pepatrick

I am not sure about the spotted track record. I think like with any aspect of this hobby..you should check your batteries, electronics and other components of your airplane. To claim Futaba is better or JR is better is stupid. They are both reputable brands. My preference is the JR / Spektrum brand. I think this is mainly because...they actually have 9 channel 2.4 Ghz products unlike Futaba. Also JR / Horizon service is tough to beat. Its a lot of the Desert Aircraft of electronics. It is tough to beat the quality of the product and rock solid service.

Ray Davis

My Feedback: (1)

Tom's hit the nail on the head of course, Lee corroborates: We just don't know, yet. And, rather than defend or pick apart either technology, as some seem to wanna do here, I'd hope the idea is still to inquire, find out, and make an informed choice.

Steve's reasoning implies Spectrum/JR might be 4x as secure as FASST (dual conversion, second remote receiver)...none of us can believe that(!)...actually, much, much good evidence to the contrary on the 'Futaba FASST' thread. So, obviously there are other important factors involved, as Bob and Lee indicate (Tom, I understood it was Futaba FH the military have been using for 20 years that was 'unjammable'. Not a Spectrum-type system...or maybe I read you wrong.)

And Steve: Sure, by waiting, Futaba may have, indeed, seen and corrected JR's low battery 'problem' ....but, hell, JR should have recognized and corrected it a lot sooner than Futaba . Another perpsective: FASST only needs ONE Rx to implement a secure system....not two channels on two Rxs, one even needing to be 'remote' as does JR. So, instead, maybe it's actually Futaba's basic system that's 'better', at least, then, by a factor of 2 !

Point being....a shoot-out...or better, an accumulation and concensus of real-world experience....can only tell the tale. That will take wide-spread use of both technologies. Another season, maybe. So, this discussion is of great help and should continue to be if we remain unbiased. Fortunately....more and more, it's appearing we can't really go wrong w/ either......which is terrific!

Ray

c/f

My Feedback: (1)

TOM A
"Civilians started using it when FCC granted authorization to Amateur Radio Operators to experiment with it in the early 1980's...until a couple of years ago, it was used just for telemetry....."

Tom you seem to be knowledable on the subject, however please try to tie in my examples to your timeline and perfromances. Seems to me 2.4GHZ civillian use was widespread in the 80's for cordless cell phone use. Everyone can remeber how horrible interferance was and seems to me this same freq avoidance should have been solvable, NO they abandoned 2.4G in favor of 5.8G where it is today still for reliable cordless usage.

Also as I've boned up on the evolution of Spektrum when the whole AMA alllowed ametuer use tinkering of putting the DX6 guts into a JR 72mh 7102?? by gutting r/f section, it was learned the FCC allows very little tech knowledge to work with this stuff and just a few simple rules. Also during this excersize it was learned that Spektrum for the DX6 was using a $12 commercially available SS board of sorts and just coupling a pair together that not much R/D science was needed back in those days as I know of the story.

So why is it cordless phone technology never could get interferrance free use of 2.4Ghz and our RC systems are out of the box cured?

Also why is it that amatuer use of 2.4G is less FCC regulated than 72.MHz and were going to be better off from the uniformed shoot downs prone to 72.mhz?

What basic pricincple of the FCC governing of 2.4g could be added to 72mhs to make that use just as safeguarded?

I'm not against evolution but to me this 2.4g is touted as so breakthrough yet it never panned out in cell phone use........I could be all confused which I'd be glad to be set straight on. Even Jeff H could'nt give me a straight answer without the company spin.......

IMHO SPectrum JR using the ganged Rx's and a recording device of performance approach, is not a mastermind solution but a
mediocre bandaid with customer being and paying for it as the field testbed and they buy into it hook line sinker.

I personally am playing with both systems. I flew Futaba 1975-1985, and Jr 1985-current day, I'm fair and balanced, and give Futaba more credit for starting with a blank sheet of pc material to crack this nut.

Look forward to any clarification you could provide.

c/f

My Feedback: (1)

For all those pre orders, what programming platform will they use????

The 9303 programing as compared to 10X and every other JR model since 85, is a world of differance. If the 12X follows the 9303 and not the 10X, you'll be quite confused for some time. And I would love to see it. QQS likes it better so I'm in great hope.

ie, here an example, on 10X you can setup a flaperon wing and use it as spoilerons in free mixes just by changing direction. IF you setup a flaperon wing on 9303 you will eat up all your free mixes trying to get the flaperons acting as spoilerons. Now on the 9303 if you setup a "normal" wing with dual aileron servos, (assingable to any channel) you will magically get flaperons as a slave choice when setting up a free mix. Now free mix uses are even less than 10X platforms.

