Spectrum
09-27-2015, 03:24 PM
#28
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: alton, VA
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a DX6 and a couple of Futuba 6 channels and they all work good. I think most of the new 2.4 radios are very reliable. I not saying that some may not have problems but other than occasional dumb thumbs mine don't.
09-27-2015, 05:19 PM
#29
My Feedback: (26)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a long closed thread deprecating Spectrum.
I don't own Spectrum or never have used it.
But as a retired engineer I know equipment that has been on the market as long as Spectrum has most be doing something right and the people having trouble with it must be doing something wrong.
That closed thread should be deleted, not closed.
I don't own Spectrum or never have used it.
But as a retired engineer I know equipment that has been on the market as long as Spectrum has most be doing something right and the people having trouble with it must be doing something wrong.
That closed thread should be deleted, not closed.
09-27-2015, 05:28 PM
#30
Hold on a sec' - before everyone runs off, I've got a question concerning the DX6i that I asked about just before that long standing thread was closed. Around page 15 of that thread there was some talk of a recall notice that I either missed, dismissed, or otherwise found didn't apply to my transmitter at the time - I just don't remember and can't find any paperwork acknowledging any record of such in my owner's manual or packaging that I saved.
The recall notice that was linked to asked the owner to identify the affected transmitters by checking for a stickered number located in the battery compartment - I don't have this sticker. I vaguely remember some kind of paperwork instructing an owner to put the transmitter into Monitor Mode from the System Checklist and see if the cursor for each stick axis followed stick movement smoothly without hesitation or jerkiness.
Is this what that recall notice was all about?
BTW, I remember East R/C offered an aftermarket aluminum scroll wheel and trim levers that could be retrofitted - also wondering if this had anything to do with it.
FWIW, I've been flying 4 different foamies without problem so far but I bought the radio around 2008 - one of the years the recall pertains to and was concerned since I plan to use it with some heavier models. Any feedback in this regard appreciated.
The recall notice that was linked to asked the owner to identify the affected transmitters by checking for a stickered number located in the battery compartment - I don't have this sticker. I vaguely remember some kind of paperwork instructing an owner to put the transmitter into Monitor Mode from the System Checklist and see if the cursor for each stick axis followed stick movement smoothly without hesitation or jerkiness.
Is this what that recall notice was all about?
BTW, I remember East R/C offered an aftermarket aluminum scroll wheel and trim levers that could be retrofitted - also wondering if this had anything to do with it.
FWIW, I've been flying 4 different foamies without problem so far but I bought the radio around 2008 - one of the years the recall pertains to and was concerned since I plan to use it with some heavier models. Any feedback in this regard appreciated.
09-27-2015, 07:24 PM
#31
My Feedback: (14)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Boise ID
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
H5606: Maybe you should send it into Horizon Hobby and have them check it out. They seem to be very quick and fair when it comes to assuring you a good experience with your Spektrum radio.
I have a DX6i that I use for park flyers only. If I told you why it would just stir up trouble. The DX6i is a pretty radio isn't it? And I found it easy to program and there's lots of cheap receivers available for it.
I also have a DX7s and I use that in my more expensive models.
Good luck and happy landings...
Bob
I have a DX6i that I use for park flyers only. If I told you why it would just stir up trouble. The DX6i is a pretty radio isn't it? And I found it easy to program and there's lots of cheap receivers available for it.
I also have a DX7s and I use that in my more expensive models.
Good luck and happy landings...
Bob
09-28-2015, 07:26 AM
#32
My Feedback: (7)
When Spektrum radios began showing up there were brownout issues and the fix was higher voltage Rx batteries. Even with the 6 volt batteries I still saw brownout type crashes and the most common thread connecting most of them was still the Rx battery. In discussion with the owners they knew of the higher voltage to prevent brownouts and increased their Rx battery to 5 cell NiMh, BUT, most did not know how to, or even that they needed to, condition the new NiMh pack. Almost all of these owners told me they charge their NiMh using their peak detection chargers, never once hooked it up to a slow overnight charge or put it on a discharger to see the actual capacity in the pack. The owners would read the final voltage from the peak detector and take that to mean a fully charged pack.
