I've concluded based on paper research. But, from what I'm reading here on this post is that Futaba is not recommending Futaba's 2.4G modules/receivers to be used in jets unless the receiver wires poke thru the fuse at some point and that jet flyers should go with different technology at this point in time if considering 2.4G. Can you please clarify or correct this. Thanks so much.

Chris Smith

My Feedback: (2)

Bax,

I rarely see orange and black shirts at jet meets. Based on your answers in this thread I see why. Am I destined to remain one of the few Futaba lone rangers at jet meets? Numerous JR/Spektrum users are having success with 2.4G. Now you're saying stick with 72mhz in some installations that so happen to involve airframe materials used on many contest grade models and jet aircraft. Are Top Gun users supposed to tape their recievers on the outside if they use Futaba Fasst? Why should they buy Futaba? Who is Futaba going to sell 12FG systems too? Why are JR users loyal and willing to risk 2.4G in multi-thousand dollar aircraft using internal receiver installation?

I've got to assume their SS is better or Futaba must simply not want to commit and offer solutions that Spektrum users have found.

Where in the 6EX manual and on the website are warnings regarding metal coat and carbon fiber internal receiver installation? If 72mhz is more suitable, why doesn't Futaba documentation say that?
There are red shirt folks all around at jet meets. JR users feel they have more suitable radios for jets, even on 2.4G. I always thought that was BS. But what does this say about Futaba? It tells me there is no commitment, and tons of CYA.

The FASST hype indicates it is suitable for all types of models. At least offer warnings regarding installation issues and airframe materials that might not be compatible

Chris

Bax

My Feedback: (11)

We'd not be sure where you got this idea. Futaba (nor we) has not stated any such thing. We've stated that some cases may exist where the installation may pose a difficulty with signal reception. This is as true of 2.4 GHz channels as with 72 MHz, 50 MHz, and 27 MHz. You must tailor the installation to make sure you get the best signal reception. As always, it's up to the modeler to make proper preflight range tests with the receiver and transmitter in different orientations to make sure that everything is working properly.

dragonpilot

My Feedback: (38)

Thank you Bax for clarifying. I wanted to clear the air on this as it seemed to me as well as other jet pilots that the inferrence was there and this was put into question in another forum so that is why I asked.
I don't think there is anything good about ambiguity.
Also, I witnessed at a large jet meet, before their system was available to the public, about 5 red shirts showing off (flying) the 2.4g technology modules in a turbine Jet which was a very public display of the trust in the system. For my own personal knowledge, has Futaba done this? and if so, would you post pictures of their installation so that I could see the proper layout scenario. I understand there are many variables but I'd like to follow by example. It seems this is the key, as you have stated, to have success. Please share, Thanks so much.

Chris Smith

My Feedback: (2)

I agree, Lets get Futaba reps out there around jets more. There would be no better way to show Futaba believes in its own equipment. The lack of Futaba folks flying jets is too obvious.

Thanks for answering.
Chris

FliteMetal

Hello Bax:

Chris is right. I was really impressed with what we evaluated. Looking at the effective range results one quickly sees differentials being overlooked by casual observers. The Flite-Metal evaluation illustrates a lot of answers to many questions these people are asking.

It is understandable and appreciated by everyone when a company takes a conservative stance. SS is not without its issues. People want short simple answers when in reality they are more complex, without definative resolution.

We are going to have this for a while until people learn how to deal with power management. That not being as simple as what battery to use...Its now what is your accumulative min/max servo draw. What is the effect on the discharge slope...etc. John Doe modeler isn't well armed to answer these questions...

Nothing is simple folks. Its all individual and we need to learn how to manage our resources for a change. Just my personal opinion you understand.

dwadella

Hi Bill

I have been flying my aircraft with the 6EA2.4 Ghz system. I am quite pleased with the system.

I have one question, can the stick tension be adjusted? I find them very soft and would like to have a bit more tension. Did not find any reference in the manual. Can the springs be replaced?

Don (crash ) Wadella

Bax

My Feedback: (11)

The 6EX does not have adjustable spring tension in the gimbals.

We're closing this thread. It's gotten a bit long, and this is not a discussion forum. If anyone has a specific question, please ask it in a new thread.

Thank you.