Dansy

My Feedback: (53)

They work very well just like the cb200......

I have 2 one in a Havoc SS and the second is going into my new CARF J-10....currently into assembly

c_makhija

Super...

ravill

My Feedback: (11)

My Ultra B is running a CB 200. Works like a champ!

mugenkidd

My Feedback: (94)

Been looking to upgrade my Radio and considering the Jeti 24. However, I have a quick question on the Jeti 900mhz backup. Sounds enticing, but can anyone give me a scenario in which dual 2.4ghz RXs would fail? I've been running Futaba 2.4 for the last 12 years with hundreds of flights and only had 1 hiccup and that was possibly due to installation error. I would just like to wrap my head around a real world scenario where there would be enough interference for the 900mhz fail safe to be activated.

Bobneal1

My Feedback: (21)

Personally,

I don't think it's for a failure of both 2.4GHZ receivers as much as the noise level on the entire 2.4GHZ frequency band becoming too high to remain in control of the model. If, say you were flying at Joe Nall with many many transmitters turned on, 2.4 may become unusable while you are flying , I have personally seen many crashed aircraft that were "locked out " there. It is nice insurance against this type of control failure.

Dansy

My Feedback: (53)

Been on JETI since they got the DC-16 in, and now on the DC-24....never ever lost a single RX, I fly in Canada and the USA.....I do have 900 in my new build jets since the intro of that RX..one never know might save me a jets one day....

mugenkidd

My Feedback: (94)

Thank you Bob, that makes logical sense. I appreciate the insight. I never fly at any congested shows such as Joe Nall, but that would be a nice feature to have as an option if I ever decided to go to a major event.

CraigG

My Feedback: (40)

There are also a couple of flying sites out West that have really bad electronic noise environments. Guys flying out there claim to have instances where the 900mhz saved them. I think for the rest of us it's mostly a non-issue but nevertheless, it's still nice to have some insurance with these high dollar jets.

jackdiazccs

Thousands of flights both in Venezuela and USA with DS-16 / 2.4 recs ; and the system has "never" switched to the secondary receiver so far.
Peace of mind to know it's there though.

Craig ... getting close .. the third one

Jack

ww2birds

My Feedback: (14)

I started out with 2x2.4 (dual path mode) and a 900 rx on most of my Jeti-equipped planes. In hundreds of flights, and many looks at the telemetry logs, I find that the two 2.4 RXs "track" very well together .. signals and Q factors strong and weak at the same time even though their antennas are orthogonal and fairly far apart in the jet. So I don't think the second RX is really doing anything for improved reliability in terms of the RF link. I do occasionally have switches to 900. Last year at TopGun I had a switch to 900 on almost every lap on the turn over in the general direction of the aviation school .. and saw many planes that looked like they were having momentary lockouts there.

So while I can't say the 900 saved the plane (the loss of 2.4 signal was brief) it was a good demonstration of the utility of the 900 backup.

I am following Danny M's recommendation on newer setups with just one 2.4 and one 900 and have no issues with it at all.

Never had any link reliability problems on 2.4 for 10+ years flying on Futaba 2.4 equipment .. I switched because of the Lua apps and telemetry.

But as our flying fields get more and more stuff in the 2.4 band (e.g. how many wifi setups in campers, phones, tablets) at some point we are going to inevitably have link reliability issues on 2.4 as the band fills up .. regardless of manufacturer. So a backup on a different band is very comforting...

Dave

mugenkidd

My Feedback: (94)

Thanks Dave! That’s exactly the kind of information I was looking for. Thank you so much for taking the time to post this.

Viper1GJ

My Feedback: (20)

Thanks Dave, I have had the same experience. I switched because of the 900 backup and telemetry but now that you have provided me with several Lua programs, it makes it that much better. Could never go back to the old stuff now.
Thanks
Gary

ddennison

My Feedback: (15)

Hi guys,
Looking to upgrade my firmware in my Ds16 and moving to CB 400 for a 30kg project.
I went to find the download list for the transmitter and could not get a download to occur (v 5.04) ...so I went to try the JETI Studio and installed that but it want show me the transmitter wizard? Am I just having a bad night?
Also my DS 16 is about 5 years old - I don't think it has the 900Mhz capability?

Thanks in advance!
Dave

Dansy

My Feedback: (53)

5.03 is the latest for the 16.....the 16 V2 has 5.04

and you don’t have 900 capability....that didn’t exist 8-9 years ago when the TX was design...

wfield0455

My Feedback: (7)

Daniel already answered the first couple of questions. As for Jeti Studio not being able to run the upgrade wizard, does the SD card in your DS16 show up on your desktop when you connect the USB cable between the PC and the DS16 ? When asked to use USB by the DS16 did you say yes ? The USB adapter for receiver upgrades needs to be connected by selecting the connection tab in the lower right of the JEti studio window but the transmitter should automatically mount the SD card on your desktop when you connect the cable to the transmitter and enable the transmitters USB interface. Once that happens then the update wizard should no longer be greyed out and you should be able to backup the transmitter and install the latest upgrade.

ddennison

My Feedback: (15)

thank you, Wayne. I will check on all of that stuff.

