2.4
07-31-2007 | 05:56 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,059
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Sterling , CO
2.4
Is it worth a plane
After reading some response on The Basin I think I will stay with FM. Will this affect all this radio ban or just some after production equipement
And will this be a problem down the road when the 2.4 gets so crowded that there is no place to go " but down"
After reading some response on The Basin I think I will stay with FM. Will this affect all this radio ban or just some after production equipement
And will this be a problem down the road when the 2.4 gets so crowded that there is no place to go " but down"
07-31-2007 | 06:08 PM
#4
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: El Paso,
TX
RE: 2.4
"Is it worth a plane
After reading some response on The Basin I think I will stay with FM. Will this affect all this radio ban or just some after production equipement
And will this be a problem down the road when the 2.4 gets so crowded that there is no place to go " but down" "
We have been flying 2.4 on helicopters and fixed wing for some time........ NO PROBLEMS....... I guess "dumb thumbs" don't fit in the equation..............
After reading some response on The Basin I think I will stay with FM. Will this affect all this radio ban or just some after production equipement
And will this be a problem down the road when the 2.4 gets so crowded that there is no place to go " but down" "
We have been flying 2.4 on helicopters and fixed wing for some time........ NO PROBLEMS....... I guess "dumb thumbs" don't fit in the equation..............
07-31-2007 | 06:25 PM
#5
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,059
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Sterling , CO
RE: 2.4
If people just read this forum and understand what they read[:@] Or is it just the after production type equipement that is causing the problem
Sorry [
][][]
Sorry [
][][]
07-31-2007 | 06:59 PM
#10
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Johns Creek,
GA
RE: 2.4
OK....what is the basin?
are you complaining about 2.4ghz systems... Im really not sure?
Have you used them or are you basing your complaints off of internet posts?
You mention a "radio ban"... please elaborate.. I really don't know what you are talking about
Also, please explain what you mean about 2.4 getting too crowded.... what tech info do you have that the rest of us do not?
How many people at your club field fly 2.4 and what are their thoughts?
Really, I'm curious
are you complaining about 2.4ghz systems... Im really not sure?
Have you used them or are you basing your complaints off of internet posts?
You mention a "radio ban"... please elaborate.. I really don't know what you are talking about
Also, please explain what you mean about 2.4 getting too crowded.... what tech info do you have that the rest of us do not?
How many people at your club field fly 2.4 and what are their thoughts?
Really, I'm curious
07-31-2007 | 08:41 PM
#11
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 671
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Canyon Lake,
TX
RE: 2.4
RC Outlaw - It would be nice if you would actually supply some information about the problems encountered. Many (most?) of us don't have access to what ever report you got this information from.
I ahve been flying 2.4 (Spectrum DX7) sinse it was released and have NEVER had a single problem. I have it in 8 planes from gliders to Giant scale / gas engines.
Tell us what you are talking about.
I ahve been flying 2.4 (Spectrum DX7) sinse it was released and have NEVER had a single problem. I have it in 8 planes from gliders to Giant scale / gas engines.
Tell us what you are talking about.
07-31-2007 | 09:06 PM
#12
My Feedback: (15)
RE: 2.4
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_83...age_313/tm.htm
this thread, about halfway down the page, 313, the 2.4 stuff starts.
not all that hard to peek into the clubhouse for a thread with "basin" in the title.
this thread, about halfway down the page, 313, the 2.4 stuff starts.
not all that hard to peek into the clubhouse for a thread with "basin" in the title.
07-31-2007 | 09:47 PM
#15
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 671
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Canyon Lake,
TX
RE: 2.4
Simply saying "on the basin" has absolutely no meaning to me. HINT - if you want a decent response to a question, don't be a smart ***** when someone asks for "clarification"!
08-01-2007 | 04:53 AM
#18
My Feedback: (5)
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: California
RE: 2.4
With everyone switching to 2.4, I'm going to stay on 72 for a while. After all the bugs come out of Futaba's FASST system, I might go for it as prices should be cheaper, and information easy to find.
50%
50%
08-01-2007 | 07:15 AM
#19
My Feedback: (162)
RE: 2.4
ORIGINAL: RC Outlaw
Is it worth a plane
After reading some response on The Basin I think I will stay with FM. Will this affect all this radio ban or just some after production equipement
And will this be a problem down the road when the 2.4 gets so crowded that there is no place to go " but down"
Is it worth a plane
After reading some response on The Basin I think I will stay with FM. Will this affect all this radio ban or just some after production equipement
And will this be a problem down the road when the 2.4 gets so crowded that there is no place to go " but down"
Your post if I read it correctly, is based on a few in accuracies. I'm not sure if there's a problem at the basin. There could be some 2.4 interference like what they found at the Nevada fly in. At least 1 of the incidents involved the original antennae which has been changed because of the extra 2.4 interference that was found at the 1 flying site. I believe that xps users were notified about the update...