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Tom,

Actually, SS systems can be jammed effectively, all you need to do is put out enough RF energy in the band so that all RX front-ends operating in it are swammped and NOTHING gets through. That's the theory of the high-powered jammer aircraft like the EA-6, et. al. I know that this is possible with the Spektrum system as some guys have not been able to operate it, and a 2.4 GHz FM video system on the same aircraft (again, I think its partially due to the fact that the Spektrum system is only "pseudo DS", not a true wide-band DS). I have not tried that experiment with a Futaba FASST system, but theoretically, if the front-end is selective as it hops around, it could be OK when its out of the video system's range (2.4 GHz videos systems don't use all of the 2.4 band...)


As far as programming goes, I've done extensive programming on a JR 10X and I own a Futaba 9C. I don't know about the 9303, but the 9C is so far advanced over the 10X in programming its simply not funny. I have a new 12FG that I haven't played with yet, but from what I can see, it leaves the 9C in the dust... You can assign ANY channel to ANY switch, lever, slider, you want, lots of pre-programmed modes and lots of easy to setup mixes, and 12 actual channels.

I'm not a rep. or anything, I just go where I can get the best price/performance. That's why I fly Futaba TX/RX and JR servos. I know some guys have had problems with the 14MZ, and that's too bad and does give Futaba a black eye. Being a computer engineer that develops embedded systems like UAV autopilots, I'd NEVER use anything in the critical path that runs Windows, EVER - its unreliable crap for that application - bad on Futaba for that choice. I also acknowledge that JR/Horizon is much more customer friendly. I don't quite know why Futaba is like that, but most of the reps. are "cool" and the USA branch never knows what's going on until Japan sends it too them. Not the best way to operate, but their products in the TX/RX area have always been the best IMHO...

Bob

Tom Antlfinger

My Feedback: (24)

Bob, I agree with your comments about swamping.......that is why I said "almost" impossible to jam..........but it begs the question, "Why would anyone intentionally run a video downlink on 2.4 when your primary RX is also on 2.4 just a few inches away?".....Seems like really pulling the Tiger's Tail to me..........theoretically, if I run enough power on 50 or 72 Mhz, like 5 kilowatts into a high gain antenna, intermod is going to bite, and I could probably swamp a 2.4 RX from a couple of hundred feet away......but we are talking about the real world at our flying fields.........

But does bring up other real world questions.......How much power are these videos systems running....What is the RF mode being used by the video cam?....What is the swamping range?.........Should guys running 2.4 video on a plane that is on 72 Mhz be allowed to operate when other guys are in the air on 2.4 or even taxiing close to each other on the ground?

At this point, I am still willing to be an observer on 50 Mhz and let other guys do all the 2.4 beta testing on jets for at least another year........I do have a electric park flyer that I am converting to Spectrum, just to have hands on in the meantime....

Tom

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

That is an issue that concerns me a bit. We have video stuff on 2.4 that we use in our UAVs that is 1-5 Watts. Video is straight FM modulation, so it takes out a big portion of the band, but I don't really know how much off the top of my head... I have not yet tested it on the birds with the FASST system. We're also looking at putting 802.11 on the birds and I don't know how that will play with the FASST system either. More experimentation is in order...

Bob

Gordon W

Well it might be vapourware in that release is not due until August (presumably 2008) but the Graupner IFS system appears to have a number of things going for it, not least an Rx that will work on 3.5V-25V! Dunno if the servos use the Rx output for their power supply if the Rx is on 25V, or whether they need their own battery which would be a minor complication. It's a frequency-hopping system, and would appear not to have been developed by JR.

Some details here:

http://www.graupner.de/en/new/car-mo...-graupner.html

The URL seems to indicate that it might be a car system, however. Anyone got any clues regarding this system?

Gordon

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

That is a version of the Extreme link system, I believe...

Bob

S_Ellzey

Actually the OS in the 9303 looks to be a follow on to the line started with the 347 about 20 years ago, while the 10X looks to be an out growth of the Galaxy 8. I own all four and you can defently see the evolution going down two paths. I beleive that there are at least four radios in each line. So the 12X, if it follows the 9303, should not look that odd.

Steven

Tom Antlfinger

My Feedback: (24)

Ray:

I was not trying to imply that DS was less likely to be jammed than FH......you are right that the military and NASA have used FH for secure com for years.......just trying to make the point that both modes of SS are resistant to jamming because RX design allows for only de-spread(those where the TX signal code matches the RX code) signals to be passed thru the comparator(demodulator in the RX) at high levels........all other sigs without the matching encode come out at low levels and erased with filters.......

