Hughes500E

My Feedback: (16)

I fly Futaba, always have and will be for awhile. Funny story, a few weeks ago I purchased a brand new 10C with the 6014 RX. Last week at an event I won the top raffle prize, a JR X9303 LOL anyways, I have my 10C setup for 72Mhz and I have not taken the 6014 out of the box. I have a few 5955's but quite honestly I'm just simply scared to run the 2.4Ghz stuff. Too many stories!

Can anyone help me change my mind?

Thanks

pilotpete2

Well if you do decide to run the R6014 receiver, you will want to send those servos to Hitec to have them correct the problem where those servos are known to have a problem with lower signal levels, also to make them "play nice" if used on a "Y" harness. Hitec has also has made the production change, so new 5955 servos should not be an issue.
While the temperature sensitivity issue with the R6014 may not be an problem in B.C. I'd hold off on flying it until the issue is resolved.
I fly only the R617 receivers, as that is all the channels I need, they are as solid as a rock[8D] I would not hesitate to fly 2.4Ghz, in fact that's all I fly now.
Pete

BuschBarber

My Feedback: (2)

I have been flying RC for 30 years. I have had Servos fail in the air, and batteries, but never an Rx. I have had to deal with 72Mhz shootdowns and RF interference from many sources, especially aircraft using Gasoline engines with Magneto or Electronic Ign. There was always a way to resolve the issues, but it was time consuming. Sometimes we would fly knowing that there was something random in the area affecting the channels we were flying on. Sometimes we would fly knowing that a random Onboard problem could pop up at any moment.

All in all, it just heightened the RISK and bumped up the Nerves.

Switching to 2.4 has been a Blessing. Now, just keeping the Battery Voltage at a safe level and watching out for Mechanical malfunctions is all I worry about and that has not been a problem.

Rafael23cc

My Feedback: (6)

I can help you get rid of that JR X9303. I'll make a little donation to your flying fund if you let me have it.

As you seen in the stories, 2.4 is bad for you.

Rafael

Hughes500E

My Feedback: (16)

It found a new home, you missed it by this much!

What about all the other stories, losing a control surface, unbinding in the air for no reason, harsh servo movements on start, we never had any of these issues with 72Mhz........

Rafael23cc

My Feedback: (6)

To tell you the truth, that fear is unfounded. Yes, the 2.4 systems have some troubles. Futaba has the heat problem, and Spectrum/JR has the voltage problem. Just like the 72Mhz systems had their problems. What do you do? Adapt and overcome. You know that you needed a big enough battery for your 72Mhz systems and you seldom went over 4.8v packs.

The problem right now is this... the information super-highway.... the internet. A few years ago, _IF_ you heard about a failure in the 72mHz band, by the time it reached you, most people assumed that it was operator error, had been downplayed enough that it did not seem that bad, or of course was treated as hearsay.

Now with the information super-highway you can read what Joe Schmoe did in his backyard in just a few seconds. Who can corroborate that account of the incident? How can you know that Mr. Schmoe knows how to use his equipment properly? There are so many variables here, not to include the current thinking of our society of being a victim and not taking responsibility of their actions.

So, with careful installation and a new set of "adapt and overcome" rules, 2.4 can be as safe and definitely safer than 72mHz. Do not let the information super-highway scare you.

Rafael

Zeeb

My Feedback: (41)

Well no one is going to change your mind unless you are already leaning that way...

I will say a couple of things, one that has been addressed and my own preferences.

As noted, until the heat issue is resolved on the 6014 rx's I'd definitely stay away from that rx. I have seen a few reports of issues with the other 2.4 rx's but not enough to believe there is an issue with those. There is an issue with the Hitecs and some 5955's and Hitec has said they are addressing that issue of a low signal voltage coming from the rx. I think you can send them in for a firmware update and the new 7XXX series servos are not supposed to have that issue.

As for going to the 2.4 band, that's the way things are going and some of the advantages have been mentioned but the difference in the speed of the control response is something you have to experience to believe.

