Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the above, but it seems odd that the press release wouldn't attempt to be a little more pro-active, given that the first time you experience one of those "unresolvable lockouts", it could cost you an airplane - and possibly more.

Steve S

My Feedback: (54)

I agree Gordon,I was just thinking along the same lines myself.I see it this way at this point...Most with ample usage so far seem to be having no worries/problems.But for a select few other cases there seems to be some unexplained issues....I have recieved 2 PM's and 1 email today since I first posted replies on this thread

If Futaba sees ANY reason at all why we should have a concern or issue then they should rightfully recall the receivers and send us new ones that we dont have to be concerned with....Cause I can tell you this much if I lose one of my $9,000-11,000 jets & I trace it back to a faulty 501DPS reciever Futaba(Great Planes) will be hearing from my lawyer(plain & simple)...So if there is any concerns then now is the time for Futaba to step up to the plate ,do the right thing and make sure these recievers are safe in every way..One PM I got earlier really concerns me on Futaba's stand on this..I will not disclose the info or who sent me the PM...For the most part I feel fine with using the 501DPS recievers(as most seem to have no issues),I know the 14MZ TX itself isn't a problem,it seems to just be the 501 recievers that are a hit & miss situation in some cases...I DO NOT think we should have to go trimming our antennas on a recvr. at 325.00 a pop to make them finetuned,nor should we have to do anything else to assure a good TX/RX link....We paid 2200.00 for our 14MZ radio systems,they should work flawlessly(perfect in fact) & without any issues!! Futaba spent multiple millions on the research ,etc. of the 14MZ ,see where I'm going with this here???It is suppose to be a MAJOR advantage in RC technology


Steve

wojtek

My Feedback: (73)

Steve, I agree with you 100% ... why i am chosing to wait for the 2nd generation of 14ch 2024 receivers to buy a 14 MZ ( my only care for the 14MZ ids its double resolution on the primary channels ) ... or to see what JR comes out with to counter the 14MZ .... and then the question is would i jump into that on the innitial release, or also wait for the tech to prove itself ....


Wojtek

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Hey Ben,

Thanks for chiming in with the information.

For me, there are a couple of things that come to mind. First is that taking a leap forward in technology like this in ANY area is not easy. I would bet that Futaba's testing was very thorough, but there may be some issues that only come to light once the radio hits the public. It seems to me that Futaba has been working to fix them in a responsive manner. Look at the problems other companies have with new products and you'll see this isn't an isolated issue. I believe that the 10X had a few "glitches" when it first came out, but no one would argue that it hasn't become a gold standard in reliability. I believe that the 14MX will get there too.

Second, as the receivers become more complex, their tolerance to power supply issues becomes less. In order to implement all of these new features, they all have a microprocessor in them and the software is becoming more and more complex. Thus, the "boot-up" time of the RX itself is becoming an issue. I just got a Spectrum 2.4 GHz DSS radio, and after powerup, it takes the RX at least 3 or 4 seconds to come on-line. If the power supply to the RX gets interrupted or browns out in the air - guess what, you're going to have 3 or 4 seconds of no control while it boots back up. As Ben pointed out his incident could have been caused by a faulty RX, but it also could have been caused by an intermittent RX power supply...

Bob

Steve S

My Feedback: (54)

Woj,


I love the 14MZ Transmitter and I can just match it up with my 149PCM's without any probs/issues at all...The Transmitter as I mentioned earlier in this thread is awesome & sweet and it offers many new features/advancements which makes it a very good asset to our jets.But the bottom line is we have 325.00 recievers(I have two ) that dont seem to do their job 100% safely/properly in some cases.They should be working flawlessly and if Futaba sees any cause for concern then these should have not been released to the RC public yet bottomline.It is Obvious that they see some varying issues from their take on the 501DPS adendums,etc.


Steve

cairoman

Hello,

Please bear in mind, the MZ14 iiievolution is talking about is on European frequency (35Mhz). I was there and witnessed the crash, there could be other reasons for the crash as well. Prior to the flight, one of the most experienced pilots who has Euro experience , told me he thought the travels on the crashed Euro were too high for comfortable first flight. The same tranny and receiver setup was used in a previous crash. The owner has flown another Euro for three to four flights before the unexpected first crash. This was his second Euro to crash (unfortunately on its maiden).

The airplane possibly hit the ground at first, then flew about twenty feet before completely dissinegrating (this could explain the very short engine spoolup before the final silence)

For the Greeks/Cypriots who lurk on this thread (Malakies gia tis mixanes na leipoun sas parakalo, poulao kai tis dyo markes kai ksero apo proto xeri ta kala kai ta kaka kai ton dyo).