Ever try to start your car with a dead battery, put a voltmeter on the no load battery and it may well read 12 volts, but leave the meter on the battery and have someone try to start the car and watch the voltage drop. Same thing here, I would hook their Rx pack to a discharger and they were shocked at how fast the battery would drop.
From what I have seen most of the Spektrum crashes were still power related but the fault was the lack of proper battery management,
Ace Pulse Commander, World Engines, EK Logictrol, Kraft, and now Futaba. Alkaline dry cells, NiCad, Gel cells, NiMh, Lipos with regulators, LiIons with regulators, and now A123 LifePO4..
I am not an EE and the only BS I have is in some of the stories I tell but this is just a general trend I have witnessed.
Ever try to start your car with a dead battery, put a voltmeter on the no load battery and it may well read 12 volts, but leave the meter on the battery and have someone try to start the car and watch the voltage drop. Same thing here, I would hook their Rx pack to a discharger and they were shocked at how fast the battery would drop.
From what I have seen most of the Spektrum crashes were still power related but the fault was the lack of proper battery management,
Ace Pulse Commander, World Engines, EK Logictrol, Kraft, and now Futaba. Alkaline dry cells, NiCad, Gel cells, NiMh, Lipos with regulators, LiIons with regulators, and now A123 LifePO4..
I am not an EE and the only BS I have is in some of the stories I tell but this is just a general trend I have witnessed.
09-28-2015, 06:23 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sanger,
CA
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When Spektrum radios began showing up there were brownout issues and the fix was higher voltage Rx batteries. Even with the 6 volt batteries I still saw brownout type crashes and the most common thread connecting most of them was still the Rx battery. In discussion with the owners they knew of the higher voltage to prevent brownouts and increased their Rx battery to 5 cell NiMh, BUT, most did not know how to, or even that they needed to, condition the new NiMh pack. Almost all of these owners told me they charge their NiMh using their peak detection chargers, never once hooked it up to a slow overnight charge or put it on a discharger to see the actual capacity in the pack. The owners would read the final voltage from the peak detector and take that to mean a fully charged pack.
Ever try to start your car with a dead battery, put a voltmeter on the no load battery and it may well read 12 volts, but leave the meter on the battery and have someone try to start the car and watch the voltage drop. Same thing here, I would hook their Rx pack to a discharger and they were shocked at how fast the battery would drop.
From what I have seen most of the Spektrum crashes were still power related but the fault was the lack of proper battery management,
Ace Pulse Commander, World Engines, EK Logictrol, Kraft, and now Futaba. Alkaline dry cells, NiCad, Gel cells, NiMh, Lipos with regulators, LiIons with regulators, and now A123 LifePO4..
I am not an EE and the only BS I have is in some of the stories I tell but this is just a general trend I have witnessed.
Ever try to start your car with a dead battery, put a voltmeter on the no load battery and it may well read 12 volts, but leave the meter on the battery and have someone try to start the car and watch the voltage drop. Same thing here, I would hook their Rx pack to a discharger and they were shocked at how fast the battery would drop.
From what I have seen most of the Spektrum crashes were still power related but the fault was the lack of proper battery management,
Ace Pulse Commander, World Engines, EK Logictrol, Kraft, and now Futaba. Alkaline dry cells, NiCad, Gel cells, NiMh, Lipos with regulators, LiIons with regulators, and now A123 LifePO4..
I am not an EE and the only BS I have is in some of the stories I tell but this is just a general trend I have witnessed.
Again we see voltage and voltage alone as the answer. You must combine it with the resistance(Ohms) in the circuit and the Current that is being attempted to pass though it.
I see very little discussion of Ohms Law in this entire ordeal. This is the secret to finding the true answer.
Resistance in a circuit will never be zero. Managing it as best as possible and understanding why voltage drops is the key to success.
Last edited by Aerocal; 09-28-2015 at 06:26 PM.
09-29-2015, 11:30 AM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sanger,
CA
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The loads we experience can be said to be Dynamic.This brings Ohms law and the importance of managing Resistance that much more important than if the load was Static. Just because it works on the bench when you wiggle the sticks is no guarantee that it will continue to work when the load is increased inflight. The more the load the more a fixed amount of resistance will cause a decrease in voltage at all points in the system.