From what I've read about the basin, 2.4 is still MUCH safer to fly there than 72.. People just turning on, intentional shootdowns etc... It definately doesn't sound like the safest flying site.
As far as 2.4 getting to crowded. So far the way I understand it, each 2.4 radio system responds differently to interference or to multiple frequencies being used. First, when you turn the radio on, if there are no available channels as you implied, the receiver simply wont respond and anyone else flying on 2.4 will not be affected as the radio scans for an open frequency to transmit and lock on to. If there's none found then it wont transmit!! Futaba systems continually change frequency's to avoid interference the way I understand it. So if they encounter interference they will only see it for an extremely short time.. This is from the Futaba site
"What is the main difference between the Spektrum system and Futaba's FASST system?
The Spektrum systems utilize what is known as Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum modulation, or DSSS. Using this methodology, the system selects a channel, or channels, and remains on this frequency indefinitely. Futaba's almost 15 years of experience with spread spectrum technology has proven that the ideal situation for modelers is to utilize channel shifting whereby the system continuously changes frequencies every two milliseconds thus preventing signal conflicts and eliminating interference issues"
Spektrum uses 2 frequencies to connect to the dual receiver. It constantly checks for interference and will use the 'good' frequency to respond to if the signal is corrupt but will stay with the 2 frequencies used.
XPS locks onto an open frequency and uses bi-direction to constantly talk between the module and receiver and back. If it detects and interference it has the ability to switch to an open frequency.
Spektrum radios also wait for an open frequency before transmitting and the same for XPS units.
Should AMA ban all 2.4 systems because of an area that seems to be having trouble? This same area seems even more dangerous on 72 because of the lack of radio management, intentional shootdowns etc. Should the ama ban 72 systems in this area as well?
08-01-2007 | 07:19 AM
#20
My Feedback: (162)
RE: 2.4
Just so everyone knows what all of this is referring to without guessing or searching...
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=6172850
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=6172850
ORIGINAL: JasonP
Gentlemen
I would like to bring to your attention a brewing problem regarding the 2.4 Gigahertz Technology.
It’s been brought to my attention that there is a small Manufacturer of these radio equipment by the name of Xtreme Link
That has been selling Modules and receivers for various radio’s as a 3rd party add on which will make your standard transmitter into 2.4 gigahertz.
As of now based on my immediate knowledge, there has been 4 of these devices used at the basin with poor results.
The last one resulted in a lockout crash on Woodley Blvd.
This issue has been forwarded to AMA also and they are looking into it
These radios will be banned at the LA-Jets Summer event. I would like to see them not used at the Basin until
further notice.
This is only for the manufacturer listed above. It is not for Spektrum or the new Futaba or JR.
You will find a draft of different incidents below.
Please forward me your opinion.
All the Best
Jason Pakfar
Valley Flyers President
To Whom It May Concern:
I purchased one of the first production XPS Tx modules for a Futaba 9C and 10Ch Rx from the Toledo show several months ago. After installing the equipment per manufacturer recommendations, I flew it on a 40 sise Zero at the Sepulveda Basin in California. While flying the airplane, I felt the controls to be “sluggish”. This did not inspire confidence. I immediately landed the airplane after approximately two minutes of flight. I removed the Rx from the airplane and replaced it with the original 72mhz rx. I flew the airplane again and everything was back to “normal”. The controls felt solid without and perceived “sluggishness”
In conclusion I do not feel confident in the XPS system as it is now. I would not recommend the system to be flown at the Sepulveda Basin.
Vahe (Mike) Arabian
AMA 734177
Turbine Waiver FW12620
From: Joe Kelley [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:25 PM
To: Jason Pakfar
Subject: XPS
Jason this is the report from my flight log the day of the incident.
After 28 flights I had a lockout with my jet shortly after takeoff. Mushy controls etc then total loss of control. I pulled up my gear switch and off turbine switch as pre-crash procedure. Just as it was about 15' in the air I got it back pushed the nose down and got enough speed for an ok flair, the rough ground and impact messed up my new jet pretty bad but it might fly again. Fixing all day yesterday and the day before. Test run engine and all systems seem to check out. Batteries charged, all connections made, radio seemed to work post mortem.