Chris

DaveMatthews

. . . . .And was the receiver sent back for proper servicing after this previous crash BEFORE fitting to the Euro? ? ? ? ?

kmorgan

Hi Guys
Just thought I'd chip in. I have used the latest Rx in my turbine model this season and had no problems whatsoever. We use 35MHz in the UK and I did not clip the Rx aerial as in April '05 when I got the 14MZ this issue hadn't arisen - would like to know if this is also suggested for 35 MHz users though. I did install a vertical whip aerial.

Regards

Kevin

DaveMatthews

Like Kevin, I too have been flying my 14MZ since June and have had no problems at all in my big extra (DA150) power.



I think that when a crash happens, all to often we want to place the blame on something and more often that not, we pick something out of the set-up that MUST be the cause. Problem is we don't really know most of the time or are not willing to accept what the fault actually is.


What I have found interesting is that most people also consider a new radio system as being, and I quote "New Technology", when it is simply a new product to us, the R/C modeller, using existing parts that are used every day in a vast range of products. The company I work for over here uses most of the bits that the R/C manufactures use in most of our products. What I am saying is that the "New Technology" that everyone is blinded by, is comon place in many hi-end electronic products and is not 'Black Magic'. Harware and Software in any product is not spellbinding and difficult and in the 14MZ is just as straight forward as any other product. (No more and No less). Ball Grid Arrays and systems running at only 2048 is not rocket sience, and I would guess the Futaba have done their homework correctly.


What does interest me is this "antenna clipping" thing. What is that all about. If, and I hope this is not the case, IF Futaba are saying simply cut of some wire to make you RX work better in a suspect model with metal to metal noise, etc, then some one in the Hardware/Software section at Futaba needs to be shot now.

I can see it now with one of our customers contacting us at work saying, "Hey guys we are about to launch and we are getting signal dropout . . .what do we to . . .7, 6, 5, 4, Help ! ! ! !" and our resonce was not a problem, just short out a cap on the board and all will be OK ! ! ! ! ! 3, 2, 1, Whoosh, BANG! ! ! OPPS ?!?!?!?!?!.




Come on, lets get a few facts put up and not fiction !

SJN

Where can this info about the antenna clipping?

Found it: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_3488488/tm.htm

Steve S

My Feedback: (54)

Davie brings up an interesting point now...The gentleman from Cyprus now mentions that the Rcvr. was involved in a previous crash?If this is the case then we have most likely found the case for the Euro that just went in...Maybe Davie & I misread/misunderstood(appolgize if we did) this info but I certainly hope no one would ever use a rcvr in a jet after it was crashed w/o sending it back for service !

I do of course realize too that the guys overseas fly on 35 & we fly on 72 here in the US....I wasnt even refering to any issues overseas however in my previous posts other than the Euro in question on this thread..I am merely & subsequently refering to the isolated cases in the US here...There have been quite a few mishaps/issues with the 501DPS in the US while many others have had NO problems at all.My point is that there should be no issues with the function /operation of these receivers,these were supposedly tested over & over again for quite some time and are suppose to be the new era /advanement in the RC airplane world.I just feel that Futaba should recall the 501's in the US if there is ANY issues at all & provide us with new ones(if we chose to do so as 14MZ owners)..I dont mean to keep" beating a dead horse" here but these damn 501's are 325.00 each and I'm leary to use mine now until Futaba steps in with ironclad proof/their word that these are ok & a guarantee that we wont lose a very expensive jet over a shoddy reciever issue.In closing I feel that Futaba maybe should have done their homework better on the 501 before releasing them for sale.I am not trying to stir the pot here,I just want to be 100% happy with my 2200.00 purchase and feel that my jets are safe to use with the 501DPS.I dont wanna always have to think in the back of my mind ok its fine for now but what if next time?I know as much as the next guy that we take changes in our jets and something can happen in a blink of an eye with any reciever.But we should not have recievers that could potentially have a bad flaw/design issue in them new from the factory,and be expected to live with it and gamble..Trimming a recvr. antenna- we should not have to do this to assure a proper TX/RX link.I am hoping that Ben or another Futaba rep will foward our concerns as 14MZ owners to Futaba and have them contact us directly.I personally will type up a letter tommorrow and send it to Futaba.

I bought my 14MZ after much research and input from a couple others and now I feel that maybe Futaba covered up these random issues at hand.They got my 2200.00 and another 325.00 for the other reciever I bought in addition.Bottomline is that I want to be happy with my 14MZ in every way and never have to worry about anything with it's use/reliabilty.I just got Bill Baxters phone number from Futaba ,I will give him a call tomorrow and talk to him in great detail about the 14MZ ,I will report back with any news


Steve

Steve S

My Feedback: (54)

I dont mean to sound so negative or anything,just bothers me quite a bit.I will feel much better once I talk to Bill B tomorrow and get first hand info from him .For now I am hitting the field for a nice long day of Kingcat flying!! Just bought 10 gallons of Kero yesterday

Gear up & Smoke on baby!!



Steve

iiievolution

My friends receiver was a NEW one.