I flew Futaba initially and switched over to the "Dark Side" for the 2.4 stuff and that change was primarily because of what I felt was a serious lack of CS from Hobbico/Futaba compared to Horizon/JR. I'm glad I made the switch and would not go back.

Reasons other than CS why I feel the JR/Spektrum implementation is better?

ModelMatch; some folks poo-poo the idea but I've found it to be a valuable addition.

Multiple rxs; the Futaba die hards will say it's a sign of a weak design that it needs multiple rx's, but anyone who's even slightly familiar with the vagaries of the 2.4GHz bandwidth, will tell you that signal path diversity is a good thing.

Flight Log; with the available data logger, you can verify the quality of your connection to the model and for those who say additional rx's are not needed, a glance at the data logger output will show how much difference there can be in what kind of signal the model gets depending on where those rx's are located. If you get one rx with bad readings, you can move it to a better location and Futaba doesn't have anything like it.

Warranty; Futaba is 1 year, JR is 3 years.

Start using the X9303, you'll like it....

BuschBarber

My Feedback: (2)

As I have said on other threads, I was Futaba since 1978, but when I moved up to the 9CAP, I was happy until I was annoyed by the fact that the 9th channel was just a non-proportional switch. It created some problems, but not too big a deal.

I picked up a JR8103 radio with an airplane I bought from a friend. I liked the idea of Flaps on a Switch. When I investigated the XP9303, found out the 9th channel was fully proportional, found out JR had 9 channel PPM receivers, discovered Flight Modes, and found that I could put a 2.4 module in an XP9303 and still got 9 channels and backward compatibility, I sold the Futaba 9CAP.

I know that Futaba's newer radios have quite a bit of new features, but they came out with it too late, for me anyway.

Ed

"Multiple rxs; the Futaba die hards will say it's a sign of a weak design that it needs multiple rx's, but anyone who's even slightly familiar with the vagaries of the 2.4GHz bandwidth, will tell you that signal path diversity is a good thing. "

Anyone with any kind of HAM radio, or RF experience, knows that it is a good thing !

More is better !

... zak

JohnW

My Feedback: (6)

Don't be afraid of 2.4, use either JR or Futaba's system with confidence. Just learn the system you select and understand how to install it properly.

I use futaba 2.4 because 1) I started with futaba equipment and understand it, 2) I think futaba systems are more powerful in their setup and mixing than JR systems, and 3) I believe that futaba’s 2.4 implementation using FHSS technology is superior to spektrum’s DSSS in our application of a RC control link.

Both JR and Futaba make fine 2.4 systems and I'd use either one with confidence. I don't want to get into a JR vs Futaba battle because both make reliable systems. But to address the JR hype here, justify what you like however you want, but needing, key word "needing", multiple rxs to get a reliable link is not a plus in my book. Heck, if it is so good, why not use 8rxs, or maybe 16, or 100... exactly how many do I really need? How about one that just works? What kills me is the whole reason JR needs multiple RXs is they are using a totally different system that uses DSSS while Futaba uses FHSS, yet the need for multiple rxs because of JRs implementation is pushed as being better somehow. Futaba doesn’t have multiple rx solutions because with FHSS, you don’t need multiple rxs to maintain a reliable link. It is apples and oranges. It is like saying 72mhz is better because the antenna is larger, see this big antenna, it is so much better than that dinky 2.4ghz antenna, it must be, just look at the little 2.4 antenna. Apples and oranges. Love what you use and use what you love, be it JR or Futaba or etc.

Ed

Since you did your homework, want to explain to me exactly how FHSS is superior to DSSS again? Thought so...

........................... And also, more is better.


... zak

bruce88123

ONE reason it is better is because it is harder to interfere with the signal because the freq keeps changing. If a stray signal happens to hit your freq for the 0.05 seconds you are on it, it simply won't matter. Meanwhile the other system may lose lock if the interfering signal is maintained. This is ONE of the reasons this method is used by the military rather than DSSS.

JohnW

My Feedback: (6)

Star… Looks like a quote I wrote in another thread. My hope was that there would be some self study involved such that peeps would become more informed. Guess it didn’t work so I’ll try to explain it, and why it is really a moot issue.

