Loopman

My Feedback: (195)

Okay, I guess I'm gonna get hit for this one as it's probably been around the block numerous times! But, the other day I was at the field and one of the IMAC guys, who is a very accomplished pilot and a helluva nice guy" was flying his Giant Scale Extra 300 composite ship with redundancy on flight batteries and he had a JR 2.4 receiver with "5" satellite receivers. About 1/2 way through his flight he started experiencing intermittent loss of control. Maintaining his composure he successfully managed to get the plane back on the ground. Checking everything there were no apparent issues with the flight batteries and on the ground the plane's controls worked flawlessly. The next guy to fly wasn't so lucky. He was flying a relatively new large scale aerobat, it looked like an Extra 260. He also had 2.4 and redundancy on batteries and receivers and just a few minutes after taking off and at about 200 feet of altitude he lost connection with his plane. I watched in sympathetic dismay as his plane barrelled in full bore into the trees. Why if 2.4 is suppose to be the panacea for our old issues with 72mhz are we seeing so many failures?! I also understand that 2.4 is limited to the respect that only 80 channels are available for it's use. I mention this because at SEFF there was a mass launch of over 100 planes on 2.4 and numerous failures because you cannnot engage more than 80 channels at one time. While 72 is far from bullet-proof, I would rather take my chances getting shot down from another flyer on my channel, or having a bad case of "dumb-thumbs" than having a radio failure such as what happened above. In my book, 2.4 is not what I will be using anytime soon.

Happy Flying!

Loopman

Disarray

While I lost planes to dumb thumbs and shot down on 72, I also lost them to mysterious radio failures. I have had less of those mysterious failures with 2.4.

BuschBarber

My Feedback: (2)

After years of flying 72Mhz and dealing with all kinds of interference, flying with 2.4 is like heaven. While I have not had any catastrophes flying 2.4, I have read enough accounts of accidents to believe that 2.4 does have some vulnerabilities, but not nearly to the extent of previous technologies.

K-Bob

My Feedback: (1)

The second plane that went in, was it also JR or Spektrum?

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

Good grief a mass launch of one hundred airplanes and you are complaining of failures. Sure failures to keep from running into each other and of course everyone is gonna scream radio failure!

How can 72 be better when you darn well know there are only fifty channels. Sure a mass launch like that is fun and of course there will be incidents, thats whats fun but to somehow use that aginst 2.4 is utterly ridiculous.

I cannot speak for JR/Spectrum and don,t use their products but do use Hitec's system in thirty five airplanes now and its a wide variety of types and have enjoyed totally glitch free flying ever since the changeover, something I was never ever able to claim when on 72.

Also our field is not even safe anymore for 72 at all since in the last year we have suffered and invasion of park flyer s who fly virtually on our doorstep and will not cooperate on freqency control. They use all manner of old systems and left overs as well as some 2.4. The parkies attitude is "who cares" .

Nope with out 2.4 our beautiful field of almost twenty years would have to close down.


So yes 2.4 is a savior and it saved our beautiful field and it is far more reliable than the old seventy two stuff. I have even just completed a conversion of my old Orbit from 1969 and I am now able to fly it for nostalgia legally and that is magic.

John

TimBle

only DSSS SYSTEMS are faliable to these glitches. It chooses two channels on the ground that appear free. Now fly up to 100ft and there's a lot more radio traffic up there, possibly on the channels selected by the DSSS system.also if there is another airfield close by, separated by woods or forest, once the aircraft are above the ground clutter the radio traffic is increased. DSSS without Frequency hopping is severely flawed. Would not touch it if it was the last system on earth.Save a plane, fly FHSS.

BuschBarber

My Feedback: (2)

I have personally witnessed crashes of extremely expensive jet models using FASST. The individuals involved are very anal about checking over their equipment and range checking before flight. These particular crashes were determined to be caused by the radio.

Failures like these are not limited to any one manufacturer.

1bwana1

I have experienced and seen lockouts in FHSS systems including Futaba, and Hitec.  No radio communication system is bullet proof.  Still, in my experience, all of them are better than the old 72 systems of a few years ago.

JoeAirPort

My Feedback: (41)

Been working great for me.....both Spektrum and FASST. I use both.

scooterinvegas

My Feedback: (1)

Your theory is wrong. DMS2 only listens to input with a code embedded in it witch is set when you bind the RX. Even signals on the same channels are ignored by the RX if it does not have the embedded code in it.

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

So I guess this interference never happend then?

pilotpete2

I'm very happy to see that I'm not the only one that is not impressed by the fact that you've got the frequency board to yourself these days, maybe the board, but I wouldn't count on the band being clear.[:-]
All that old 72Mhz stuff in the hands of users who don't know and don't care to know[&:]
Pete

4*60

My Feedback: (41)

I don't think anyone can categorically state that "it was the radio".  No way can you be certain what connection may have failed with vibration/attitude etc.  We are in a fairly remote area and I now have had 3 different people who are not part of the mainstream talk to me about their flying near our club.  All on 72.  So my feeling is 2.4 is the only way to go and the people at our field on 72 are taking a chance.  We host a "small" event with 100 pilots or so, but no more than 7-8 in the air at one time and I haven't heard "I've been hit!" for a few years due to 2.4 .  I was hit many years ago when I was on 72 and a guy decided it was his pin on the board.  At least he admitted it.
Anyone that wants to go back to 72 is welcome to go back.
Anyone who uses a system that picks 2 free channels on the ground and then launches into the air to encounter any kind of additional interference is welcome to.
Anyone who thinks 80 channels is the limit needs to read a little more about 2.4 .