Resistance is not always a fixed value either.heat will increase resistance. As the temp in a circuit increases its resistance rises and its ability to carry current decreases.
If you study the basic premise of Ohms Law you will soon understand that it applies to all circuits regardless of whether the load is Static or Dynamic. There are also variables that make the formulas themselves dynamic.Heating of components and vibration on mechanical connections are probably the biggest 2 we deal with.Oxidation and Wear are a few more.The time component.
Ive heard over and over the argument that a system was fine for a long time and then it suddenly failed."Its been flying fine for 6 months and now it failed.It has to be the system itself". This defies logic. While it is always possible that components catastrophically fail without warning in my experience it is rare.Very rare. Generally they become weaker and weaker until they are not up to the task anymore.Each and every component plays a supporting role in the health of the system.
There will almost always be signs and/or symptoms before a complete failure.
I use the word System. I guess it also helps to see that the entire model/machine is a system comprised of various subsystems.Airframe is a subsystem.Engine,mechanical linkages,servos,RF link,power delivery etc. are all subsystems. If any one of these subsystems doesnt provide the necessary support of the others the entire System fails.Terra firma is harsh.
The problem I see here is that the power delivery and RF link subsystems are being lumped into one by many. They are 2 distinct separate things. If the RF link fails because it isnt supplied with what it needs to function it stops.Thats not the fault of the RF link. Thats a different dept. Talk to power delivery.
If we want to find common denominators I think if we look at it closer it seems to show that those who understand and can make the above distinctions are alot more successful almost (nothing is 100% perfect)to the point of zero issues than the ones who lump it all into one and cant distinguish between subsystems seem to more often than not run into(unknown) problems.
10-03-2015, 04:12 PM
#37
My Feedback: (3)
What do I do with my DX18QQ?
I fly turbines and recently lost an Extra (not a turbine). When I got the wreckage back and plugged the receiver in it would bind but the servos were all unresponsive to any input. They all still worked otherwise.
So I pulled out another plane and same thing, radio would bind but no servo input response. The monitor screen on the transmitter registered movement of all control inputs properly. My receivers are all Spectrum DSMX 8 and 12 channels. I have several.
I sent the radio off to HH with the receiver and they were kind enough to give me a new receiver, but could not find anything wrong with the radio. They did update the firmware for me.
Now what? I could try a foamy and see what gives, but am reluctant to trust it with anything else.
I like Spectrum and do not want to change. Another possibility would be buy a new DX18 and shelve the QQ but I am not crazy about that solution.
Steve
I fly turbines and recently lost an Extra (not a turbine). When I got the wreckage back and plugged the receiver in it would bind but the servos were all unresponsive to any input. They all still worked otherwise.
So I pulled out another plane and same thing, radio would bind but no servo input response. The monitor screen on the transmitter registered movement of all control inputs properly. My receivers are all Spectrum DSMX 8 and 12 channels. I have several.
I sent the radio off to HH with the receiver and they were kind enough to give me a new receiver, but could not find anything wrong with the radio. They did update the firmware for me.
Now what? I could try a foamy and see what gives, but am reluctant to trust it with anything else.
I like Spectrum and do not want to change. Another possibility would be buy a new DX18 and shelve the QQ but I am not crazy about that solution.
Steve
However, yesterday when I was working on my Extra for today's District VIII event I had a good bind indication but nothing would move. I cycled the power to everything and got the same result. Since I had a similar problem earlier this year with a PowerBox, I changed the AR7000 for another AR7000. I was running 2 switches, with 2 five cell battery packs, and feeding power in at two different points on the RX. Everything worked fine until the second flight today when the plane rolled over, and dove in at WOT with no response to my DX9. I lost the airframe, the DL 50, the pitts muffler, and three of the nice servos. The battery packs cycled at better than 1800 mAh. Since I no longer trust the transmitter, it and the AR7000's are leaving here Monday.