While many systems use 2.4ghz, there are two transmission we are concerned with; DSSS and FHSS. These are as different as a light bulb and a strobe light. DSSS, used by JR, is a broadband low density signal, i.e. the light bulb. FHSS used by Futaba is a narrowband high density signal, i.e. the strobe light. Because of the lower power density of the DSSS signal, it is harder to maintain link, hence the need for more antennas. FHSS on the other hand is a high density signal and considerably fewer antennas are needed to maintain link. While not a perfect analogy, the light bulb vs the strobe light sort of represents the idea. So multiple rxs, path diversity, all a good thing, but really only because the DSSS systems have a hard time maintaining link compared to FHSS systems. So when it comes down to it, the need for JR multiple rxs to perform as well as a single Futaba rx is an artifact of the DSSS system JR choose to use. It is in no way a benefit, but a JR necessity to match Futaba’s performance. This is why I take objection to listing it path diversity as a reason JR is better than Futaba, i.e. it is simply misinformed. Of course JRs marketing department would like you to believe otherwise… but that’s marketing.

That said, I will once again stress that I have experience with both systems and both systems work very well. I would fly with confidence either a FASST or Spektrum system installed in any of my planes. So in my opinion one should not be selecting a radio based on DSSS vs FHSS, or spectrum vs FASST, but instead on the programming features of the TX.

pilotpete2

You don't need multiple receivers for path diversity, Futaba and Airtronics remote antennae achieve path diversity without the complexity of satellite receivers. Spektrum is now moving in that direction also with the release of the AR500.
Pete

Ed

You obviously don't understand what " path diversity " is. Hams and people with RF experience do.

And what are you going to say when Futaba eventually introduces a secondary receiver for improved antenna diversity, and performance ? ? ? .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....

Each additional antenna system, is like taking out an additional insurance policy. But maybe you are not interested in additional insurance protection when flying your $50 foamy, but you can be sure that the guy flying a $10,000 jet is. Now guess what the most popular 2.4 system is over on the jet forums. Do yourself a big favor, and pay them a visit.

Bottom line.

More is better !

... zak

DougV

From the Jet forum: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_61...40/key_/tm.htm

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_76...tm.htm#7621749

JohnW

My Feedback: (6)

I have professional RF experience, I also have inside track on RF technology as both my parents work for the FCC, I also have a turbine (surprise!), and I use FASST in that turbine plane (surprise again!) In fact, there are 4 people in my club who fly turbines and 3 out of 4 of us use FASST… we also use radios that blow away the top of the line JR radio in channels, features, and mixing ability. For that matter, Futaba has three radios that are better than JR’s flagship radio as far as I’m concerned, the 12FG, 12Z and 14MZ. But that really isn’t the point. The point is I have described the two systems (DSSS and FHSS) at the technology level all I get in return is marketing BS. It is all in good fun to take jabs at other radio users when telling lies in the hanger, but when peeps are looking for advice in these forums it is counterproductive to the hobby. I’m not trying to convert anyone; both systems work well, I simply desired to explain the difference between the systems so others reading this thread can make educated decisions. If you want to discuss the actual technology used and the reason for the difference in the systems, I have already posted my response which you have left untouched, so I assume you either agree or can't formulate a response. If all you want to do is try to guess another plane type you think I don't fly (you should have at least checked to see if I had a turbine waver before you made the turbine jab) and repeat marketing BS, it is terribly transparent and does nothing to help the thread readers.

Ed

Hey Douggy V ................. Add this one to your list.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7807297/tm.htm

DougV

sweet!!

For your eyes only: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_70..._1/key_/tm.htm

pilotpete2

The Spektrum AR7000 has a grand total of two antennae, Futaba and Airtronics also have two antennae. What don't I understand[:-] In all three systems, the antennae can be positioned to provide the same path diversity. With Airtronics and FASST, the coaxial antenna feed provides much more flexibility in getting the active antenna elements away from areas where shadowing may occur, or fully outside a carbon fiber fuselage, not easy to do with Spektrums center feed dipole setup.
Pete