I'm not sure exactly what that quote means. It could be a disclaimer because of selling spektrum so cheap. All I can say is I have 10 of them and probably 20+ in the club. No one has reported any brown outs or failure of any kind. All sorts of plane sizes are being flown on them.

Or we could just avoid speculation and if you really wanted to know if it's real I'm sure Horizon would help you to determine it.

I don't think I will do that. As I said I have been flying with them for some time. I damage more planes through stupidity than by bad RX's. If someone else wants to buy one and do that and post the results that would be OK also.

I've used orange receivers since last year with my JR 2.4 transmitter. I have them in an Evader, a StrykerQ, Phase 3 F-16s, a Stinger, a GP F-20, a Mini Ultra Stik, a Hobby Lobby F-35, a Demon pylon racer, and a motor glider. I use satellites on all. The StrykerQ has been over 1,000 feet (with permission of the tower, using an Eagle tree altimeter); the Evader is a rocket and I use two HXT900 servos in it ($2.49 each); my buddy flies a GP Edge 540 50". Collectively we estimate we have over 1,000 flights on our planes. This is not an exaggeration. We fly three times a week, about 8-10 flights a day, each of us. In 1,000 flights or more, we have had no documented issues proving the receivers were at fault in any crashes. I say they are bulletproof and would have no fear using them in anything. Do I have other planes and helis worth a lot of money? YES. Do I use them in those airframes? NO, mainly because those planes and helis were purchased before the orange receivers existed. Bottom line, buy one or two, and have no fear.

That sounds correct.

It's a pretty blatant copyright violation.

At least with the "Orange" RX's there is NO attempt to make them look like Spektrum products.

The other 6ch clones I've purchased at LHS' and local shows also make no attempt at looking or being marketed as Spektrum RX's.

As I mentioned earlier, these have EXACTLY the same circuit boards as the Orange 6ch and both have proven to work exactly the same way, which in this case has been problematic for me... the 6CH's likely have a firmware bug carried over. Some people may have better luck if their firmware code is a different rev but there is no way to tell what you have.

Forgetting their reliability, which I am not disputing... I'm sure they work fine.

That disclaimer is a way of preventing someone from sueing them for false advertising.

It basically tells you that they are an exact ( visually ) copy... something that is technically illegal as it represents the product as being from a different company than the one that sold it.

Yup.

I've done slant distance tests out to 1800 feet w/o any problems with the Orange RX's.

The problems I've had with the 6Ch are not due to range or brownouts... ( it occurred within 50 feet of me repeatable on three different 6CH RX's, but not so on the other RX's. )
Just a firmware glitch, that hopefully has been corrected by now.

-

BTW: To those denigrating the multiple node ( satellite ) systems... here's some empirical evidence for you....

There is a You Tube video up where someone in the U.K. took a Spektrum RX out to 2.2 kilometers line of sight slant distance ( 7217 feet! ) on a stock setup, utilizing FPV for visual control.

He then proceeded to replace the TX's antenna with a directional Yagi type and was able to achieve another .7 kilometers of distance.

I'm sorry but what does that prove? I don't think anyone is doubting that the multiple node system works. Just that it doesn't seem like it should be needed. Neither Futaba or Hitec do satellite rx and their systems work just fine.

While I dont know enough to say that the 6ch Orange RX is or isnt the same as the board used in the "suspect" AR6200's I own. I can say that the Orange RX 6ch only have a single antanae lead(short red one). The "suspect"6200's have dual antane on the main RX, as well as the Sat RX too. Looks in every way the same as an original one. Only thing, the ones I bought from oomodel came in a clear plastic zippy bag and no documenatation whatsoever.

Ive not bought the sats for the Orange RX 6ch...so Idont know about their antanae setup.

Actually it proves quite a bit... someone better versed in antenna theory could give you quite an earful too...

You can operate any and all multinode Spektrums WITHOUT the satellite very well if you elect to. They are not "needed". They are an extra measure of safety though.


The multiple nodes permit better reception out to far longer distances. Much longer than what normal RX's can handle.

Try the same thing with a Hitec or a Futaba single node system and see.


And lest you respond with "but we don't fly our planes that far"... remember that this long range test is indicative of better overall sensitivity and multipath image rejection.

Some Futaba's do feature multiple antennas to try to achieve better results and eliminate multipath problems too, but they don't feature a remote AMP and node.


That's why our Jet guys all swear buy JR/Spektrums and throw in as many nodes as possible to elimate any POSSIBLE chance of LOS failure. You don't HAVE to do this, but it's cheap insurance.

