XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16
04-25-2007, 12:13 PM
#1
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: North Hollywood, CA
Posts: 3,713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16
I flew the XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16 powered by Wren Supersport yesterday. 1 maiden flight + 7 flights. All went perfect. This is a solid solution for me. I have over 200 minutes in the air with my 2.6 extra on it too, same result, perfect radio link. Easy setup too.
Here is a short clip Dr.V took with his camera.
http://rcuvideos.com/item/C8RZ9LLDT1M40CHX
joe
Here is a short clip Dr.V took with his camera.
http://rcuvideos.com/item/C8RZ9LLDT1M40CHX
joe
04-25-2007, 12:41 PM
#2
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
RE: XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16
Can you share some info with us about how the setup etc is done for the XPS system ? e.g. how the installation differs (if at all) from how a regular 73Mhz system would be done, how range checks are done etc ?
Many of us are by now familiar with how the Spektrum installation and range checks etc differ from a regular 72 Mhz system, so it would be handy to have some insight into how the XPS differs.
Thanks,
Gordon
Many of us are by now familiar with how the Spektrum installation and range checks etc differ from a regular 72 Mhz system, so it would be handy to have some insight into how the XPS differs.
Thanks,
Gordon
04-25-2007, 03:47 PM
#4
My Feedback: (44)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Mother Earth, the Sunny side!
Posts: 1,882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16
ORIGINAL: Gordon Mc
Can you share some info with us about how the setup etc is done for the XPS system ? e.g. how the installation differs (if at all) from how a regular 73Mhz system would be done, how range checks are done etc ?
Thanks,
Gordon
Can you share some info with us about how the setup etc is done for the XPS system ? e.g. how the installation differs (if at all) from how a regular 73Mhz system would be done, how range checks are done etc ?
Thanks,
Gordon
, "73Mhz" has not been used for years in the godd Ol' US
04-25-2007, 03:56 PM
#5
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
RE: XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16
ORIGINAL: Ehab
Gordon; I knew ther was something wrong with you man, "73Mhz" has not been used for years in the godd Ol' US
ORIGINAL: Gordon Mc
Can you share some info with us about how the setup etc is done for the XPS system ? e.g. how the installation differs (if at all) from how a regular 73Mhz system would be done, how range checks are done etc ?
Thanks,
Gordon
Can you share some info with us about how the setup etc is done for the XPS system ? e.g. how the installation differs (if at all) from how a regular 73Mhz system would be done, how range checks are done etc ?
Thanks,
Gordon
, "73Mhz" has not been used for years in the godd Ol' US
Uhh.... I fly on channel 39 - that's what - 72.57 Mhz ? Since that's bigger than 72.49, that rounds up to 73 Mhz rather than down to 72 !!
Dincha do math(s) back in the old days when you went to school ?
Gordon
04-25-2007, 04:22 PM
#6
My Feedback: (44)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Mother Earth, the Sunny side!
Posts: 1,882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16
ORIGINAL: Gordon Mc
Dincha do math(s) back in the old days when you went to school ?
Gordon
Dincha do math(s) back in the old days when you went to school ?
Gordon
Now I know the problem with my Math[X(], I learned it in England
, Oh, wait a minute; you do not care, your Scottish
04-25-2007, 07:18 PM
#7
My Feedback: (93)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Troy,
OH
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16
I too have 7 flights on my P60 powered F16 with the Xtremelink system installed. No problems so far, works like a champ! The failsafe is setup at the receiver instead of the transmitter since the transmitter is in PPM mode. The directions are very vague on how the failsafe works but in the testing i have done, it takes a couple of seconds after the transmitter is turned off for the receiver to command the controls to the preset failsafe setting. So, i just setup the failsafe to the low throttle stick and low throttle trim (shutdown). The ECU data terminal does not register a failsafe but it works with about a 2 second delay. So far i have had NO issues with my setup. Works great and looking forward to more flights!
04-26-2007, 07:43 AM
#8
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: North Hollywood, CA
Posts: 3,713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16
Hi Gordon,
I mounted it so the antenna is about 2" away from metal. The module as well as the receiver are programable. The instructions are quite detailed and easy to follow. My concerns at first were Binding, power level and failsafe.
