ira d

I dont think we can say for sure that the problem can be avoided it seems to vary
from unit to unit, obviously keeping the receiver cooler can help but is in no way
the proper solution to the issue.

Ed

" I was hoping to hear that there was a fix for this problem so far none. Other than changing brands.



Ronald R Long " .......... Arizonasun

Yup, yer finally got it right sunny

... zak

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Yep, all religion yet again... "Path diversity" = "we couldn't make a receiver front end with the required signal-to-noise ratio so we require you to use more than one..."

Can we stick to the discussion of the original problem and open a "Spektrum vs. Futaba" thread for these off-point discussions?!?

Bob

GSR

My Feedback: (145)

Jeeze Bob, you seam to be the one that always gets all twitterpated when these discussions come up. Fine you flew your Futaba equipment in 95F temps with no problems-Well Ron flew in a bit hotter weather and DID have problems that went away when the equipment cooled. His scientific method is just as valid as yours and your "religion" Scott

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

I don't think we can totally avoid "Spektrum vs Futaba", given that it seems entirely relevant to point out that Spektrum can operate in temps that Futaba can't (and vice-versa according to Paul). That suggests that making a system that is less prone to going off to la-la land when temps go up or down a bit is entirely practical, so that each manufacturer ought to be able to do better than offer lame guidelines to try to work around their design or manufacturing problems.

Part of the reason I've been in no huge hurry to go to 2.4 myself, is that I fully expected several iterations of issues like this one, the zero GUID one, the lame Spektrum capacitor 'fix' etc., etc … and I'm happy to wait for all parties to find & resolve a few more issues before I move. So, to me this isn't a "Spektrum = good, Futaba =bad" (or vice-versa) issue – it's that they've all had (and probably still will have more) issues that they need to step up to the plate and take care of rather than just blame users for all the issues.

So, for instance - if the new technology is more voltage sensitive than prior systems to the extent that you'll get crashes with the new system that would not have happened with the old stuff, then find a way to reduce that problem rather than just blame users ; if a new system is more temperature sensitive than its predecessors the extent that you'll get crashes with the new system that would not have happened with the old stuff, find a way to fix that too, rather than blame the users.

BTW, why is it that at the same time as you are bothered by people having a go at Futaba, you yourself take a potshot at Spektrum ? Surely the goose & the gander come into play here ?

Gordon

ravill

My Feedback: (11)

!!!WAIT!!!

Do you guys mean to say that there are pluses and minuses to different choices that we make in the equipment we buy in this hobby!!!![X(]

Now I've heard it ALL!!

Raf

PS: Ron, nice catch, that sounds scary.

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Apparently not. There are no minuses with any equipment, just dumbass users who don't understand how to use the equipment within its rapidly diminishing operating criteria.

GSR

My Feedback: (145)

NOW YOU UNDERSTAND Gordon- All bow to the mighty corporation PR machine-we are not worthy. Scotty

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Scott, I have no problem discussing the obvious problems that Ron is having with his Futaba equipment and I am very interested in anything that can shed light on what the cause/cure might be. Please though, tell me what the Spektrum "Path-diversity" BS propaganda Zak posted has to do at all with this discussion?

Bob

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Gordon,

I don't recall my ever going into a thread on one of the many problems with Spektrum equipment and saying "if you switch to Futaba you wouldn't have that problem."

As far as waiting for 2.4 systems to become more "stable," I can see that. However, how will they become more stable if everybody waits and nobody uses them? BTW, if you watched all of the flights that were made at Kentucky Jets, Liberty Bell, and many other jet events by instances of BOTH 2.4 systems, I don't know how you can say that they are not ready for prime time. Even with their occasional "issues" that are being beaten back daily, they are much more reliable in more hostile environments and at longer ranges than 72 MHz ever was...

Bob

erbroens

I am curious now.. does anybody went out of range with a 72mhz , before the plane went out of sight?


Btw, I am flying 2 brands in jets now... Futaba PPM (in process of retirement) and JR/Spektrum with a 9303 TX.

