GrayUK

A few of the guys in my local club have switched to the new Futaba 2.4 gig FASST system.
They have been tested in all conditions including rain, having the RX strapped to a 1 ltr fuel tank and being placed next to a spark engine.
Exhaustive tests were unable to break the link at well over the 50 paces recommended on low power.
3 models have been flown together with no issues.
All functioned perfectly even though we have a microwave repeater Ariel very close by.
I have purchase one today to do my own testing on prop planes before I fit it out in a jet.

I know people have flown the JR/Spektrum in jets with what appears to be varying degrees of success.

Has anyone flown FASST system in jets yet?
Any feedback?

jason

My Feedback: (1)

Hi Paul,

I have flown my electric heli on the six channel futaba FASST system. Everything in rock solid. Still would not trust it in a jet just yet..

Jason

GrayUK

Just noticed that Futaba have the 12 channel FASST sytem available, any idea when it may be in the UK?

afterburner

My Feedback: (18)

From what I have read so far, Futaba is not recommending the faast system in jets. Their advertising shows all types of aircraft being flown with the system except jets. I believe if you check the Futaba support forum, the question was asked about using it in jets and it was not positive. I hope this changes in the future as the 12 FG looks pretty good and I'm sure the new JR with the Spektrum will be great also except it will probably cost 25% more than the 12FG.

Marty

rjbob

My Feedback: (8)

Does anyone know if Futaba will have some sort of an upgrade to 2.4ghz with the 12Z?

GrayUK

Where is the futaba support forum?
Is it just that jets arn't shown or has someone actually siad it is not recommended?

I have to say i see no reason why the FASST system should not be used in jets.
Technically on paper it is superior to the JR/Spektrum system which people are using.

GrayUK

found the forum...

afterburner

My Feedback: (18)

Well, I must have remembered this discussion incorrectly. According to Bill Baxter(Bax), it's ok for jets but as with any install, you must do good range checking and a proper install. Anyone else remember Bax stating that jets were not a good candidate for the Faast system? Anyway, here's the link to the thread in the Futaba support forum.


http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_58..._2/key_/tm.htm


Marty

Chris Smith

My Feedback: (2)

I read the same thing and questioned Bax. I feel it was more implied than clearly stated though. The other thing I mentioned to Bax was to get Futaba reps out to jet meets more. Their absence speaks volumes unfortunately.

BTW- I will be using FASST in my jets. I'm using the 6EX Fasst in my gas powered giant prop turner. That is probably as hostile or more so an RF situation than any jet.

Chris

GrayUK

Thanks Chris, i agree that the forum talks more about carbon than 'jets' as such. Carbon is an enemy to all 27,35 and 72 meg.
I have proved this in the past, nearly cost me a model[&o]
That is why i use a whip Ariel on 35 meg.
Any feedback on the 'jet' usage of FASST would be good feedback for all of us.

Paul

Edgar Perez

My Feedback: (13)

I'm a long time Futaba user... no intention to change... BUT certainly I feel Futaba is doing nothing to make the jet flier feel confident in the FASST system. It almost as "try it at your own risk" scenario.
Certainly JR is doing it the other way around. It trying to convince people to use 2.4 in all cases... maybe too many reps out there

Kelly W

My Feedback: (2)

Futaba's downside could be the lack of satellite receivers. I just won a Spectrum DX-7 at a local jet rally and plan to use it in a PST Panther. Previously I've only ever flown Futaba. All my jets are on a 9C super with synth module, having graduated from an 8U a few years ago.

Comparing jets to big gassers and other models may be some merit, but what we need is a firm answer on the ability for a 2.4 gig signal to transmit through a ~3L fuel tank full of kerosene. That may be an �Achilles heel’...

Now, I'm totally new to 2.4 and learning as much as I can now that I've got my feet wet with my first radio. The 1st thing I did was run out and grab the 24" satellite receiver lead and a voltage stabilising capacitor. With the 24” lead one can locate the 2nd receiver on the opposite side of the fuel tank very easily... The stock 6” lead won’t do this very well at all. The apparent voltage issue can be avoided with the capacitor and suitably sized batteries as I understand it. I like what Futaba's done in terms of the frequency hopping technique, but I suspect the remote receiver option may be a more valuable design feature. If anyone speaks with a Futaba rep, please ask them what effect a very large kerosene fuel tank has and if there is any disruption in the 3D envelope of reception quality. I’d love to know the answer, since I would certainly like to stay with Futaba with all my radio gear.

Later’
Kelly

GrayUK

I am going to do a test this afternoon with a 5ltrs of fuel, i will post the result.

Paul

GrayUK

OK test complete.

I set up the RX with both aerials behind a 5 ltr container of paraffin.
I took no care to set them at 90deg they just ended up where they were.
1 servo was out from behind the paraffin to which i fitted a white marker so i could see it move from a distance.

