bassmanh

My Feedback: (5)

hi everyone,

just a quick question to the futaba users out there, has anyone tried the new R6106HFC midrange rx's yet ? and if you have what kind of range are you getting with them ?

i tried to contact futaba but all they will tell me is its a mid range rx for planes in the 50 inch class LOL

trying to see if they will work with my 2 electics that i have for quick flights ie.... electrostik and my pulse xt 25 E both are 52 inch WS.

any help would be greatly appreciated and thanks in advance.




bass

dignlivn

Sounds like a Park Flyer type Rx.


Bob

bassmanh

My Feedback: (5)

dig,

no the park flyer one is the R6106HF the mid range as they call it is the R6106HFC here is alink to it on towers site.


link= http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0093p?&C=LDK


ive talked to 2 different people and e-mailed and they just say if you can keep it in a visual erea it should be good. thats why i want to hear from people who have tried it to know what the real world range is on this thing.


looks like i might just have to order a couple and do some testing on my own to find out.

EDIT= the park flyer R6106 says 300 meter range and when i asked about that they said that was wrong and it shouldnt list a dstance.


bass

bassmanh

My Feedback: (5)

hmm,

well thats interesting just looking at them on tower and now the 300 meter thing is gone from the description on the park flyer model .


bass

dignlivn

The Line Of Sight rule, maybe.


Bob

rambler53

My Feedback: (494)

I had the same thought, wingspan 51" (up to).
I fly my 71" and 48" planes pretty much in the same area, or at least I it looks that way.
For the $20-30 savings on the cheaper receiver than a 617FS, I think the risk of sacrificing a plane to test something that sounds borderline to me isn't a worthwhile discovery.

bassmanh

My Feedback: (5)

nitro,

if i decide to buy them and test them TRUST ME the testing will be done on the ground with someone holding the plane at different attitudes as you would in flying and i would keep going farther and farther away to see where control was lost.


i like my planes a bit to much to due as futaba's people have said and try it out

also the cost savings would add up rather fast as i would be replacing 4 rx's in smaller birds so i could put my 617's back in my bigger birds. ie.... H9 60 hellcat, H9 B-25 mitchell along with a few others. i hate having to swap out rx's to fly different planes.



bassman

rambler53

My Feedback: (494)

There is a low power mode in my 10C that is supposed to replicate full range in the air. You must admit when marketing never before stated "only up to 51" wingspan", for an application, it certainly wouldn't enhance sales for the glow guy.
What criteria separates these similar models, above and below 51" for determining the range you'll be flying under?

Tower Hobbies - This is the Futaba R6106HFC 2.4GHz FASST 6-Channel Mid Range Receiver.

FEATURES: Ideal for carbon fuselage sailplanes, and the 50" wingspan class of airplanes



Great Planes Escapade Low Wing Sport GP/EP ARF 52.5" - out of range

Phoenix Models Sonic 25 Low Wing ARF .25-.32,52.3" - .25 size, out of range.

Great Planes Combat Corsair ARF .15-.25,43.25" - well within range.

Do you think those combat planes are flown in closer than those Sonics? Futaba really could use another scale to measure the application.
Great Planes Dazzler 40 ARF .32-.46,48"
Tower Hobbies Uproar 40 ARF .32-.46,48"

I bet I can fly the Dazzler and Uproar out as far as the Sonic if not further.

bassmanh

My Feedback: (5)

hi all,

well i decided to heck to futaba for my smaller planes, and i am going to buy a couple of the basic dx5 full range radios. at least i know those are full range and they cost the same as a full range futaba rx for both radio + ar 500 rx for $99.99 .

i know it means a couple more radios to remeber but oh well i can live with that, i will just label each to its plane. and with the research ive done they seem to be a pretty good radio for a basic (wich is all i need for those 2 planes).


thanks for the help.

EDIT= well changed my mind again and am ordering up the new R6106HFC mid range and will do some testing with it and see what i come up with. right now from what ive found they should work just fine in my 2 planes i need them for.


bass

rambler53

My Feedback: (494)

I had problems with my 10C and it's brand new, found it to be two 2.4 settings, 10ch and 7ch mode, and a 3rd, FM mode.

Bax

My Feedback: (11)

Futaba states that the "mid-range" receiver is for models with up to 50-inch wingspan is because they believe that as long as a person with "normal" eyesight can keep that size model in direct line of sight, they'll have full control of the model. Larger models can be flown farther away, and so would risk getting out of range of the receiver. With larger models, it's no problem going to the "full-range" 7-channel and larger receivers.

bassmanh

My Feedback: (5)

bax,

thanks for the reply, on the futaba website they say up 1300 mm wingspan and thats right around 51 or so inches, so knowing that i should have no problem with the 2 planes i want to use the R6106HFC rx's in.

and about using the more expensive full range rx's i know theres no problem moving up to them BUT i dont always have a lot of money for my HOBBY so if i can save $60 on 2 of the midrange rx's (compaired to the 617's) and they will work for my 2 electrics, that means a chance to buy something else i may need or want




bass

alanjets

could anyone help me i live in the uk and im thinking of buying a 2.4ghz set and i have been told that if i buy the sets from other counties that they are different .can anyone help me

ChuckW

I know that countries generally have their own regulating body for radio frequencies (FCC here in the US). They are the ones who generally approve what frequency bands are used for what purpose. Does that mean a 2.4GHz RC radio in the UK is different than in the US or Canada or someplace else? I really don't know. I imagine that they would be the same since so many standards like that are become the same globally. It's probably best to check with the radio manufacturer or buy from a local source to be safe though I'd think.

crashermike4me

Earlier in this post the question was asked if anyone has tried the Futaba R6106HFC receiver.
I'e been using this receiver it in a Percision Aerobatics Katanna 42" wingspan. The receiver has worked flawlessly. Have flown it out to where I was uncomfortable seeing it and brought it back with no problems.
In fact, just last weekend 3 pilots crashed thier models after flying in the same area at the far south end of our field. They claimed put could not prove, the police station radio tower about 1/2 mile awasy from the south end of the field was the source of radio interferance. All were flying Spectrum systems. My Futaba system had no problems in the same area. I flew to the far south end time and time again. All of the Spectrum users were afrait to fly there. Don't really know what the problem was but the Futaba worked perfectly. Fortunately this left the airspace to me and just a few other Futaba users.

Steve Percifield

My Feedback: (14)

Here's a question that has me puzzled. Why would a manufacture make a limited range receiver? Especially with the 2.4 gig stuff. I know it's not cost. The "chips " and components are all the same, so why market an "indoor" or "mid range receiver". Make them all full range and forget all this silly crap. In fact, what would make the receiver limited range. I thought that range was basically a function of the transmitters power. If the signal gets to the receiver, won't it read it?

rlipsett

Futaba 2.4 has one advantage over other 2.4 radios it jumps multiple frequencies so if it gets interference on a few channels it should find a good channel every once in awhile to maintain control. if you had a logger on the reciever to determine how many bad frames of data you were getting in a certain area you might be amazed. the spectrum encoding is a great system that balances price with performance and will usually never fail but maybe near that high output source both frequencies that the spectrum encoding was transmitted on were comprimised. Your situation there would be a very rare occurence