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

With the UAV stuff we've been working on for the past 3 or 4 years, on a word, yes, both with Futaba and JR 72 MHz equipment.

Bob

erbroens

While using some kind of optical enhancement system? (not including correcting glasses, of course )

Silver182

My Feedback: (2)

Yes so to speak, "IF" on-board RFI is strong enough! Range has always been somewhat of a problem on the 27MHz, 50MHz, and 72MHz bands. On board interfearance can cut the range so much the aircraft would be unflyable even close in.

That type of problem just doesn't exist up on the 2.4GHz band. Other problems, yes but not range / RFI.

So far nothing I've found is perfect / flawless, but either the Spektrum or Futaba versions of 2.4 provide a better more sure R/F link than anything other radio I've owned over the last 40 years.

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

So what ? When you post:

"Path diversity" = "we couldn't make a receiver front end with the required signal-to-noise ratio so we require you to use more than one..."

you are having a dig at Spektrum just as much as the "if you switch" example you give above. Just because the two are not word-for-word identical, doesn't mean that they aren't both cheap shots.

I'm all for a "keep the cheap shots out" approach in the discussions, but that should apply equally to both camps rather than being applied in a hypocritically one-sided manner.


There will always be early adopters of any new technology, but that doesn't mean that I have to be one of them. There will always be plenty of others who just have to have the latest stuff and will help get the kinks out, and that applies regardless of whether we are talking about RC systems or HD DVR's or DVD recorders, or whatever. I'm happy to be one of those early adopters for certain items (such as my Hunter and my Jag kit), but when it comes to electronics I simply prefer to be more conservative.

Chris Huhn used my 72 Mhz equipped Super Bandit with a piggy-backed 2.4 gig unit to do the range testing of the (at that time) new 9 Channel Spektrum unit, and he flew it so incredibly far out and so low that I could hardly see it (and if you ask my flying buddies they will tell you that I normally fly WAAAY out there, so that means Chris was at a ludicrous distance). While the data collected showed that the 2.4 system worked very well at that range, the fact remains that the aircraft was actually still being controlled impeccably by my trusty old 72 Mhz system … so it has all the range I need, and therefore I don't need to switch to 2.4 for any range purposes.

As for 2.4's potential to operate better in a hostile env, that's certainly a plus that I am watching carefully, but until I am comfortable that the issues that have been cropping up in a NON-hostile environment have reduced to a level that I am confortable with, I am in no huge hurry to convert.

This should not be taken to mean that I am anti 2.4, coz I'm not .. I'm simply patient. If I had jumped at every new-radio-gotta-have-it that came out in the last couple of years, I would have spent a fortune throwing out my JR and Futaba receivers to replace them with Weatronics, only to rip them out a few months later and install DX7's everywhere, then rip those out to install the 9 channel Spektrums or the XPS or Fasst, then rip those all out to jump on the newest Spektrum stuff, ... I simply feel no need to do that when my current systems are working well enough to let me sit back and wait for the dust to settle a bit.

Gordon

Dancobsen

I go to the field with my spektrum and fly.....well,sometimes fly. I go to the restaurant and wait for my cheese cake.....well, sometimes cheese cake. That's, that's all I got to say about that. Have a nice day!
D

erbroens

Ok, but that´s why we do the standard range check with the engine running.. so if the plane passes the test it can be flown to the edge of our visual range (and probably beyond) without issues regardless the modulation system...and we also must do this same test in 2.44, right? As you said, there is not a perfect system.


So far, the main reason for moving to 2.44 is eliminating the possibility of being accidentally shot down by another fellow in the same frequency, and as a bonus that slightly quicker response feeling, wich is not bad.

(and of course, getting rid of those terrible PCM lockout crashes, for those who used this modulation)

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

The difference in my mind is that if I did, I would deserve all that I would have gotten - not the case here.

NONE of this has any bearing at all on the over-temp issue with Futaba FASST stuff, so I volunteer to have this post, and all of the above off-topic posts deleted by the moderators - we do have moderators here, don't we?