Because the transmitter is operated in PPM mode failsafe is set at the receiver. Very easy.
Here are the instructions.
http://www.xtremepowersystems.net/data/xtremelink.pdf
Range check is performed by drepressing a button on the module to reduce power. I got excellet range checks both with the jet and 2.6 extra. Engines running etc.
HTH
Joe
I mounted it so the antenna is about 2" away from metal. The module as well as the receiver are programable. The instructions are quite detailed and easy to follow. My concerns at first were Binding, power level and failsafe.
Because the transmitter is operated in PPM mode failsafe is set at the receiver. Very easy.
Here are the instructions.
http://www.xtremepowersystems.net/data/xtremelink.pdf
Range check is performed by drepressing a button on the module to reduce power. I got excellet range checks both with the jet and 2.6 extra. Engines running etc.
HTH
Joe
ORIGINAL: Gordon Mc
Can you share some info with us about how the setup etc is done for the XPS system ? e.g. how the installation differs (if at all) from how a regular 73Mhz system would be done, how range checks are done etc ?
Many of us are by now familiar with how the Spektrum installation and range checks etc differ from a regular 72 Mhz system, so it would be handy to have some insight into how the XPS differs.
Thanks,
Gordon
Can you share some info with us about how the setup etc is done for the XPS system ? e.g. how the installation differs (if at all) from how a regular 73Mhz system would be done, how range checks are done etc ?
Many of us are by now familiar with how the Spektrum installation and range checks etc differ from a regular 72 Mhz system, so it would be handy to have some insight into how the XPS differs.
Thanks,
Gordon
04-26-2007, 08:27 AM
#9
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
RE: XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16
Thanks for the link to the manual Joe ... it answered another of my questions for me, though unfortunately the answer is not what I'd hoped to hear. Seems you MUST remove the standard antenna on your TX when using the XPS.
I guess I'm not surprised, but I had hoped it would be otherwise. For people like myself who fly with the TX fully supported by a standard neckstrap, the TX balance is critical - without the antenna installed and extended, the TX will not hang at anything close to the correct angle on the strap. Oh well .... probably not a problem that will bother most users, and I suppose that some non-conductive dummy antenna could be used instead - e.g a wooden dowel shoved in the antenna hole.
Cheers,
Gordon
I guess I'm not surprised, but I had hoped it would be otherwise. For people like myself who fly with the TX fully supported by a standard neckstrap, the TX balance is critical - without the antenna installed and extended, the TX will not hang at anything close to the correct angle on the strap. Oh well .... probably not a problem that will bother most users, and I suppose that some non-conductive dummy antenna could be used instead - e.g a wooden dowel shoved in the antenna hole.
Cheers,
Gordon
05-04-2007, 11:16 AM
#10
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: North Hollywood, CA
Posts: 3,713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16
Hi Guys,
in brief, 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 a ok flair, the rough ground and impact messed up my new jet pretty bad but it might fly again today. Fixing all day yesterday and the day before. Test run engine and all systems green. (Wren). 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'll do that today and report back when I find out anything. I had 28 successful flights on this plane with absoulutly no changes at all to my plane or accidents. There was later reports of lockouts and glitches at my field on 72 that day. Not sure about what any of that means as I don't have real equipment and training to measure that other than my BS meter. Whatever happened I am out an airframe even though it may fly, it looks like *****$,
bottom line no one physically got hurt and there was not fire, (normal in some situations.)
I'm bummed about that and that I really though I found a new way to fly and my very very busy field where shoot downs and signal conflicts are the norm. Both my 2.6 and jet are back on futaba PCM for now. Sorry I could not come on sooner, been locked up in the shop.
XPS will get my mod and receiver and was kind enough to cancell my order for 2 receivers. As of right now I don't have a plane that is expendable or confidence to use XL in my jet or gasser.
This is my honest account.
Blue skys and green lights,
Joe Kelley
in brief, I had a lockout with my jet shortly after takeoff. Mushy controls etc then total loss of control. I pulled up my gear switch and off turbine switch as pre-crash procedure. Just as it was about 15' in the air I got it back pushed the nose down and got enough speed for a ok flair, the rough ground and impact messed up my new jet pretty bad but it might fly again today. Fixing all day yesterday and the day before. Test run engine and all systems green. (Wren). Batteries charged, all connections made, radio seemed to work post mortem.