All electronics fail now and again and as near as I can tell all we can do is trust the technician to troubleshoot and test properly. I feel that I am in the same boat as you and really am loathe to fly my bigger Extra on that radio. I am beginning to suspect that it might be a firmware or transmitter antenna issue (which is a function of firmware given the diversity issues) as I have seen this bind but no servo movement before and assumed (as did Horizon Hobby) that it was the new PowerBox.
In my own personal slightly educated opinion (used to repair internal guidance on missiles) the best we can do is very carefully document everything leading up to the failure and all the testing we did before (if any) and after to give the technician something to sink teeth into. It the earlier case we discovered that bind was lost faster and faster each time the RX was turned on and told them so. In this case, I already wrote my actions of yesterday and today's results because it is clear there IS a problem and your post suggests they are missing something in testing but I cannot afford to give them too many more data points.
Dirtybird, we used to have a club member who would go to the flight line with 2 transmitters just so he could change if the one he was using failed. I never asked him how well it worked. Having said that, I have worked with a board that let me select inputs for the servo but it required the transmitter to be up to the job and the main RX to be on line.
10-03-2015, 06:57 PM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sanger,
CA
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do I do with my DX18QQ?
I fly turbines and recently lost an Extra (not a turbine). When I got the wreckage back and plugged the receiver in it would bind but the servos were all unresponsive to any input. They all still worked otherwise.
So I pulled out another plane and same thing, radio would bind but no servo input response. The monitor screen on the transmitter registered movement of all control inputs properly. My receivers are all Spectrum DSMX 8 and 12 channels. I have several.
I sent the radio off to HH with the receiver and they were kind enough to give me a new receiver, but could not find anything wrong with the radio. They did update the firmware for me.
Now what? I could try a foamy and see what gives, but am reluctant to trust it with anything else.
I like Spectrum and do not want to change. Another possibility would be buy a new DX18 and shelve the QQ but I am not crazy about that solution.
Steve
I fly turbines and recently lost an Extra (not a turbine). When I got the wreckage back and plugged the receiver in it would bind but the servos were all unresponsive to any input. They all still worked otherwise.
So I pulled out another plane and same thing, radio would bind but no servo input response. The monitor screen on the transmitter registered movement of all control inputs properly. My receivers are all Spectrum DSMX 8 and 12 channels. I have several.
I sent the radio off to HH with the receiver and they were kind enough to give me a new receiver, but could not find anything wrong with the radio. They did update the firmware for me.
Now what? I could try a foamy and see what gives, but am reluctant to trust it with anything else.
I like Spectrum and do not want to change. Another possibility would be buy a new DX18 and shelve the QQ but I am not crazy about that solution.
Steve
I have had the displeasure of eating 2 giant scale birds to faulty equipment. The first pair caused the entire system to be returned for repair and it came back with 'no problem found - binds just fine'. I got lucky and almost ate a 3rd bird but discovered the problem and wrote a letter explaining what their testing missed and why it missed it. Binds are great, AS LONG AS THEY LAST. In other words, their test time was way too short. They were gracious and replaced both of the RX's I sent with my (somewhat unfriendly but instructive) letter.
However, yesterday when I was working on my Extra for today's District VIII event I had a good bind indication but nothing would move. I cycled the power to everything and got the same result. Since I had a similar problem earlier this year with a PowerBox, I changed the AR7000 for another AR7000. I was running 2 switches, with 2 five cell battery packs, and feeding power in at two different points on the RX. Everything worked fine until the second flight today when the plane rolled over, and dove in at WOT with no response to my DX9. I lost the airframe, the DL 50, the pitts muffler, and three of the nice servos. The battery packs cycled at better than 1800 mAh. Since I no longer trust the transmitter, it and the AR7000's are leaving here Monday.
All electronics fail now and again and as near as I can tell all we can do is trust the technician to troubleshoot and test properly. I feel that I am in the same boat as you and really am loathe to fly my bigger Extra on that radio. I am beginning to suspect that it might be a firmware or transmitter antenna issue (which is a function of firmware given the diversity issues) as I have seen this bind but no servo movement before and assumed (as did Horizon Hobby) that it was the new PowerBox.