I set the tx on low power and to make it harder I pointed the tx aerial at the setup. (Not upright as Futaba recommend).
The paraffin made the rx aerials invisible to the tx.
See pics of test.
I have a large garden and well......i ran out of garden!
I managed 45 long paces and it still functioned perfectly……. so I do not think fuel tanks or fuel are an issue!

Paul

berthoud

My Feedback: (35)

Chris and others,

I would say the reason you don't see many of the reps using them yet in turbine/jet applications are because the only version currently available is the 6 channel introductory package. It is hard to go from a 14 channel 2048 RX to a 6 ch RX even if you have a bunch of match boxes around. We've all been spoiled with the 14 ch rx's...

Great testing GrayUK, nice to see independent tests regarding the strength of the Futaba 2.4 system...

1Eye

My Feedback: (2)

So, who are these "reps" who are using Futaba radios in turbine-powered stuff? I'm not poking a finger in your chest but anybody can buy the Futaba t-shirt and hat then strut around and look important. Whether or not they're reps or not, most Futaba jet pilots seem to keep a low profile.

Added: Aobtw I'm a happy 9C user just waiting for the smoke and dust to clear from the 2.4GHz scene - I know there's a pony in the room somewhere.

GrayUK

berthound

Yep i think you may be right on that subject.

Yes i was pleased with the test, it further strengthens my confidence.

One of my friends has done all he could to break the link.

One of his tests had the rx inside a metal van (truck) in the rain with the tx inside another van.

Both were talking in the vans to each other on mobile phones (cells).
A range of well over 100 paces was reached on low power before space ran out, the system perfomed perfectly.

I will be trying to think of other tests to perform.

Paul

Edgar Perez

My Feedback: (13)

Actually that's my other issue with Futaba. I'm still on the 9C because I have yet to find the courage to try 2048 PCM. They created the B mode to deal with improving noise rejection. However, I have yet to find, and I have asked, how the B mode noise rejection capability compares with say the 149DP. I totally trust the 149DP (having an incident where I flew my Eurosport by mistake without the whip. No issues). No quantitative data available. Couple that with few reports of G3 in jets, and you really wonder[&o]

GrayUK

Yes.. i have found my 9 CAP to be totally reliable using 149 RX and 129 RX.
The problem is you can still get shot down by some idiot

That is why 2.4 FASST is so interesting to me.

GrayUK

OK test 2

The other problem in jets is the tailpipe.

So I took 1 damaged tailpipe and inserted the rx with both aerials INSIDE it (see 1st picture).
No attempt was made to optimise the aerials.
The tailpipe was laid on its side and the tx was at the side of it so no direct view of the rx.
Once again the aerial was pointed at the rx not upright and tx was on low power.

Once again I ran out of garden, a good 45 long paces!

I then stood the tailpipe up so the aerials were facing vertically and the top of the pipe was leaning slightly away from the tx.

This time 40 paces only with the tx on low power and aerial pointing at the rx.
Control was restored when I lifted the aerial to the vertical on the TX.

I am getting more and more impressed with this gear....right what next...

modtron

GrayUk,

Hi Paul,

The 12FG is available now in the UK as a 35mhz module system.

The 2.4ghz modules and 14ch rx. will be available by early October.

According to Futaba sources the 12FG will stay a module system for the present time.

If it's of interest, I have a 12FG here if you ever want to have a peak ?

modtron
Oxford UK

GrayUK

Many thanks for that info.

Paul

GoeKeli

My Feedback: (18)

Hi Paul,
What do you mean when you say,
The paraffin made the rx aerials invisible to the tx.?
Did the kero block the signal? I would think not from what you said.
Thank you for doing this testing and contributing to real world knowledge about Futaba 2.4. I like my 9C and would love a 12Z with modules. If Futaba does not come up a solution for me I'll try JR at some point.

joe

Kelly W

My Feedback: (2)

Paul,

Thanks for posting your tests. I'm pleasantly surprised. Your tests are valuable, and it’ll be interesting to see the results in the complete assembled scenario with EMI, etc. For now it certainly looks promising.

I'm going to try running the DX-7 through its paces on a prop model shortly, then work it into a jet for next year. 7 channels is a little too confined for the Panther though, as I like to separate the nose wheel and rudder and won’t be able to do so here. If Futaba comes out with a 2.4 system that's got more channels, and is proven reliable, I'll have a hard time not picking one up.

Kelly

GrayUK

When I say invisible I am saying that there is not a clean line of sight, the fuel is in the way.
Thanks for the feedback on the tests, i want to push it to the extreme to build confidence.
I will be flying it with a prop model on Sunday, i intend to get to a safe height and switch the tx to low power, (should be interesting!)