IMNSHO!

4*60

My Feedback: (41)

That wasn't said. There could be interference at the field that is overwhelming the systems, but that would be rare, in a crowded city environment??!

Dick T.

My Feedback: (243)

Location and environment play a large role in radio communications reliability. While 2.4 is the next step, as mentioned, it is not bullet proof. 72 is still a valuable RC method depending on location. Some flying sites are more prone to interferrence (both 72 and 2.4) while others can be nearly bullet proof for both.

Our particular site is flat land with minimal line of site obstacles and no close by facilities for inconsiderate parkies with old 72 equipment or Harbor Freight 2.4 toys.

Almost all crashes here can be traced to dumb thumbs, airframe or battery failures although there are occasional mystery thumps.

TimBle

you clearly have no idea how these systems can be affected by other transmissions from another DSM2 transmitter...
The coded I.D. may be unique but it is not a guarantor of safe operation.

FHSSsystems issues in a Jet applicatio is 99% of the time user installation.

swede47

My Feedback: (5)

I just don't believe that is a problem. I've never seen it happen. Just because there's a bunch of used 72 equipment out there doesn't mean there are large numbers of people joining this hobby and shooting down others just because 72 items are selling cheap. People entering the hobby can buy cheap chinese 2.4 rather then 72 stuff. If it was such a big problem, as you seem to imply, and people were getting shot down in large numbers there would be alerts on the covers of every RC magazines. The AMA and FCC would be sending out pleas for hobbyists to turn in their old 72 equipment to the LHS to be destroyed.

I know you love your 2.4 stuff,(I love my 2.4 stuff too) but trying to scare people into buying it, people how aren't having a problem with 72 don't feel the need to switch.
There are 50 72 channels, so watch out everyone for a large group of 50 guys, each on different channels roaming around with old 72 transmitters!!

S

cloudancer03

My Feedback: (22)

for many many reasons 2.4 is much better than 72..but I guess its still a personal preference ..my only grip was with early spectrum radios.I lost 2 planes within 10 minutes of each other and identical crashes;I sold my DX7 and went with futaba and have been happy ever since then...and yes I crashed on 72 a few times over many years once was my own stupidity and the second time a new pilot forgot to get a frequency pin!

pilotpete2

Would you play Russian Roulette with a 50 chamber gun?
We have had one documented 72Mhz shootdown at our field. We have a school directly across the river from our field, near enough to hear the little darlins screaming at recess. We had a fellow get hit late in the afternoon. Later our club president, who just happens to "kick the kids across the street" at that school, as he puts it. Noticed a couple of kids carrying a crashed parkflier and a radio, he asked them what happened?, they said it just went crazy on them. He did note the channel the transmitter was on. When he found out we had a crash that afternoon, he asked what channel, you guessed it, the same channel[:@].
A year earlier, a neighboring club, who flies on farm property, had an incident where a guy turned on the receiver of an IMAC model before the transmitter. His model was responding to another transmitter, not randomly twitching, but moving as if someone else was flying on the channel. No other fliers had their radios on. Luckily someone had a pair of binoculars, they spotted a father and son about 3/4 of a mile away flying a parkflier on their property that was up a slope from the fields the club flew on. When I moved to Vermont 6 years ago, I was flying on ch 42, I soon found out the neighbor next door flies on ch 41, just one channel off from mine.
My experience with FASST has been rock solid. I even had an intermittent solder joint in a switch harness, I knew something was wrong just after takeoff, but was able to land safely.
I'll never look back.
The cast off radio problem isn't with folks getting into the hobby, it's with folks and kids getting old gear basically for nothing, then playing around with it. I think you really need to be way out in the boondocks to feel comfortable on 72Mhz.
Pete

All Day Dan

My Feedback: (5)

John, your conversion of the Orbit transmitter to 2.4 is just stupendous. How about starting another thread describing what you did. I'm sure a lot of guys who started out during the early days of radio would like to do the same to some of their antique equipmemt that they still have around. Dan.

.50cal

There is a bulletin on Horizon Hobbys website about the 9303 2.4 transmitter,the use of the sticks-I believe the ail/ele,causes chaffing of the wiring inside the radio.This might not have been the gremlin but might be worth checking out.Mine had just begun creasing the blue wire.They show the simple fix but you can also send it to them.Hope this helps!!!

BuschBarber

My Feedback: (2)

That was a problem a couple of years ago. It would only be a concern if you radio is a few years old. It would not hurt to open the back and check to see if you see wires that are being chaffed.

mike31

My Feedback: (67)

Tony Soprano would know what to do.

maukaonyx

Knock on wood I guess, but I have not had a single failure with my Futaba 7ch FASST (filled it with ten models) the last two years, going through about 15 gallons of glow each year. Also have an Airtronics 8ch FHSS with far less time on it, but not a single issue has arisen on that one. I'll never go back to 72. Jon

richie5150

IF IT HAS T!T'S, TIRES OR WIRES, YOUR GONNA HAVE PROBLEMS WID'IT !