Paul

DaveMatthews

Then as Mike Hannah said earlier, was the NEW RX tested before putting in a NEW model? That is what I do before putting a new (anything) in a large or fast or expensive model. Failure on the bench and then in a winter-hack model is better than subjecting your pocket to paying out for a new machine.

Again if the RX, along with any other NEW gear in the Euro, was not tested before comitting the model to the air, don't you think this is a recipe for errors and potential disaster . . . . Like what did happen.


If the RX and all the rest of the new equipment was tested before putting it up in the air, then I would say good man and sorry for bringing it up.


Davie

iiievolution

I dont know hoe much he tested his equipment beforehand.

Paul

Flyjets

My Feedback: (51)

Hi Guy's

Sorry about the Loss of ur Eurosport

I wanted to chime in here and give U my 2 cents since I have been operating the 14MZ for 9 months now.

First the length of the new antenna to minimize noise is 550mm.

My personal experience based on using the 5014 is that it is extremely noise sensitive receiver.
While it is the fastest receiver I have ever used it is not very good where noise could be a problem. This noise could be from the ECU or the Fuel Pump in your Jet. Was a Range check done with the Turbine running? I suspect it was and the problem is this receiver goes in and out of Fail Safe so fast U might not catch it.

I fly the 5014 but not in anything that might produce noise. So just 2 and 4 strokes until I can feel safe with it.

Presently I am building a CARF Yak 3.3M and it will be powered with a ZDZ210 Gas Motor and there is no way I would consider running this receiver in her.

One last thought is the speed of the 14mz really needed in certain Jets?
The speed is needed for acrobatic machine that have control surfaces constantly transitioning for acrobatic maneuvers.
If this isn't the type of flying ur doing it might not be needed at all.

I do really like all the channels and it allowed me to program Speed brakes, Canopy movement, Lights on etc.

The above is my unbiased opinion and I am not sponsored by any sources.

Ian

MMallory

My Feedback: (1)

Has anyone considered the fire started before the loss of control? If the plane in trim, this all sounds like loss of power. Loss of power to the fuel pump could explain the engine losing power for a bit.

If the failsafe were tested and the model was in a failsafe mode, the throttle would have gone to idle. Since it didn't, it sounds like a lack of power (switch, harness, connections, batteries, etc). An onboard short, loose connection or bad solder joint could have caused all of this including the resulting fire. When the engine went to idle, you may have been in failsafe for THAT moment. Of course by then all hope was already lost.

Best of luck on the replacement,

Mark M

cairoman

No fire was evident before the crash.

Overall control was lost and the airplane acted as if glitched on PPM mode with violent left to right banking before it hit the ground.

The complete radio set in question was sent back to Robbe because the receiver (when programmed by the user to accept the transmitting frequency) would not hold the frequency transmitted. It was returned with the problem solved.

Chris

DaveMatthews

The plot thickens ! [>:]

lov2flyrc

My Feedback: (24)

Engine would have shut down completely with loss of power from RX or ECU... Theory not feasable.

Man, What a bummer. Makes me sick just thinking about it [:@] Sorry for the loss!

MMallory

My Feedback: (1)

[quote]ORIGINAL: lov2flyrc



Maybe, maybe not. If there was a fire which shorted a few wires, it may have only temporarily shorted the pump or melted a vent line shut (only to later melt a new hole alowing the suction to go back to normal levels. Other than a complete RX failure an onboard short or fire is a good alternative to think about.

Mark

wojtek

My Feedback: (73)

Futaba themselves gave me the reason NOT to buy the 14MZ yet, untill a new RX that is LESS suceptible to interference comes out [>:][>:] so what if i get a more sensitive response on my plane if i have a better chance of loosing it !!!! I'll stick with my trusty 10x and 9z for a while !!! that is total BS wrapped in pretty pink wrapping paper !!!!! Futaba plain and clear is saying that this is their WORSE receiver ever made, that is most suceptible ro interference of all of their receivers !! !!!!

iiievolution

Wojtek, where did you read these comments from futaba?

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

See Dr. Ben's (Futaba rep.) post on the previous page of this thread:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=3779058

This is a repost of a release by Futaba on this issue. As I mentioned on the other thread, this is a result of the engineering trade-off required to get the additional bandwidth required to increase the add the additional channels and increase the update rate - you HAVE to tradeoff signal-to-noise ratio at 72 MHz with the bandwidth we have allocated to do this. The only way around this tradeoff (other than to get the FCC to elimnate the 20KHz max. bandwidth - fat chance) is to go to a higher carrier frequency like 2.4 GHz, but that has other problems - as Spectrum and Horizon can tell you...

Bob

jetpower

i to fly with a T14MZ and use the R5014DPS receiver and use a whip antenna that is equal to the full length of the antenna and have no problems at all
the first 8 channels on the receiver i use for the primary controls