XPS and Jim are well aware of this and have requested my module and receiver to be shipped back. I'll do that today and report back when I find out anything. I had 28 successful flights on this plane with absoulutly no changes at all to my plane or accidents. There was later reports of lockouts and glitches at my field on 72 that day. Not sure about what any of that means as I don't have real equipment and training to measure that other than my BS meter. Whatever happened I am out an airframe even though it may fly, it looks like *****$,
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 2.6 and jet are back on futaba PCM for now. Sorry I could not come on sooner, been locked up in the shop.
XPS will get my mod and receiver and was kind enough to cancell my order for 2 receivers. As of right now I don't have a plane that is expendable or confidence to use XL in my jet or gasser.
This is my honest account.
Blue skys and green lights,
Joe Kelley
05-04-2007, 03:35 PM
#12
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 4,462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16
Interesting, and I just saw the XPS system advertised in Model Aviation with a street price of $179 fo the reciever and the transmitter module!!!! What a deal, my PCM recievers run $179 by themselves, so I hope they get this issue ironed out. The Flash at CA Jets on XPS was flying flawlessly all weekend so it maybe a location issue in this case. Maybe your flying off acient Indian burial grounds or something!! Sorry to hear about the loss of the plane though.
05-04-2007, 03:41 PM
#13
RE: XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16
XPS has already modified the TX module antenna for improved reception in noisy areas. Hopefully this will make the system even better.
I'm waiting for a module for my Evo and hope all the bugs are worked out when the universal modules are ready to ship.
I'm waiting for a module for my Evo and hope all the bugs are worked out when the universal modules are ready to ship.
05-04-2007, 05:33 PM
#15
RE: XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16
I doubt it. It's an FCC thing. Some say that it attenuates the signal and others say it won't. Since the FCC has never visited my field I would do extensive range tests both ways to determine if it needs removed.
05-05-2007, 12:55 AM
#16
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: North Hollywood, CA
Posts: 3,713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16
Thanks for your words guys. I too thought this was pretty worked out. NOT!, and I can prove it. My jet will fly again soon, on 72! I got 28 great flights then BAM, so take that as you will. Could be that all 2.4 stuff is still too new for my wallet. I sent my module and receiver into XPS today, will see what they say and let you all know.
I made this report so someone could benefit and perhaps an injury, loss of property or worst could be avoided. I love this hobby and the friends I fly with.
Joe
BTW, good flying today on 72.
I made this report so someone could benefit and perhaps an injury, loss of property or worst could be avoided. I love this hobby and the friends I fly with.
Joe
BTW, good flying today on 72.
05-05-2007, 11:54 AM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 2,778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16
This is where I think spektrum has done their homework. I think the "dual" receviers is the key for 2.4 ghz. Living out here with Alan Szabo affords me many "sneak peeks" into things like 9cch receivers and modules. There is a reason Spektrum includes 2 linked receivers with all their full scale systems. 2.4 is a VERY linear signal, and with all the CF and other large obstructions like engines, firewalls, metal turbine shrouds, etc., it will not take much for a single receiver to become "blocked."
A second linked receiver is the answer. The 9ch and soon to be 12ch will also have the option to add a third linked receiver. These additional receivers are not very much money at all, and could mean the difference between crashing.....and not.
Just my 2 cents. I am not sponsored by either.
A second linked receiver is the answer. The 9ch and soon to be 12ch will also have the option to add a third linked receiver. These additional receivers are not very much money at all, and could mean the difference between crashing.....and not.
Just my 2 cents. I am not sponsored by either.
05-06-2007, 05:06 PM
#18
My Feedback: (16)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lake Havasu City,
AZ
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16
We can add up to 256 extra receivers with our system, but it really is not necesary. Maybe we should change our marketing strategy so we can sell you a bunch of something that you don't need.
05-06-2007, 05:12 PM
#19
RE: XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16
ORIGINAL: C2_Hobbies
This is where I think spektrum has done their homework. I think the "dual" receviers is the key for 2.4 ghz.