I still am not sure why I could not download the old way and use the usb and drag the files over...not flying anytime soon though so have time to figure it out.

Thanks again!

May look into DC24 2.4/900 next as well
Dave

HarryC

My Feedback: (1)

Dave, Jeti does not use that method any more. Updates are released through Studio. Old updates often have not been removed from the relevant web page making it look like Jeti still does it that way but in some cases there are newer updates in Studio than on the web page. Just forget the old way and only use Studio.

ddennison

My Feedback: (15)

Thanks! That is what it was expecting from what I found, glad it wasn't something else.

ddennison

My Feedback: (15)

I have two more questions on this Sunday AM with snow and coffee...

1. With demon cortex and two serial inputs from the receivers, is this not risky as all signal has to go through the cortex? There is no receiver directly to the CB is my point. 2 more plugs per receiver to potentially go wrong? If I add the 900 receiver directly to the CB I could see that causing a problem.

2. With 2H2 tail, what is the best way to have ailevators function as they are only tuned on for 2h1V. Just a separate mix? This will be for an F35. Roll and Pitch will be horizontal stabilizer primarily; ailerons for roll but they will also be used as flaps and either have no ail function then or a very small deflection when used as flaps.

Thanks for any advice.

Dave

tp777fo

My Feedback: (28)

I just did this setup on a JMB T7A. Did a lot of head scraching, cussing and beer drinking but finally got it figured out. Here is how I did it.(not necessarily correct but it works).
set up ailevator function (2h1v) Name rudder 2 as rudder 1. When you look at device explorer you will see 2x rudder1. Both rudders now work together and trims work together.

set up flt modes. I use cruise,takeoff and landing. Then I set up flt mode trim for flaperons activated with the flap switch. When you do this the horz stabs move also when you lower flaps so I trimmed out the stab movement for t/o and landing with flt mode trim. I then slowed flaperon and stab trims using flt mode trim. It all works as I wanted it to now.

Ailerons move in all modes and the stabs move a smaller amount in roll mode. Elev movement is per setup.

Test flight to follow soon. Awaiting another battery and my fearless pilot.

As for the rx directly into cortex i was told even if the gyro portion of cortex dies the rx signal will still route thru to the cb. Dont forget to run a 3rd wire from an unused cb port to the cortex for power redundancy. (Vote for me, I wont raise your taxes!)

ravill

My Feedback: (11)

If you skim the demon cortex thread, there is a way to bypass the cortex with the secondary rx.

I’ve used the cortex and a CB 400 quite a few flights with out any issues.

Dansy

My Feedback: (53)

On m’y bigger jet, I run 3 RX’s only one through the CP....the second 2.4 in RX2 port and the 900 into the ext....

‘I do run a second lead to the CB/CP for additional power.....from a servo port...the first 16 channels in ExBus are stabilized if required.

ddennison

My Feedback: (15)

Thanks
I think that is safer. Worst case you could go in/out of gyro for probably less than 1/10 -1/100 of a second if it switched shy of a much bigger 2.4 drop. This also should maintain all Telemetry.

Dansy

My Feedback: (53)

‘Frankly in 8 years or so of flying with Jeti, I have yet to have a lost signal or drop a RX’s......antenna strength sometimes drops a lot...but never less then 30% which is my alarm......but it’s electronic and jets are not cheap, so it’s a small insurance to double up...now with 900 triple up 😂

ddennison

My Feedback: (15)

I agree.
Having gone through Weatronic first and flown the 2.4 and studying those files we rarely saw a dropped frame and never saw a switched receiver. We could see the lower signal at certain points in a turn depending upon attitude and bank in the MIBO A10 (and Lance in the SR71 - thanks Lance!).

Jeti (for me now since 2014?) has been perfect. I am going to add the 900. I jus need to decide whether to only use the one serial input to the CP. The manual shows when using the serial (single) input to use the servo output from the CP. I think you are saying you do the serial input to the CP, then use Output to RX1 and use the servos as plugged in the central box. This makes sense to me as I will maintain power to all servos and have three independent signals coming in rather than 2-3 that all have to go through the CP (in cast the failed).

I did just watch the video though about the "assist" sending stabilized data with the 2.4 signal disabled and if not configured properly the stabilized data (without tx signal) fooled the CB into not switching to RX 2. A very good lesson with the assist. I don't know if that has been tested with the CP but I will for sure check it.

DD