In my own personal slightly educated opinion (used to repair internal guidance on missiles) the best we can do is very carefully document everything leading up to the failure and all the testing we did before (if any) and after to give the technician something to sink teeth into. It the earlier case we discovered that bind was lost faster and faster each time the RX was turned on and told them so. In this case, I already wrote my actions of yesterday and today's results because it is clear there IS a problem and your post suggests they are missing something in testing but I cannot afford to give them too many more data points.
Dirtybird, we used to have a club member who would go to the flight line with 2 transmitters just so he could change if the one he was using failed. I never asked him how well it worked. Having said that, I have worked with a board that let me select inputs for the servo but it required the transmitter to be up to the job and the main RX to be on line.
However, yesterday when I was working on my Extra for today's District VIII event I had a good bind indication but nothing would move. I cycled the power to everything and got the same result. Since I had a similar problem earlier this year with a PowerBox, I changed the AR7000 for another AR7000. I was running 2 switches, with 2 five cell battery packs, and feeding power in at two different points on the RX. Everything worked fine until the second flight today when the plane rolled over, and dove in at WOT with no response to my DX9. I lost the airframe, the DL 50, the pitts muffler, and three of the nice servos. The battery packs cycled at better than 1800 mAh. Since I no longer trust the transmitter, it and the AR7000's are leaving here Monday.
All electronics fail now and again and as near as I can tell all we can do is trust the technician to troubleshoot and test properly. I feel that I am in the same boat as you and really am loathe to fly my bigger Extra on that radio. I am beginning to suspect that it might be a firmware or transmitter antenna issue (which is a function of firmware given the diversity issues) as I have seen this bind but no servo movement before and assumed (as did Horizon Hobby) that it was the new PowerBox.
In my own personal slightly educated opinion (used to repair internal guidance on missiles) the best we can do is very carefully document everything leading up to the failure and all the testing we did before (if any) and after to give the technician something to sink teeth into. It the earlier case we discovered that bind was lost faster and faster each time the RX was turned on and told them so. In this case, I already wrote my actions of yesterday and today's results because it is clear there IS a problem and your post suggests they are missing something in testing but I cannot afford to give them too many more data points.
Dirtybird, we used to have a club member who would go to the flight line with 2 transmitters just so he could change if the one he was using failed. I never asked him how well it worked. Having said that, I have worked with a board that let me select inputs for the servo but it required the transmitter to be up to the job and the main RX to be on line.
A Main and Remote Rx may both have a Bind but the Main will fail to Connect and send outputs to the servos if it does not hear a signal from the Remote. The 9020 and above generally require 2 Remotes for a Connection. This can be a problem if the connection cables arent treated with respect. A bad Remote Rx is possible but Ive found that it always leads back to the connector cable.
If you have a system that is stubborn to connect then you fly anyway and for some reason the Rx reboots while the signal back from the Remote(s) isnt solid it will refuse to Connect all the wqay to the ground.
Once it is Connected and becomes intermittent inflight it will continue to function minus that Remote(which may be only 1 antenna on the main). You will never know anything is wrong until your Connection fails unless you have been examining the Flightlog data.
If your getting FL data back to the Tx in realtime I found that setting an alarm for 1 Hold will alert you to an impending Loss of Control before it develops into that. A cable going bad or getting intermittent inflight with vibration introduced will show runaway fades off the scale for that remote.
Depending on the installation the Rx may actually be rebooting occasionally and its possible you may not notice. With DSMX a reboot may happen in less than a second.When that happens all FLdata is reset.
With telemetry being so easy to implement it doesnt make sense to not be using it. Might as well be logging it while your at it. Once you understand what your seeing it is invaluable to a healthy system IMO.
A crashed airplane is not a data point.It only tells you what happened.Not why. When later tests show nothing wrong on the bench that only says that the dynamic conditions encountered inflight arent being reproduced somehow. Higher current load ,g-forces working unrestrained cables back and forth,heat,vibration etc. are difficult if not impossible to duplicate on the ground.
I found that most major issues dont just happen all at once.Its possible but I would have to say very rare. They start out small and develop into something worse until theres a failure. It doesnt seem to me that total failure is the first indication I want to have. Its also likely that theres more than one small issue combining to make a larger one. Without data there may be no indication before failure.
