i have an aeroworks edge 450 ,33% with a da 100. should i run 2 receivers or one ,and why ?

THANK YOU

I have always run one receiver.
I have my first 33% plane and I am planning to go with two receivers.
While I have never had a receiver fail in the air, I don't want to take the chance and crash the plane. I know the failure rate will increase(mtbf*2), but the chance of a total failure will decrease(Sqrt((mtbf^2)*2).

This topic has been beaten a couple of times. I still cant decide whats best. Receiver failure is a remote possibilty, but a possibilty all the same. I am running one airplane on 1 receiver and a powerbox, and another on 2 receivers. Single receiver is cheaper, and easier to install. With the powerbox I get battery redundancy, signal amplification, and short circuit protection (IMO the most likely cause of receiver failure). With dual receivers I get the piece of mind that if one fails I still have a good chance of recovering the airplane in big pieces rather than little ones. It was a little more complex to wire up, not too bad, the antenna routing takes a little more thought, and some folks claim you lose range - I dont notice it if its true. There is no short circuit protection were a wire to fray or break under vibration - thus the wiring gets a lot more scrutiny than the other between flights - on the bright side there is battery redundancy. If DA ever gets the DPSI Twin in stock, I think thats gonna be the cats meow, hands down the most bulletproof setup. True receiver, and electrical redundancy, all in one box, and it will be going into my dual receiver setup.

Both setups are rock solid. But without a powerbox I would certainly do dual receivers.

Roger

Over 30 years I have lost at least 6 planes directly due to reciever problems. Another 12 or so were close calls, but I got the plane back on the ground in one piece. In that same time, I have lost only one plane due to battery failure.

I bet everyone is running a second battery on their 33% planes.........right? More than one servo for each flight control? But considering a single reciever..........??

A 33% plane is about $3,000. A second reciever is about $150 and 2 ounces. In my mind the math points to adding the extra reciever.

CJ

And you can land your plane fine with 1/2 of your control surfaces (I have done it twice). Replaced an elevator servo, forgot to put locktight on the servo arm and it fell off during flight. Flew approximately 1/2 of my IMAC sequence and some 3D before even realizing that I only had 1 elevator. Also had the same thing happen with an aileron (but from a different reason). Bottom line is that these planes are very stable and if you still have control over one side of the plane you can more than likely land just fine. I know mine weren't reciever related, but if it had been I would have been fine (cell go bad in a battery and one rx goes down, switch goes bad, etc).

my $.02




Hey John... you still alive? Cat ready to swim again?

I GUESS I KNEW BEFORE I ASKED.RECV'RS ARE CHEAPER THAN ENTIRE AIRPLANES .

THANKS TO ALL THAT WERE KIND ENOUGHT TO ANSWER .

AS SOMEONE ONCE SAID,"I MISS MY WIFE........BUT MY AIM IS IMPROVING!

what it the "DPSI Twin" that was mentioned from DA??

Thanks,
Tony

http://rc-electronic.com/html/englisch/englisch.html

Look for the DPSI Twin.

thats going to be VERY expensive!!

why is the dpsi better than just two receivers and two batteries??

Yep, its not going to be cheap.

Why is it better than 2 rx/2batts?
It uses on rx at a time. If that rx fails, its switches automatically to the second, thus *complete* TRUE redundancy is achieved rather than loosing half the airplane (same concept for the batteries), and with only one rx active at a given time, it eliminates the (perceived IMO) range loss of a dual rx system.
It amplifies the signal to the servos.
It provides short circuit protection.
It regulates voltage (selectable) to the servos and the receiver - separately. Can be used with LiPo or NiCad or NiMH.
It allows for the use of two separate rx's on different freqs that can be selected during flight with a switch on the tx, making a very interesting "buddy box" possible.

IMHO, all together in one little box, that is a lot of warm fuzzies on a GS airplane. I dont think the cost is worthwhile for anything under a 40%, but for my $6000 models it seems to be a small price to pay.

Roger

I didn't see a price.
How much are they?

does that mean that you're always using one rx, and one is always the backup and never used??

No, I got my second receiver back from Hobby Services a week ago and I will put it in my plane when I get the chance.

DPSI sounds neat. Trouble is, you're running the whole airplane through a single component.......and if that single component fails.........crash.

Geistware: DA estimates it will be between 400 and 500 bones.

Vatechguy: In principle, yes one rx will be going for the ride as long as there is no failure. If there is a failure, it will be invaluable.

Blowngo: Technically, yes - however if I understand the DPSI correctly, it is a monitor and a switch. Failure of the device would mean you lose redundancy, not the airplane. Loss of the airplane would require a dual device failure. The implied risk vs. the benefit makes it worthwhile.

Roger

As I read the add, it's a battery joiner, voltage regulator, signal comparator, signal amplifier, signal switch, and channel splitter. Am I missing anything? Every wire in the plane is running through a single box, which is modifying the signals and passing them on.

I'd want a little more info before I trusted my 40% to it. That's just me, though.

In the hobby 15 years and have never had a receiver fail. If you isolate the receiver from vibration, and put a piece of tape over the crystal so it can't fall out, and run 2 receiver packs and 2 receiver switches, you've got a bulletproof setup. If you crash a plane, I wouldn't want to stick that receiver in another plane. The receiver components are fragile enough to get damaged in a crash. I have seen batteries and switches fail, so redundancy makes sense for those components.

I'll never go back to 2 receivers again. I just see no need for it. My H9 46% Ultimate ran on 1 receiver with 2 batteries and switches. Perfect right up until I flew it into the ground yesterday [:@]

got pics?

i have a cermark pitts, it runs two y cables (4 aileron servos) on the wings and one on the elevators(2 elevator servos), but i don't want to run y cables and i can't run each servo on there own channals because there are not enough, plus i need an open channal for my smoke, so could i run two receivers and two batteries. Another thing do the receivers need to be pcm, or can i just run standard 8 channal receivers
Thanks
A.D.

Heh.. yep.

Damn Doug, that sucks.

I going with 1 rec and the Duralite Powerbox with the servo programming built in.

DOH!(homer)

that looks like it hurts(your wallet)

Doug,

I so much appreciate someone who will simply say I flew it into the ground rather than try and blame it on the radio, the sun, the electromagnetic flux capacitors in the space station or some other ridiculous excuse.

Thank you!

Better luck on your next one.

Scott

Someone just wrote an article in the AMA magazine stating the opinion that two receivers are not useful and in fact may be harmful due to the increased failure rate and supposedly reduced range. I have heard a bunch of people say that dual receivers aren't necessary in a 33% plane. Okay, then why are they necessary in a 35 or 40%? The aerodynamic loads aren't much different I would guess. The current draw through the receiver is probably comparable. Regardless of the speculation on these two points, I like to err on the side of caution, backup, redundancy so I chose two receivers for my 33% Edge.

Antony