C/F:

I am not an E.E......just an old M.D. by trade, but was a radiologist so had access to machines that used freq encoding techniques like CT& MRI, so my engineering expertise is limited to what I learned there and being a HAM since 1958.....

As far as cordless phones, I don't know very much about them, but when I referred to early civilian use, I was referring to SS on 2.4......Hams have been on 2.4 and other freqs well into the microwave spectrum almost as long as I have been an amateur, but using conventional modulation, most often CW and FM.....the first FCC license for hams to experiment with SS came in 1981 and additional rules came out about 1985 for SS operations only above 420 Mhz or about 0.5 gig with power output limitations, I think about 100 watts or so.....AMRAD, Amateur Radio Research and Development Corporation received, what I believe was, the first civilian license to experiment with SS broadcasts back in 1981.....I think the first experiments were not on 2.4 gig, but actually on 144 Mhz, the 2 meter Ham band.....

As far as I know, the early, and in fact many of the current 2.4 phones are predominately, but not exclusively, analog and are/were channelized, not SS...They share a few discrete channels with WiFi, Microwaves, and baby monitors, all of which have been incriminated in the production of dirty signals that can screw up cordless phones.....5.8 is better as there are fewer over-the-counter dirty RF emitters licensed on that freq......But, 5.8 is not perfect, as many phones advertised as 5.8 actually use 2.4 as one of the links......

So that's about all I know...time to let the telephone engineers to chime in...

Time to get this thread back in line......i.e. more info on the 12X as it becomes available.....

Tom

Esprit

Hello Tom,

Jo and I are here in Salt Lake City enjoying some skiing and also keeping up to date with the latest goings on with the 12x (very interesting). We just went into Barnes & Noble and I was reading one of your R/C magazines and saw my first real advert for the 12X. I was very interested to note that there will be 2 versions available, one which will be 2.4ghz only and one which will be modular and allow 72mhz modules as well as 2.4ghz. This seems a really cool idea as all those models with PCM/FM receivers will still be useable with the new transmitter. Exciting times ahead!

Hope to see you at some rallies in 2008, say hello to Jane for us.

Jonathan & Jo

Tom Antlfinger

My Feedback: (24)

Hello Jonathan & Jo:

Great to hear from you two......Looks like you'll have some fresh powder this weekend out in the Wasatch.....[sm=thumbup.gif]

Even though quite a few jetsters have made the switch to 2.4, IMO, it is still in it's infancy......I have also heard rumors about the 2 versions.....sure would make great marketing sense.....

Gonna try to make June Winamac, after missing the last 3 years......

Our best to you two for Christmas and New Year.......

T/J

Tim Redelman

My Feedback: (36)

YEAH!!!! Where the heck you been Antlfinger!!!! LOL!!!

Ron Stahl

My Feedback: (12)

I got a gift card for the JR 12X 2.4 from the family today as my Xmas present. I use two spektrum 7's at work and I have the conversion for my 10x and a spektrum 7 at home with over a thousand houes of use between them and never a seconds trouble with any one of them. Futaba's systems will be and are good; but they missed the ball on getting them to market to keep customers, just like when they didn't make a selection of servos to compete with JR a few years ago and I switched brands when I started flying trubines becasue I needed the extra channel and have never looked back.

JasonP

My Feedback: (1)

Sorry if I did not catch this in earlier posts, but
how can we pre-order a 12X?
I could not find it on the Horizon website.


JasonP

Doug Cronkhite

My Feedback: (34)

That's actually incorrect. The Aux 4 & Aux 5 channels are still full 1024 resolution, but they're sampled at 1/2 the rate of the other channels. You should never use Aux 4 or 5 for any primary channel, ESPECIALLY with a dual elevator setup.

Also, the 10X has no programmable hold delay, but you can still program all channels to hold in failsafe mode. I'm not sure I understand the need or benefit to a programmable hold delay either, but then I've never, as in not EVER, had a problem with the JR RF link in the 9+ years I've been flying their radios.

Ron Stahl

My Feedback: (12)

All of the dealers with online ordering have the radio now available for backordering from Horizon they just haven't priced it yet. Mine is on order throught GPA Hobbies in Maryland. They are on the web at www.GPAHOBBIES.com

Silver182

My Feedback: (2)

Hello Doug,
Understanding Fail-safe time delay is simple...the JR 10X transmitter programming while transmitting to an S-mode receiver... has none, zero, Nota, no time delay before preset Fail-safe positions are triggered. For instance you are flying a turbine powered aircraft like many of us were not too many years ago witch had ECU's that had no time delay programming before shutdown... no one ever set the turbine / throttle for shutdown!

