ntsmith

The AR8000 has a main receiver with one aerial and the AR9000 has a main receiver with only one aerial. Is there any significant difference in the quality of perceived signal. If no then why have two on the AR9000 and if yes then presumably the AR9000 is significantly better. I am have trouble understanding the logic used in the variants since it is impressed upon us as the buying public that there is signal diversity; if so then surely the AR8000 is a poorer brother to the AR9000 (or any type using a twin aerial arrangement on the main receiver.

BuschBarber

My Feedback: (2)

The AR9000 has 2 Receivers inside the main Receiver case, with 2 antennas. It also has one Satellite Receiver, with 2 antennas, and the ability to add one more Satellite Receiver, with 2 antennas.

If you attached a Flight Logger, to the Data Port on the AR9000, you can track how many times each antenna loses the signal.

ntsmith

"Is there any significant difference in the quality of perceived signal. If no then why have two on the AR9000 and if yes then presumably the AR9000 is significantly better. I am have trouble understanding the logic used in the variants since it is impressed upon us as the buying public that there is signal diversity; if so then surely the AR8000 is a poorer brother to the AR9000 (or any type using a twin aerial arrangement on the main receiver"

Your answer doesn't address the question. Perhaps it was badly put but if the 8000 is OK then why the 9000 since we have three aerials its ability to "see" most of the RF signal is almost as good. Not sure if I can attach the logger to the 8000 but I have had one and frankly its not worth the trouble. I do sometimes record the losses etc on a flight recorder which is a little more useful as you then you know when it happened. I am in the throws of buying another receiver but dont want a 9 channel as with an aerobatic model 6 or 7 is sufficient but I want to know if the 9000 is worth the extra pounds over the 8000 (Three against four aerials or is it anything else that I am missing here?)

BuschBarber

My Feedback: (2)

The AR8000 is a newer Rx than the AR9000. The AR9000 is DSM2 and has been around for at least 4 years. The AR8000 is a DSMX Rx and was just introduced with the Spektrum DX8, this year. I do not have a DX8 or an AR8000 so I cannot speak to the differences. Both will work with a DSM2 transmitter.

Perhaps Andy Kunz will pop in and address your question.

AndyKunz

You need to work on that, Rich.

The AR9000 differences are as noted. You would probably do better using the AR9010, the updated receiver with DSMX. One of the really nice features of DSMX is that it reconnects super fast on startup.

The answer is really "different tools for different models."

Andy

BuschBarber

My Feedback: (2)

It is next on my list, Andy, but the Warbirds need more than 8 channels.

Rob2160

I can't say if the AR9000 is better than the AR8000 due to the number of aerials, but I can say the AR8000 has OUTSTANDING reception.

I walk range test all my new radio components to determine the actual full range.. and the AR8000 is one of the best I have tested..

In fact.. this RX when bound to a JR 11X IS the best i have tested..

Each aerial definately contributes to the overall signal as I shield them all then expose one at a time to test them..

Any single one aerial alone gives great range on the AR8000 and all three combined works even better..

Here is a vid of it with the JR11X (I trust it on my Favourtie 450 Heli)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gl6e25m9WU

ntsmith

Interesting. Using the JR11X so after seeing the video I shant bother with the AR9000 and go with the AR8000
thanks everyone

Rob2160

Of all the radios i have range tested (quite a few different ones) the 11X has the best overall range.

once you install the AR8000 in your aircraft I still recommend doing a "walk range" test..

I never rely on the Power down range check.... I have been in hobby for 34 years and have seen enough aircraft crash (not mine) due to loss of radio contact at a distance.. which ended up being a loose aerial in the TX....

So I fully range check every new radio / rx and installation..

Never had a loss of control in flight.. and I did find one faulty Spektrum clone receiver by doing this.. it only range checked to 150 meters... so I never used it..

SkidMan

My Feedback: (17)

With the telemetry I find it very helpful to do the range test while monitoring the receiver data link data at the transmitter. Since I always test well beyond the recommended 30 paces it is sometimes difficult to tell if the control surfaces are not moving properly due to signal problems. With the live telemetry I can see more data in real time than I can with a flying buddy watching the airplane while I walk with the transmitter. It is interesting to have someone rotate the model through all orientations while you watch the per receiver data. I never grant full trust to a radio system until I slowly build a basis for confidence in the installation and equipment.

By having live telemetry on the quality of the data link this is much faster, easier, and safer than my old land the model and check the data log before flying it again to greater distances.

Yeah, you don't need it but it sure is nice.


Paul