I have to some degree had servo failures,bad becs,wonky remote cables and even had Rx packs that ended up low for what I thought were unknown reasons. I probably just didnt have them charged. All of these problems developed and I had ample warning to stop flying before I was forced to. It is all so easy to be had now. Why not take advantage of it? Nothing is 100% perfect but this takes the whole situation to another level. It does take a bit of learning and making it force of habit at first but it becomes second nature. Without data I feel naked now.
I can also say without a doubt that it has saved me more than one airframe.More like easily 6 or more.
Last edited by Aerocal; 10-03-2015 at 07:02 PM.
10-04-2015, 06:29 AM
#40
My Feedback: (3)
Sorry, but you are not exactly correct. A bind is NOT FOREVER rather it is as good as the equipment and lasts until the electronics in the circuit fail. If there is a weak capacitor on the RX side, the bind can, and has been lost. A little research will yield that Spektrum had some RX's with that particular problem.
While I really love being reamed by the perfect folks here, that is not productive nor is it called for.
All having telemetry will do is tell me it stopped working, and maybe not even that in this case. Your write up is great for on airframe failure, but if you read carefully what was said, the evidenced failure strongly suggests it is more than likely with the transmitter. As you said, a bind is not a connection and that seems to be where the issue is. Since it appears to be common to multiple RX's the thinking observer would look to see what was common to them rather than suggest a totally disconnected test procedure that ignores the basic problem - multiple RX's on multiple airframes failing to connect.
In short, while having TM has value and probably will/has saved airframes due to on board failures, it will not save the airframe, nor will that replace the airframe in the event of a TX fault. Unfortunately when I ate the earlier giant scale birds, TM was not available.
While I really love being reamed by the perfect folks here, that is not productive nor is it called for.
All having telemetry will do is tell me it stopped working, and maybe not even that in this case. Your write up is great for on airframe failure, but if you read carefully what was said, the evidenced failure strongly suggests it is more than likely with the transmitter. As you said, a bind is not a connection and that seems to be where the issue is. Since it appears to be common to multiple RX's the thinking observer would look to see what was common to them rather than suggest a totally disconnected test procedure that ignores the basic problem - multiple RX's on multiple airframes failing to connect.
In short, while having TM has value and probably will/has saved airframes due to on board failures, it will not save the airframe, nor will that replace the airframe in the event of a TX fault. Unfortunately when I ate the earlier giant scale birds, TM was not available.
10-04-2015, 07:34 AM
#41
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Tan Valley,
AZ
Posts: 5,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eagletree telemetry systems have been available for more than 7 years. I dont remember when I got mine but it has been at least 7 years ago.
It cost a little bit, but it was far less than a giant scale aircraft.
These days a lot systems have it built in.
The $200 Taranis has it built in showing the received signal and battery voltage with voice alerts.All this is logged along with all control inputs on the transmitter.With the GPS sensor you can get airspeed and altitude.
With the Taranis you can also plug in a module of your choice in the back and with a $10 multiplexer from Pololu you can install an extra system on the aircraft and have complete redundancy except for the TX encode.r.
It cost a little bit, but it was far less than a giant scale aircraft.
These days a lot systems have it built in.
The $200 Taranis has it built in showing the received signal and battery voltage with voice alerts.All this is logged along with all control inputs on the transmitter.With the GPS sensor you can get airspeed and altitude.
With the Taranis you can also plug in a module of your choice in the back and with a $10 multiplexer from Pololu you can install an extra system on the aircraft and have complete redundancy except for the TX encode.r.
10-04-2015, 08:15 AM
#42
My Feedback: (551)
Clearly those folks with advanced skills in electronics and RF are able to discern and compensated for the weaknesses of our modern radio systems. Then there are those of us who flew for 25 years on 72 MHz with no such problems. Call me a Dinosaur, an Old Guy, or a Luddite, but I don't see this as progress.