Any way you could post a close picture of the circuit board w/o destroying yours?
Preferably of the side with the SMD's, not the trace side.

I'd love to compare them to both the Orange RX which I highly doubt are the same but who knows... and to the real 6200's.

When I've compared the Orange 6CH RX's to the black and silver clone RX's I purchased at an LHS I found the boards to be identical with identical traces. Only the types of capacitors used varied a bit.

If anyone is interest I can post pics...

The Orange had only one antenna, but the black and silver clone had two, so after I had the problem with the 6CH I also tried soldering on the second antenna to see if this improved matters. The support circuitry is there for BOTH antennas on the Orange RX's.

I'll make no promises here, but will see what I can do. I think I have a plane on the bench right now that I have one of these 6200's in. I could snap some pics and upload sometime tonight or this weekend.

T-Ball with my sonis running me ragged right now...so thats why I said "I'll make no promises." LOL. I'm liable to forget about this thread until I get back to work on Monday. I dont get online much at home as I work with computers and networks for a living. Just makes me want to not even think about a D*#M computer till I get back to work. LOL

You didn't say WITHOUT a satellite in your original post, you said "stock setup". Which for many means WITH a satellite, especially in the case of the AR8000 which will not function without the satellite. Hence my confusion as to what your point was.

Don't feel ANY obligation to do so nor is there any time frame... your intent is appreciated.

It would be interesting to compare them though, particularly against a real 6200.

People have with the Hitec and it worked, test 2.65km on the ground and 2km in the air:
http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/...e-flights-with

So please stop bashing the range of others without first doing your homework.

Oh, PLEASE....

You elected to "bash" multi-node RX's as if they are/were somehow inferior, indicative of absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of antenna theory.

The Aurora system you cited does NOT utilize a stock antenna setup.

How about doing YOUR homework instead?

I said the multi-node didn't seem like it was needed. You provided proof that it wasn't needed. I never disputed your proof nor did I claim it was inferior and never did I claim to have knowledge of antenna theory. You however stated that Hitec could not do the same. I provided a link showing it did. And yes it was using a stock antenna, the custom antenna used were on the FPV equipment, not the RC equipment. So at this point lets just settle on saying both systems can do ~2km distance which is more then the average r/c user will be doing and be happy.

I don't dispute that.... I only dispute the implication that multi-node systems are somehow inferior, they are not.

Let me circle back. Spektrum marketing/packaging tends to imply that satellite rx are required for the average user to reliably use their rx. This is compounded by the fact that they designed the AR8000 (and others I'm guessing) to require one to work. So one of two things is true, either the rx itself is an inferior design which needs a satellite to function reliably for the average user, or it's just marketing bs to get you to buy more stuff from them. I'm not saying which one is true, personally I'd really like to know which one it is.

No, it implies that the satellite RX provides for better multipath rejection and less chance of polar dropouts that other RX's can experience with a single antenna/node.
This is true.

Try one sometime without the satellite and you'll see it works fine, but it is not optimal. For best reception use the satellite as it is designed and supplied.

As a very loose analogy: Your car will drive just fine without the spare tire too, but your better off with it in the trunk.

And there's that specious implication again...that some how multiple nodes equates to "inferior" when the exact opposite is true.... it is a SUPERIOR technique, Futaba's and Airtronics choice NOT to use one not-with-standing. The latter two vendors are relying upon other mechanism to even the playing field vis-a-vis marketing claims and product tests.


Here it is:

Multiple reception paths are almost always better than single ones.
Multiple reception paths help overcome the polarized nature of antenna transmission and reception patterns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_diversity


Spektrum/JR includes the satellite on many RX's and makes it optional on others.
You DO NOT HAVE TO BUY the satellite if it is not included, but your assured better performance/reception if you do.

I'd advise people not to sweat it on the smaller planes, but maybe opt for the satellite options on the larger ones, and/or planes with a lot of internal wiring/plumbing...


Futaba came out with their nice S-Bus system... is it marketing BS to get you to buy more stuff from them?

Some might argue it is... others may tell you that this is a superior way to hook up multiple servos on larger planes.

I agree with the latter, but those who argue the former, probably don't have the larger planes that may take advantage of it so they can't see the rational.

Next time you make this argument I think the emergency brake would be a better example.

Heh, yes...

When you pay for nothing, you get nothing..

opjose - were you on a debate team? Excellent rebuttal.

You get what you pay for. I agree with others here that Id not trust a receiver that is cheaper than a glow ignitor[:'(]