XPS and Jim are well aware of this and have requested my module and receiver to be shipped back. I had 28 successful flights on this plane with absoulutly no changes at all to my plane or accidents. Not sure about what any of that means as I don't have real equipment and training to measure 2.4Ghz Whatever happened I am out an airframe even though it may fly, it looks really bad for a new jet. Bottom line no one physically got hurt and there was not fire, (normal in some situations.)
I'm bummed about that and that I really though I found a new way to fly and my very very busy field where shoot downs and signal conflicts are the norm. Both my and jets are back on futaba PCM for now.
Since this incident early may and I well over 100 flights on this cermark F16 using futaba PCM 72.
Joe Kelley
From: Dave Searles
The following is my experience and MY OPINION ONLY:
Based on previous reports of pilots who have used the XPS system at Apollo Field Sepulveda Basin, CA, and now my own direct experience, use of this system at this field is an ABSOLUTE NO GO!!
This install was range checked, at my home with the turbine running, I stopped walking away from it in excess of 300' with complete control. Range checked at the field for over 200' complete control. I began my first flight with a plan of keeping the plane in relatively close and at reduced throttle settings to make sure everything worked. After going thru initial retrimming of the aircraft I flew several circuits at no more than 75% throttle and relatively close in for normal turbine flight. Everything seemed rock solid. I had one minor slow response on the last circuit prior to setting up for landing, but it was so minor it could have just been the plane still needing a little more trim set.
Landing was perfect, so I refueled, recharged and began flight two with the intent of extending the flight envelope a little farther outbound and depth away. I took off, turned outbound and then downwind climbing with the turbine at full throttle, allowing it to pick up some speed. I let it proceed a little further downwind this time before beginning the base turn to upwind. At the point I wanted to make my base turn to upwind I felt no response to input. Then the landing gear extended, which was my indication that the receiver was in failsafe. It continued for what seemed like an eternity, and then I saw the gear retract again. I immediately put the plane into a hard bank to the left to bring it back towards the field. Just as the nose came around to approximately pointing at me, still in a bank, the gear extended again, FAILSAFE. This time the nose tucked straight down, with the belly towards me I could see the gear still extended. At about 30'-50' above ground the gear again retracted, but it was too late. The plane impacted, turbine running at idle, and a full fuel load. EVERYTHING BURNED!!!! The XPS receiver ejected from the plane on impact and appears to have no damage. Everything else, TOTAL LOSS!!
My previous experience with this receiver consists of watching Darcy Wingo fly the Hell out of it in his Flash at Buttonwillow and Phoenix, with absolutely no concerns! So I felt relatively comfortable putting it into a proven airframe and installation with well over 300 flights on it with never a glitch. I installed the receiver high above everything else in the aircraft and had freshly charged batteries which were topped off between flights. All to no avail. In the same area of the field that others had reported problems in reception with their XPS systems, I went into lockout twice, and lost my aircraft!
I have no idea what the problem is or why. I am not an electronics expert! But I will give my absolute support to the concept that this system is UNSAFE, to fly at the Apollo field location.
David Searles
Gentlemen
I would like to bring to your attention a brewing problem regarding the 2.4 Gigahertz Technology.
It’s been brought to my attention that there is a small Manufacturer of these radio equipment by the name of Xtreme Link
That has been selling Modules and receivers for various radio’s as a 3rd party add on which will make your standard transmitter into 2.4 gigahertz.
As of now based on my immediate knowledge, there has been 4 of these devices used at the basin with poor results.
The last one resulted in a lockout crash on Woodley Blvd.
This issue has been forwarded to AMA also and they are looking into it
These radios will be banned at the LA-Jets Summer event. I would like to see them not used at the Basin until
further notice.
This is only for the manufacturer listed above. It is not for Spektrum or the new Futaba or JR.
You will find a draft of different incidents below.
Please forward me your opinion.
All the Best
Jason Pakfar
Valley Flyers President
To Whom It May Concern:
I purchased one of the first production XPS Tx modules for a Futaba 9C and 10Ch Rx from the Toledo show several months ago. After installing the equipment per manufacturer recommendations, I flew it on a 40 sise Zero at the Sepulveda Basin in California. While flying the airplane, I felt the controls to be “sluggish”. This did not inspire confidence. I immediately landed the airplane after approximately two minutes of flight. I removed the Rx from the airplane and replaced it with the original 72mhz rx. I flew the airplane again and everything was back to “normal”. The controls felt solid without and perceived “sluggishness”
In conclusion I do not feel confident in the XPS system as it is now. I would not recommend the system to be flown at the Sepulveda Basin.