Jim
Jim
10-04-2015, 09:44 AM
#43
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Tan Valley,
AZ
Posts: 5,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly those folks with advanced skills in electronics and RF are able to discern and compensated for the weaknesses of our modern radio systems. Then there are those of us who flew for 25 years on 72 MHz with no such problems. Call me a Dinosaur, an Old Guy, or a Luddite, but I don't see this as progress.
Jim
Jim
10-04-2015, 09:58 AM
#44
My Feedback: (551)
Reliability without having to add supportive accessories. Reliability without having to have or acquire a 2 year degree in electronics. We used to buy the radio, install it and plug the servos, switch and battery into the receiver and, if we kept the battery charged, it would work reliably for hundreds of flights.
That reliability applied to cheap 4 channels, and the top of the line computer radios. Now we have more channels, more programming options and telemetry. But to me, 100% reliability is more important. Yes, I fly some of my airplanes on 2.4. But not the ones I would hate to lose.
That reliability applied to cheap 4 channels, and the top of the line computer radios. Now we have more channels, more programming options and telemetry. But to me, 100% reliability is more important. Yes, I fly some of my airplanes on 2.4. But not the ones I would hate to lose.
10-04-2015, 10:03 AM
#45
My Feedback: (551)
I see that I did not really answer your question.
Progress to me means lower cost of purchase and operation, better functionality, better reliability, longer life. Any one of those is progress, but only if it does not include a loss in one or more of the others.
Jim
Progress to me means lower cost of purchase and operation, better functionality, better reliability, longer life. Any one of those is progress, but only if it does not include a loss in one or more of the others.
Jim
Last edited by jrf; 10-04-2015 at 10:06 AM.
10-04-2015, 11:03 AM
#46
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Tan Valley,
AZ
Posts: 5,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
72 was excellent in its day but now its obsolete. Does anyone sell it anymore? You can buy questionable equipment on ebay or at swap meets. Keep in mind electronics do not last forever.And they have a reason for selling it.
In your other post you said you always made sure your batteries were charged. I suspect it others did the same a lot of these problems would go away.
10-04-2015, 11:26 AM
#47
Reliability without having to add supportive accessories. Reliability without having to have or acquire a 2 year degree in electronics. We used to buy the radio, install it and plug the servos, switch and battery into the receiver and, if we kept the battery charged, it would work reliably for hundreds of flights.
That reliability applied to cheap 4 channels, and the top of the line computer radios. Now we have more channels, more programming options and telemetry. But to me, 100% reliability is more important. Yes, I fly some of my airplanes on 2.4. But not the ones I would hate to lose.
That reliability applied to cheap 4 channels, and the top of the line computer radios. Now we have more channels, more programming options and telemetry. But to me, 100% reliability is more important. Yes, I fly some of my airplanes on 2.4. But not the ones I would hate to lose.
10-04-2015, 11:27 AM
#48
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DX18QQ Redux...back from HH after crash
I like this radio and want to use it so I have installed a new 8 channel DSMX receiver in my foamy Texan. Put 3 uneventful flights on it and also ran the transmitter and receiver for an hour or so last night.
I am data logging and read from 3 to 28 frame losses per antenna per flight, no fades or holds. Also had 24 frame losses during the hour last night I ran it at home, no fades or holds.
I will put several more flights on the Texan and if all is ok, start flying a seasoned boomer sprint for awhile. If all goes well I will move up thru my small stash of turbine powered planes to my brand new Dolphin S soon to be maidened. What do you guys think of my plan?
Steve
I like this radio and want to use it so I have installed a new 8 channel DSMX receiver in my foamy Texan. Put 3 uneventful flights on it and also ran the transmitter and receiver for an hour or so last night.
I am data logging and read from 3 to 28 frame losses per antenna per flight, no fades or holds. Also had 24 frame losses during the hour last night I ran it at home, no fades or holds.
I will put several more flights on the Texan and if all is ok, start flying a seasoned boomer sprint for awhile. If all goes well I will move up thru my small stash of turbine powered planes to my brand new Dolphin S soon to be maidened. What do you guys think of my plan?
Steve
Last edited by Stevojet; 10-04-2015 at 11:29 AM.
10-04-2015, 12:11 PM
#49
My Feedback: (551)
Thar is a good definition. But if you look at it honestly those attributes are exactly what 2.4 brings to you.
