AndyAndrews

After losing two airplanes recently to lockouts, I'm really considering going back. I hate the look of those whips but what alternative is there in the face of so many "unexplained" failures? I know several people who are grounding their jets for this exact reason. Is this unduely being paranoid or is this prudent giving the current reports of so many lockouts these days?

james love

My Feedback: (2)

I fly 2.4, been perfect since day one. Can not say that for 72 mhz and I go all the way back the the days 27 mhz.

J Love

PS: I think a lot of peoples problems are they do not show enought respec for the batteries that power their systems. batteries are the weak link in all radio systems bar none.

Shaun Evans

Hi,

I don't know about THAT, but I do know that the only reason I switched is because I allowed myself to be convinced that it was safer. I was outfitting my twin-engined Yellow F-18 which was really more airplane than I could afford to crash (I know, I know, then how could I afford to fly it...) so I wanted to have the most reliable link. Funny thing is, I had grown to be completely happy with PCM, especially with base-loaded antennas on the receiver. For the maiden flight, I was SOOOOOOOO nervous! Not because of anything but the fact that suddenly, my transmitter had no antenna sticking out. To this day, I'm still not 100% sold on the '2.4 being more robust' thing and a little extra nervous with every flight after watching all my hobby-shop friends dump plane after plane with brown-outs. So far, I haven't had any issues with it, and maybe I'll get more comfortable with it over time...

Meesh

My Feedback: (135)

I never had a problem with 72 (Futaba 9C) but changed anyway to 2.4 about 3 years ago when I bought a Futaba 12Z.

I haven't looked back and I never will.

Bob

ddlstang

My Feedback: (2)

It's funny that all of these lock-outs and brown outs keep happenning to the same people or in certain regions. With 72mhz I remember getting "hits" and seeing people having random issues. For the most part every 2.4 issue I have heard of can be traced to a specific cause, be it installation, low batteries, over-heat or having over 100 radios on at a time.

Some manufacturer's have been good about identifying issues and others have not. But I feel much more confident with 2.4 than I did with 72mhz.

jeteye

I lost too many airplanes on 72 to even give it a thought of going back! I'm on 2.4 forever. I have seen the battery applications on some installations, and it makes me very concerned to see what some are using for power. The battery is probably the main reason for problems. Also along with battery, the chargers are far insufficient for the applications.

BalsaBob

My Feedback: (24)

I won't go back to 72 mhz ..... simply because I think the chances of a lock-out are less than the chance of someone turning-on accidently and shooting me down. It's that simple (to me).

Bob

AndyAndrews

On two airplanes I lost this past Sunday there are some circumstances that I found out that may have caused each.

1. Mustang - I was using a 60 amp Pro SB brushless ESC with a built in BEC. I was told by a guy who mostly flys only electric that unless this unit was designed specifically to run plug and play to never use one that has the combined BEC. This came out of an old Habu airframe that I gave away so I think it should have been ok. Calling Horizon to check

2. Boomer - My problems were elevator lockout as the boomer refused to roll out until the last second and then once airborne took a nose dive with wings level. I have launched this boomer in less than 80 feet before. Anyway, as I was going through the pieces, I noticed that the long servo leads that had power expanders built into them. I was told that you can't do that with 2.4. Funny thing is that I had completely forgotten this and when I changed the boomer to 2.4 from 72 it never occoured to me to change out the servo leads. I guess flying without problems for years with this jet with several hundred flights was just lucky that nothing happened earlier. They were on the aleron leads too. Borrowed time?

bigplumbs

2.4 is so much better I am amazed at the question............. Why dont you sell your cars and go back to walking with a club and a hairy back

meps

My Feedback: (10)

I switched my jets to 2.4 a few years back and have had no problems. I still fly 72mhz as well with no problems. I still use NiCd and NiMh batteries without any problems whatsoever. It seems that those who are having problems are using all these "funky" type batteries.
Steve

Stobe777

My Feedback: (1)

Totally useless poll. We could also start manufacturing film cameras and typewriters again...
TP.

Robrow

No way would I ever go back, never had any flight safety issues with Weatronics 2.4 from day one and I would wager a big percentage of the crashes that have occurred with both JR and Futaba would not have happened had they been using superior Weatronics gear

Rob.

jetmodeller

i have used Futaba 2.4 fasst system now since it came out and have had no problems what so ever not even a glich,i have never managed to go out of range on a range check with tx on low power,and would not change to any other system including weatronic if it was given to me free of charge!!!!

bigplumbs

I like reeds

bevar

My Feedback: (27)

Escapement!

TUMBLER

My Feedback: (13)

Nothing but problems with 72 in EDF's and none since switching to 2.4 years ago. My most recent jet has the receiver under the wing along side the intakes, a remote rx in the nose and another in the tail.