This is where I think spektrum has done their homework. I think the "dual" receviers is the key for 2.4 ghz.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_5816171/tm.htm
I really hope we can get down to what the deal is, I really do prefer the option of the 2.4 over 72 myself...
05-10-2007, 06:22 PM
#20
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: North Hollywood, CA
Posts: 3,713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16
Cermark F16 back into service 5-10-07. 5 flights logged, all perfect. Futaba PCM installed and good range check. Waiting for Jim Drew at xtremepowersystems to investigate and test my xtreme link module and 10 channel receiver. No word yet, it got there monday. The plane is what we call a 10 footer and looks great in the air.!~).
Thanks for the kind words and just wanted to give some positive feed back to the community. The thing flys good! LAjets ready set.
Joe
Thanks for the kind words and just wanted to give some positive feed back to the community. The thing flys good! LAjets ready set.
Joe
05-20-2007, 04:37 PM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 2,778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16
ORIGINAL: JimDrew
We can add up to 256 extra receivers with our system, but it really is not necesary. Maybe we should change our marketing strategy so we can sell you a bunch of something that you don't need.
We can add up to 256 extra receivers with our system, but it really is not necesary. Maybe we should change our marketing strategy so we can sell you a bunch of something that you don't need.
Actually, you should just change your marketing strategy to fulfilling the promises made by your initial marketing strategy.
05-20-2007, 04:44 PM
#22
RE: XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16
ORIGINAL: C2_Hobbies
Actually, you should just change your marketing strategy to fulfilling the promises made by your initial marketing strategy.
ORIGINAL: JimDrew
We can add up to 256 extra receivers with our system, but it really is not necesary. Maybe we should change our marketing strategy so we can sell you a bunch of something that you don't need.
We can add up to 256 extra receivers with our system, but it really is not necesary. Maybe we should change our marketing strategy so we can sell you a bunch of something that you don't need.
Actually, you should just change your marketing strategy to fulfilling the promises made by your initial marketing strategy.
05-20-2007, 05:33 PM
#23
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: North Hollywood, CA
Posts: 3,713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16
At LAjets this weekend it was installed on a jet and locked out both times it was flown from what was seen and said. Perhaps the owner will chime in. With hope this system as well as all others will become solid and will enhance out modeling lifestyles and safety. My F16 has been fixed/rebuilt and back on Futaba PCM for over 25 flights now and is rock solid. XPS said nothing was wrong with my module and receiver and sent me a brand new module and receiver. Hmmmm.. I asked for my money back and was denied. Thanks. The DX7s are solid at my field and with hope Futaba will arrive with their solution soon. Enter at your own risk.
Fly safe.
Joe
ps. It works great until it locks out, then you are on your own.
Fly safe.
Joe
ps. It works great until it locks out, then you are on your own.
ORIGINAL: rjbob
The system fulfills all the promises I've seen...my XPS works great!
ORIGINAL: C2_Hobbies
Actually, you should just change your marketing strategy to fulfilling the promises made by your initial marketing strategy.
ORIGINAL: JimDrew
We can add up to 256 extra receivers with our system, but it really is not necesary. Maybe we should change our marketing strategy so we can sell you a bunch of something that you don't need.
We can add up to 256 extra receivers with our system, but it really is not necesary. Maybe we should change our marketing strategy so we can sell you a bunch of something that you don't need.
Actually, you should just change your marketing strategy to fulfilling the promises made by your initial marketing strategy.
05-20-2007, 10:18 PM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 2,778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16
Actually Eddie, if you actually read the thread, the crash had nothing to do with spread spektrum, or specifically Spektrum. It had to do with battery voltage dropping too low.
ORIGINAL: Eddie P
Seems Spektrum has their own issues too. More homework to be done by us all?
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_5816171/tm.htm
I really hope we can get down to what the deal is, I really do prefer the option of the 2.4 over 72 myself...
ORIGINAL: C2_Hobbies
This is where I think spektrum has done their homework. I think the "dual" receviers is the key for 2.4 ghz.
This is where I think spektrum has done their homework. I think the "dual" receviers is the key for 2.4 ghz.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_5816171/tm.htm
I really hope we can get down to what the deal is, I really do prefer the option of the 2.4 over 72 myself...
