xray328

My Feedback: (1)

Just wonderng if the FMA Co-Pilot was that much better to justify it being twice the cost of the Futaba.

Thanks!

DMcQuinn

My Feedback: (13)

I habe used the Futaba and it works well when the sky is uniformally overcast. When the sky is clear, the plane tends to fly with its top side toward the sun. This is fine at high noon, but when the sun is low in the sky, the plane does not fly level. Unfortunately, I have not used the FMA, but I'm guessing it works a little better based upon the technology used. The Futaba looks for light versus dark. the FMA looks for infra-red (heat)

wsmalley

My Feedback: (6)

I haven't used my FMA yet, but use the PA1's on several planes. For some reason, the PA works best on my old Eagle II-it will allow it to hover on a windy day. Two other planes, a Pilatus Porter and a Tamecat, don't do as well. I think the plane's got to be perfectly balanced in either case! I think the IR system is better. My field is surronded by trees and hills on one side which I think interfere with the PA. You need, I believe, to have the PA on a dial channel though to vary the sensitivity. And, make sure to set the switches correctly, it's easy to think there right and the plane acts in 'reverse'-from my personal experience!

jetmech05

i dont like either. i've seen them used and the aircraft just doesnt fly right. but to each his own i wont teach a student with it if he insist on using it i pass him to another instructor
merry x-mas

nedyob

My Feedback: (67)

I used the Futaba PA1 when it first came on the market back in the early 90's. It sure saved my 60 size trainer until I took the PA1 off the plane. Then after that my 60 size trainer didn't live long. It was amazing how fast the plane up righted itself so fast. I remember I was in a real tight spiroll, and released the sticks to nutral and the trainer righted it self right now. gave me time for my knees to stop kocking and get back to flying.
NEDYOB

the_madgenius

I would have to agree with jetmech05. Look at the charactoristics of its operation, for the entire time your model is flying , the system is trying to keep it level, so to perform any sort of manauver, the servos have to fight against the system that is trying to keep the model in level flight, be it a turn with the wings banked or a simple thing like a loop, or even a climb to greater height. I train all my students without these gimicky mods , and i have never had a student loose a model yet in 4 years. So why waste money on something you have to fight against all through the flight ?

Tall Paul

One of our club members who learned with the FMA has discovered he didn't learn how to control the airplane!
The Co-pilot in turns would try to level the plane. He would have to hold in aileron to maintain a turn. Without the Co-pilot, he found he didn't have hold in the aileron.
And also in turning, the Co-pilot would put in the necessary up-elevator to keep the nose up. Without the Co-pilot, he found the plane would descend until he put in the control.
The Futaba and FMA might be OK for familiarization, but not for the long term if you're learning to fly.
For other purposes where auto-stabliization is a plus, such as long distance flying or aerial photography they can be a useful aid.
I've seen an FMA on a fully-aerobatic helicopter, which is used to stabilize the machine in a "fail-safe" situation, but otherwise not used to directly control the chopper.

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

I've used and evaluated both systems.....and the FMA unit is MUCH more reliable than the Futaba's unit. One has to remember to keep reducing the amount of control so the trainee will learn to fly on his own. Once I disabled the unit after a dozen or so flights and the student didn't even notice it!

Jerry