Brian

jetnuno

Hi Andy

Sorry for your losses.

I won't go back either. 2,4Ghz as been rock solid till now.

I don't want to start the old JR/Futaba war again, but if you are having problems, why don't you consider just to change 2,4Ghz system. Balsabob as a crucial point.

Don't go back, go sideways.

If your car brokes too often, would you buy a horse, or another car?

Regards

Nuno

Joe C

My Feedback: (23)

Why would you go back?

tp777fo

My Feedback: (28)

Bevar....escapement wont work either....your rubber bands break

tp777fo

My Feedback: (28)

KISS...I use JR powersafe rx, 2x A123 and nothing else. All my jets have been rock solid. I do try to place the satellites on "the corners" and have really been pleased. Most of the time my fades are single digits.

Eddie P

My Feedback: (4)

I've been flying EDF since 1998. High power EDF is just, sometimes, simply on the ragged edge of reliability using 72mhz. But it's far better on 2.4. My first turbine was on 72mhz and I was always afraid someone was going to "jam/turn on/shoot me down", as it had happened twice by two separate people at two different clubs on other models (!!)

I've been flying RC for well over 30 years, since I was in the single digits of "years old". I have flown AM, FM, and 2.4. Before 2.4 came, I was seriously getting ready to get my HAM license to fly restricted band. But 2.4 sold me and I'm still sold, so far (I'm realistic, and I do pay attention so I don't discount a move to HAM in the future). Yes, I still use all my 72mhz gear for FPV and ameture, for-fun in flight photography work. Not because I trust it more for link but because it has slightly better distant range and can still have good signal link low along the horizon where 2.4 has major limitations. But on normal airplane flying, I really like 2.4, I love the solid link, I love not having that dang antenna, don't miss the glitches, etc.

I've always been very careful to set up my models in a way that FM 72 work. I still set up my models to work on my Futaba 9c, glitch free, before I switch over to the flight ready 2.4 FAAST system. The reason I do this is that if it can fly mostly reliably on 72, it can fly completely reliably on my 2.4 as long as I don't fly in frequency swamped environments. I see far too many sloppy radio setups on 2.4 like it's a license to fly jammed or swamped. It isn't.

I don't fly at Joe Nall, but if I did I'd sure as heck not fly 72, but instead get my HAM licence and go that route as it does seem like the "huge" events have certainly met and exceeded the limit of care free "everybody can do what they want with their radio" operations. Nobody would dream of doing that with 72 so why do we feel we don't need to control ourselves with 2.4? A simple frequency impound giving a set number of "cleared" transmitter power-ups seems reasonable. Why do we have to swamp the whole 2.4 band width and crash repeatedly trying to deny a simple limitation that is only as limiting as our own planning and frequency management?

Otherwise at home, I'm sticking to 2.4. The 2 times I've "been jammed" by guys on 72mhz on my same frequency in the last 5 years - well that has not happened since I went 2.4 three years ago (on my 2.4 flights). And at my local flying club or any basic jet rally with 50 pilots or fewer I've not seen any trouble with 2.4 itself - not talking about failed radio components like regulators or batteries.

I think it's two fold. How we set up our models (shabby in some cases) and how we manage our transmitter use at the field (careless and care free). Times change, we know we have to change with it. But don't throw out the baby with the dirty bath water.

AndyAndrews

Not useless at all. Its a valuable poll to showing how people feel regarding the subject without debating about brands. With all of the complaining going on its surprsing to see that the majority of people who read the RCU jet forum feel like 2.4 is still much better than the alternative. This alone is reasuring to some who would have otherwise not known.

TUMBLER

My Feedback: (13)

I would look into something else causing the lockouts other than the 2.4 system itself. A servo binding and causing the voltage to drop to low and reboot for example. It's frustrating when you can't find the reason for a failure I know. Went through jet after jet having issues on 72, so I know the feeling. I think 2.4 is pretty sound though.

RCISFUN

My Feedback: (44)

Hey B you should come up and visit this guy
I'm sure you could get a good deal

http://www.rchalloffame.org/index.html

George

My Feedback: (57)

NO, I'm not considering going back either.

I posted this in another thread, but will post here as well:

We have gotten lazy with 2.4

I remember when I first starting flying jets, a "standard" range check (72mhz) was unacceptable for me! I went through the trouble AND hassle of a full-blown range check involving multiple people, driving and phones/radios to communicate. I did this initial range check with EVERY new jet; elevate the plane 3' above the ground, drive until "out of range" and repeat at 90 degree orientations. Anything below 4/10ths of mile was unacceptable, although I never had that happen or had to move any gear.

Do you think I still do that today, NO![&:]

I do pay very close attention to my installs and set everything up with an ammeter; but we, including myself, have gotten complacent over the years.