05-20-2007, 10:20 PM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 2,778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: XPS Xtremelink in a Cermark F16
For us lazy people
ORIGINAL: Mark Taylor
I would like to set the record straight on the crash of my F-100 at TG this weekend, as it seems many are drawing conclusions based on limited information and speculation.
First and foremost, I am 100% confident in the Spektrum RF link, and my next jet will also have a Spektrum system in it. I have been waiting my entire modeling life for a radio system to come along that offers the safety from someone turning on my frequency and shooting me down. Let me, also, state that I am 100% confident that pilot error was not the cause of the crash.
Through the use of the Spektrum flight log data, we know that the RF link was completely solid in all 10 flights prior to the crash, not to mention extensive range testing to verify solid operation in the Flite-metal environment. The flight log provides performance data on each of the 4 receivers in the airplane, as well as total frame losses and whether a failsafe occurred. The worst data we ever witnessed (during the initial flight) was 25 frame losses for an entire flight. We were able to use the data to optimize one of the receiver's location and were regularly seeing between 0 and 6 frame losses in an entire ten minute flight. To put this into perspective, they tell me it takes 44 consecutive frame losses to get a failsafe--slightly less than 1 second.
The fact that another F-100 went in on 72Mhz earlier--reportedly due to a single regulator that was not delivering good voltage under load, had us looking at other elements within the system. Through further discussion with the guys at Spektrum, I was alerted to the fact that the AR9000 receiver stops working much below a 3.5 volt threshold, a so called "brownout", and will go through a re-start once the voltage climbs back up. The bootup would have put the engine at idle (the smartsafe position)--a lockout would have killed the engine.
We quickly started to realize that we, too, may have been getting away with a very marginal power system with the 72meg Rx when we started adding up all the servos (19 of them) going through a single 7.5 amp regulator. Considering that we were about half way through the flight and that we had just completed a dirty pass and were in the process of cleaning up the airplane, starting to G-load for the base turn, we were certainly at a point in the flight where the regulator was likely at peak temperatures and most likely to start giving up. Add the fact that this was the hottest day and hardest we flew the system to date, I would conclude that the single, undersized voltage regulator is the root cause of the crash.
I consider this matter closed.
I would like to set the record straight on the crash of my F-100 at TG this weekend, as it seems many are drawing conclusions based on limited information and speculation.
First and foremost, I am 100% confident in the Spektrum RF link, and my next jet will also have a Spektrum system in it. I have been waiting my entire modeling life for a radio system to come along that offers the safety from someone turning on my frequency and shooting me down. Let me, also, state that I am 100% confident that pilot error was not the cause of the crash.
Through the use of the Spektrum flight log data, we know that the RF link was completely solid in all 10 flights prior to the crash, not to mention extensive range testing to verify solid operation in the Flite-metal environment. The flight log provides performance data on each of the 4 receivers in the airplane, as well as total frame losses and whether a failsafe occurred. The worst data we ever witnessed (during the initial flight) was 25 frame losses for an entire flight. We were able to use the data to optimize one of the receiver's location and were regularly seeing between 0 and 6 frame losses in an entire ten minute flight. To put this into perspective, they tell me it takes 44 consecutive frame losses to get a failsafe--slightly less than 1 second.
The fact that another F-100 went in on 72Mhz earlier--reportedly due to a single regulator that was not delivering good voltage under load, had us looking at other elements within the system. Through further discussion with the guys at Spektrum, I was alerted to the fact that the AR9000 receiver stops working much below a 3.5 volt threshold, a so called "brownout", and will go through a re-start once the voltage climbs back up. The bootup would have put the engine at idle (the smartsafe position)--a lockout would have killed the engine.
We quickly started to realize that we, too, may have been getting away with a very marginal power system with the 72meg Rx when we started adding up all the servos (19 of them) going through a single 7.5 amp regulator. Considering that we were about half way through the flight and that we had just completed a dirty pass and were in the process of cleaning up the airplane, starting to G-load for the base turn, we were certainly at a point in the flight where the regulator was likely at peak temperatures and most likely to start giving up. Add the fact that this was the hottest day and hardest we flew the system to date, I would conclude that the single, undersized voltage regulator is the root cause of the crash.
I consider this matter closed.