Vahe (Mike) Arabian
AMA 734177
Turbine Waiver FW12620
From: Joe Kelley [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:25 PM
To: Jason Pakfar
Subject: XPS
Jason this is the report from my flight log the day of the incident.
After 28 flights I had a lockout with my jet shortly after takeoff. Mushy controls etc then total loss of control. I pulled up my gear switch and off turbine switch as pre-crash procedure. Just as it was about 15' in the air I got it back pushed the nose down and got enough speed for an ok flair, the rough ground and impact messed up my new jet pretty bad but it might fly again. Fixing all day yesterday and the day before. Test run engine and all systems seem to check out. Batteries charged, all connections made, radio seemed to work post mortem.
XPS and Jim are well aware of this and have requested my module and receiver to be shipped back. I had 28 successful flights on this plane with absoulutly no changes at all to my plane or accidents. Not sure about what any of that means as I don't have real equipment and training to measure 2.4Ghz Whatever happened I am out an airframe even though it may fly, it looks really bad for a new jet. Bottom line no one physically got hurt and there was not fire, (normal in some situations.)
I'm bummed about that and that I really though I found a new way to fly and my very very busy field where shoot downs and signal conflicts are the norm. Both my and jets are back on futaba PCM for now.
Since this incident early may and I well over 100 flights on this cermark F16 using futaba PCM 72.
Joe Kelley
From: Dave Searles
The following is my experience and MY OPINION ONLY:
Based on previous reports of pilots who have used the XPS system at Apollo Field Sepulveda Basin, CA, and now my own direct experience, use of this system at this field is an ABSOLUTE NO GO!!
This install was range checked, at my home with the turbine running, I stopped walking away from it in excess of 300' with complete control. Range checked at the field for over 200' complete control. I began my first flight with a plan of keeping the plane in relatively close and at reduced throttle settings to make sure everything worked. After going thru initial retrimming of the aircraft I flew several circuits at no more than 75% throttle and relatively close in for normal turbine flight. Everything seemed rock solid. I had one minor slow response on the last circuit prior to setting up for landing, but it was so minor it could have just been the plane still needing a little more trim set.
Landing was perfect, so I refueled, recharged and began flight two with the intent of extending the flight envelope a little farther outbound and depth away. I took off, turned outbound and then downwind climbing with the turbine at full throttle, allowing it to pick up some speed. I let it proceed a little further downwind this time before beginning the base turn to upwind. At the point I wanted to make my base turn to upwind I felt no response to input. Then the landing gear extended, which was my indication that the receiver was in failsafe. It continued for what seemed like an eternity, and then I saw the gear retract again. I immediately put the plane into a hard bank to the left to bring it back towards the field. Just as the nose came around to approximately pointing at me, still in a bank, the gear extended again, FAILSAFE. This time the nose tucked straight down, with the belly towards me I could see the gear still extended. At about 30'-50' above ground the gear again retracted, but it was too late. The plane impacted, turbine running at idle, and a full fuel load. EVERYTHING BURNED!!!! The XPS receiver ejected from the plane on impact and appears to have no damage. Everything else, TOTAL LOSS!!
My previous experience with this receiver consists of watching Darcy Wingo fly the Hell out of it in his Flash at Buttonwillow and Phoenix, with absolutely no concerns! So I felt relatively comfortable putting it into a proven airframe and installation with well over 300 flights on it with never a glitch. I installed the receiver high above everything else in the aircraft and had freshly charged batteries which were topped off between flights. All to no avail. In the same area of the field that others had reported problems in reception with their XPS systems, I went into lockout twice, and lost my aircraft!
I have no idea what the problem is or why. I am not an electronics expert! But I will give my absolute support to the concept that this system is UNSAFE, to fly at the Apollo field location.
David Searles
08-01-2007 | 07:46 AM
#21
RCU Forum Manager/Admin
My Feedback: (9)
RE: 2.4
I'm going to lock down this thread. It started off borderline at best in pertaining to the AMA. Yes, there was one quick mention of the AMA in the beginning, but overall this thread has nothing to do with the AMA. This discussion about 2.4 Ghz radios has plenty of exposure on other forums in RCU and I urge members that are interested in it follow these other threads.
Ken
Ken