72 was excellent in its day but now its obsolete. Does anyone sell it anymore? You can buy questionable equipment on ebay or at swap meets. Keep in mind electronics do not last forever.And they have a reason for selling it.
In your other post you said you always made sure your batteries were charged. I suspect it others did the same a lot of these problems would go away.
72 was excellent in its day but now its obsolete. Does anyone sell it anymore? You can buy questionable equipment on ebay or at swap meets. Keep in mind electronics do not last forever.And they have a reason for selling it.
In your other post you said you always made sure your batteries were charged. I suspect it others did the same a lot of these problems would go away.
The servos and flying style and airplanes in general were different too. There was no such thing as 3D flying, 400 ounce digital servos, and if you had a 1/4 scale plane chances are you have the biggest thing in the county, whereas I take my 92" 60cc Corvus to an event and it looks like a midget.
Functionality includes ease of use. 3D and giant scale flyers may find the new systems more functional, but the average flyer is often overwhelmed. (And GOD help the newby.) By my definition, the new systems are either better or worse in functionality (let's call that "suitability for purpose") depending on your experience and choice of airplane. But there is clearly no doubt that they are not as reliable. (They are AM, after all.)
Back to my original statement. For many, if not most, flyers, the new systems are not progress. And my only reason for saying so is to remind you that many of us who are reading your posts do not have your levels of expertise.
10-04-2015, 12:51 PM
#50
My Feedback: (3)
I'm not trying to start an argument, nor am I recommending that everyone go out and buy 72 MHz radios. I do not fly 3D or use 400 ounce servos. And all of my airplanes are 1/4 scale or under. That makes me an average modeler.
Functionality includes ease of use. 3D and giant scale flyers may find the new systems more functional, but the average flyer is often overwhelmed. (And GOD help the newby.) By my definition, the new systems are either better or worse in functionality (let's call that "suitability for purpose") depending on your experience and choice of airplane. But there is clearly no doubt that they are not as reliable. (They are AM, after all.)
Back to my original statement. For many, if not most, flyers, the new systems are not progress. And my only reason for saying so is to remind you that many of us who are reading your posts do not have your levels of expertise.
Functionality includes ease of use. 3D and giant scale flyers may find the new systems more functional, but the average flyer is often overwhelmed. (And GOD help the newby.) By my definition, the new systems are either better or worse in functionality (let's call that "suitability for purpose") depending on your experience and choice of airplane. But there is clearly no doubt that they are not as reliable. (They are AM, after all.)
Back to my original statement. For many, if not most, flyers, the new systems are not progress. And my only reason for saying so is to remind you that many of us who are reading your posts do not have your levels of expertise.
THAT is my issue with the "progress" side of the equation. To date the ONLY benefit I see is the lack of shoot downs from dummies who either don't care about frequency conflicts or don't understand it. Other than that I have begun to see 2.4 as an ongoing research project. While I have moved more towards the GS side of things, I am very seriously considering finding what I know to be a fairly reliable 72MHz radio and stepping back. Even with those systems we tended to spend significant dollars to protect our investment - dual switches, batteries, and in some rare cases even dual RX's. So I don't see much improvement in the basic radio functionality but a huge reliability issue that is expensive.
Here is a question. Why would Steve have 24 frame losses from a system that was sitting around turned on? It seems to me that there should be no frame losses during that hour. I think that points to a basic system design philosophy that might not be as elegant as everyone thinks it is.
I really don't think 3D flying or large aircraft and 2.4 radios are tied together. There were folks doing a lot of both before 2.4 became the vogue system to have. Most average flyers fell into the trap that newer is better that 2.4 represented and the makers stopped developing the other stuff because the market moved. Unfortunately for many of us, that particular issue seems to be somewhat more than 1/2 baked, but not done yet as evidenced by the various birthing pains the commonly available systems have had. I note that brownouts still seem to bother some which I find astounding. That is a known issue and *I* would think the new systems would come with 5 cell batteries rather than just try to rebind on the fly, which depends on quality electronic components, good software, and firmware on both ends to work consistently.