Consequently, (for several years) before Jet Cat first programmed their ECU's to provide a time delay everyone flying JR was flying outside the AMA rules & regulations. During a fail-safe R/F condition, if engine shutdown was programmed the turbine would shutdown with no chance of restart, i.e. dead stick landing required! So everyone usually programmed in HOLD. Hold is default for the 10X and that is the most common setting even to this day!!

Now during that same time in history, those of us that were flying Futaba could and did comply with the AMA rule requiring turbine shutdown during an R/F Fail-safe event. We could do that because Futaba has a built-in one-second-time delay before activation of Fail-safe presets. A full one second which was enough to preclude a shutdown / dead stick landing during the ever present short 1/4 second or less very common glitches.

To this day you can demonstrate this Zero time delay in the JR 10X, for yourself very easily. Just program in some noticeable fail-safe presets, for non believers get radical and program in a full snap-roll either R or L, and go fly I've had very few that fly JR S-mode take me up on this demonstration / experiment. On the other hand, I can and do fly all day long with snap roll programmed in while fly my Futaba radios.
Lee H. DeMary
AMA 36099

JasonP

My Feedback: (1)

Ron
Thanks for your response.


JasonP

AlW

My Feedback: (17)

Lee,
The 10x has a .25sec fixed time delay when transmitting in SPCM. See page 56 "SPCM Fail-Safe " of the 10x users manual.
Al Watson

Ram008

To backorder a 12X, you'll need to check with a local hobby shop or call Horizon. Pricing isn't available yet and it won't show up on Horizon Hobby.com until there is pricing available.

Redelman, when are we gonna go fly airplanes????

Silver182

My Feedback: (2)

Hi Al,
The manual speaks with forked tongue.. try to time it some day... it is so short / fast you can't perceive any delay at all. Neither here nor there you can't fly a 10X with fail-safes programmed because of the extremely short time delay, hence the reason every one fly's the 10X in default fail-safe all channels HOLD. Oh, some from time to time have claimed they set the throttle to idle and Elev to a slight up tick..that will work especially when flying a turbine-powered aircraft, as throttle response is so slow you won't ever notice the normal short glitches inherent in 72 MHz F/M carrier signals. The zero time delay reverts the 10X SPCM R/F link, as seen by the R/C pilot back to the old days of basically straight FM with all of the same glitches!

Any R/Cer that has been around long enough knows the real reason PCM was developed by the R/C manufactures was to get rid of the phone calls from picky Pattern flyers of yesterday complaining about the very quick / short glitches that were a constant. It used to be normal to send a radio back to the service center at least once or until they got the tuning / alignment tightened up.

With the development of PCM, and the inclusion of time delay / HOLD most of those pesky glitches as seen by the R/C pilot went away over night... and the service center phone calls for tuning and alignment dramatically were reduced. The fact is the R/F link was not improved with PCM, the carrier signal is still FM, rather the PCM Hold / time delay covered up those ever-present glitches.

If you really want to see what a 1/4 second delay is you can do that if you have an older ZPCM receiver. Set the transmitter to ZPCM go to the Fail-safe page and set timing to 1/4 second. Notice the Fail-safe page / programming changes dramatically between ZPCM and SPCM, the ZPCM page / programming allows user input for a .25 .50 or 1.0 time delay!

It is my belief that the fellow who did the programming for the 10X just screwed up the Fail-safe programming and forgot to include a time delay in the SPCM program! Never to be corrected.
Lee H. DeMary
AMA 36099

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Actually, Lee, the above statement is not quite true. The use of PCM coding significantly increases the effective signal-to-noise ratio of data transmitted over the link, even though its still FM modulation. In addition, in our NASA work, we fly a special failsafe circuit that will catch even one failsafe pulse from the RX. We routinely make flights where there are no failsafe events on the JR link at all, so the myth that everybody uses "hold" functionality on JR systems is "busted" - we ALWAYS set a failsafe position on ALL channels (we have to to satisfy the NASA Safety folks), and we rarely, (but I can't say *never*) see lost link that is longer than the JR 0.25 second hold period (that we have verified in the lab to be, in fact 0.25 seconds).

BTW, I fly Futaba TX/RX because they are WAY better for the price than JR, IMHO, but we should be correct in our assertions about the "other guy"...

Bob

sweetpea01

My Feedback: (10)

I'm not referring to the JR rx, but the XPS RX used for a JR radio. It is numbered 1-10. one of your channels (and you pick which) will be a reapeat of another channel, thus giving you 9 channels with a 10th that is not seperate.