Bob

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

All that, AND a more reliable link - using *either* system. However the the *biggest* reason is the ability to turn your radio on in the pits and work on your plane without having to wait for the pin or keep another guy from flying. That, in and of itself, has saved me so much time and headaches at flyins that I can't imagine not having that capability ever again...

Bob

ira d

Gorden I agree with you 100% and have said the same thing on the issue in another
thread, IMO if the radio manufactors keep up their current practice of not discloseing
known faults untill they just cant hide it anymore, something bad my have to happen
to cause a change in the way they operate. We may even start to see radios for
hobby use that have to be certified kind of like equip that is used on full scale planes.

RonLongAZ

My Feedback: (29)

Raf,

Thanks for the comment. will let you know how it turns out.


Ronald R Long

digitech

My Feedback: (10)

1 ok
2 dont get me wrong , i see you are doing lots of testing that is why i call you a specialist , not ment negative in any way.
3 who cares it worked right? that is the point , i think you must agree it is stupid for a unit to stop at 60 celcius , if you are defending them then tell me the reason.
4 i sell fasst because they where cheap , i do like the menu,s of the 12FG perfect transmittor if you ask me.
but as for as design goes and small issue, they have i am a bit dazzled.
i do have customers who SOLD all their fasst because 2 heli,s crashed due to receiver stopped working.
dont get me wrong Gray i do now your towards futaba and so be it , i seem to like spektrum a lot.
i like their honnesty about small issues they had in the beginning , but i do like their receiver system where small satelites can be placed invissible anywhere you want.
without making the V sign.
the latest chqange i see is that lots of our customer base are buying spektrum modules for their futabas FF series.

Big feet

Guys,
I find this thread very interesting and very concerning at the same time.
I still fly 35MHz for the same reasons pointed out by Gordon above, and until the systems are bulletproof I intend to continue to do so.
I was not aware of the heat issue, either the too hot or the too cold limits, and lets fact it, living in Northern Ireland the too hot issue will not be much of an issue of me. But, the too cold probably is.

I have a suggestion, intended to be genuinely helpful, not a flaming opportunity.

Start a new thread simply listing the current issues with ALL 2.4 systems, and the status, ie. unresolved, fixed, no response, etc.

I don't know of the issues as I don't have 2.4 or I would start one myself, but as a future customer, I am very interested.

Lets be constructive about this, manufactures take note please.

Peter

Moerig

Peter, at last a decent relevant post. Fact is both brands have serious shortcomings. After so many years of R/C manufacture it seems some of the basic engineering principles have gone missing. Fact is it took more skill to make an R/C set in the 70's than it does now. And lets not start with the user interfaces from hell...
The servo compatibility problems and power regulation on both systems are crap and wont pass any test anywhere else. If it wasent for the many blindly loyal first adopters both brands should have gone out of bussiness in the real world, if such a thing actually exist....
My prediction for the future is that Futaba will have to solve the temp problem and that they will but it will take at least a year or more. Spektrum needs to start from scratch and do FHSS. JR should find another place to get 2.4 technology. Time will tell.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Can I get back to the heat issue? (I have a 6014 myself)

I had read somewhere in the past that the components that are getting hot and failing are on the bottom of the receiver. Does anyone know if this is true?

Second, does anyone have anything from Futaba or a Futaba rep that says Futaba is going to do a recall or otherwise address this heat issue beyond what they have done already (ie tell the user not to let it get hot)? I MIGHT start using my 6014 soon, but I sure wish I knew if Futaba has made any "running" engineering changes to the system.

I agree with Gordon, the new technology should be as least as robust as the technology it is replacing, but we have lived through other cases (new digital servos needing more battery capacity, etc) similar to this.

As someone else pointed out there has been an additional consequence to the rapid acceptance of 2.4 Ghz radios. All of the other channels are very empty now! I think the new standard at many events will be that you sign up for a frequency and then keep it all weekend, this is the way it happened at Speedward last year.