Edgar Perez

My Feedback: (13)

Hello All,

I'm about to select the next setup from my Fei-Bao F-18, and what's wondering what is the latest thinking on the safest and more robust radio link. This is not intended as a brand war, but a quick assessment of the overall sentiment for the state of affairs as of right now.

Hopefully I’m not missing any of the most of the common options…

Thanks for your participation,
Edgar

Delta Mike

My Feedback: (18)

Hi Edgar, I have been flying the Horizion Spectruim Module and the AR9000 reciever In a JR 10X about 35 flights with no problems. I have the system in a Eurosport. Flawless link and no possibility of someone shooting me down...

Dennis

SinCityJets

Spektrum.....foamies.....35%ers.....Turbines. Zero Problems (that I don't induce).

seanreit

My Feedback: (60)

CONTROL LINE!

erbroens

IMO this is the safest.

http://www.acteurope.de/html/rc_dual...cy_system.html

Robrow

From what I understand every system is a compromise, even a normally good RF link is at the mercy of the instalation and operating environment. Logic would dictate that by the very nature of having to have a dual Rx you are not confident in the security of the RF link.

Myself and other smart money have been using Mpx IPD for some years now and although I don't exclude this system from vulnerability I think it is fairly unique in the way the RF signal is interprited, particularly in a 'hostile' environment where you become aware of a problem but retain sufficient control to get the hardware safely back down on the deck where another system would 'lock out'.

Rob.

Edgar Perez

My Feedback: (13)

Hello,

80% of the people think there are better solutions than a single 72Mhz receiver (half of the ones who think its best, indicate Multplex IPD[X(])
No clear winner. Seems we are in a transition period.

ravill

My Feedback: (11)

Many different flights with many different jets with just the regular antenna routed through the fuse or a revolution antenna. I've been very confident in my single JR reciever.

Raf

JetsRC

Hola Edgar, unless someone turns their radio on your channel, for me 72mhz has been very reliable and never had a problem. I have allways used a whip antenna on all my jets.
I was thinking on switching to the new Futaba 2.4 GHZ, but after reading some posts here on the futaba forum on RCU it is clear that they are not suporting jets or any big fiber/carbon fiber planes yet. They are not giving solutions into sticking the antenas out of the fuselage neither. So I guess until Futaba or other manufactures don't say it is clear to use this system in jets I would stick to the 72 mhz. Eventually I think everything will get supported in the future but I guess further testing is still necesary.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_5855351/tm.htm

Michel

Airforce7

My Feedback: (31)

Hey Sean, that's pretty funny. But guess what happened this weekend. I heard from a club member who was there that a turbine waivered pilot crashed his control line plane this weekend after the club meeting because one of the wires broke. Go figure... []

dragonpilot

My Feedback: (38)

Michel,
I just posted this in that Futaba post. I hope to get an answer there to clear the message there instead of speculating.
Here is what I wrote:"Hello Bax,

Simple question here, I've witnessed turbine powered jets flying with the competitors DX-7 and the 10X spread spectrum modules with no problems, at least 25 flights I've seen. These were Fiberglass with some carbon fiber fuses. The receivers were mounted inside the jets under the cockpit/canopies. I understand what you are saying about frequency hi low blocking. This is common knowledge. I'd like to think Futaba has the superior technology with regards to 2.4G and is what I've concluded based on paper research. But, from what I'm reading here on this post is that Futaba is not recommending Futaba's 2.4G modules/receivers to be used in jets unless the receiver wires poke thru the fuse at some point and that jet flyers should go with different technology at this point in time if considering 2.4G. Can you please clarify or correct this. Thanks so much."

Aero65

My Feedback: (2)

Hi all

We have 2 X Jetlegend F-22's and 1 SM F-16 with Xtremepowersystems XPS 2.4 modules in JR 9303's. Around 25 flight between the 3 in the last 3 weeks no issues so far. At our field we have aircraft with all 3 2.4 systems flying. XPS EDF F-16 almost ready to fly.

XPS 3 radios
DX-7 2 radios
Fasst 6EX 1 radio

jetnuno

Hi Edgar

I have the same plane you have and I am going with weatronics receiver. 2.4Ghz is the future, but in my opinion has to maturate a bit more.

Weatronics seems to me the best radio link for the time being plus all the nice features of it.

Nuno

Edgar Perez

My Feedback: (13)

Nuno,

I'm considering the weatronic. However wanted to assess if now was a good time to go directly to 2.4Ghz. After all, the weatronic is a good chump of change and did not want to find out I can get equal or better protection at much lower cost.

Seems early adopters are going thru the 2.4Ghz now (JR, Futaba, XPS)... but most people are on the sideline waiting for more maturity..

Chris Smith

My Feedback: (2)

Wouldn't the best RF link depend on your priorities? If you are concerned with interference there is no evidence that any one of 35mhz, 36mhz, 72mhz, or 2.4Ghz performs better than the other assuming proper installation and power supplies. In fact, some manufacturers suggest 2.4G RF links can be masked easier than long antenna low band links like 72.

But, if you are sick of getting shot down, or are sick of worrying about weak frequency control and the "other humans" factor, then 2.4SS may be the better solution. It is the only solution if you want to eliminate that hazard or variable.
To me that puts 2.4Ghz SS a leg up.

Now, if only the manufacturers would improve their 2.4G installation instructions and commit to carbon fiber and metalcote type installation solutions.

Chris

Edgar Perez

My Feedback: (13)

To me the best is the system that can better cope with the typical turbine jet components RFI, interference (natural or 'created' by another human or system) and to some extend stupidity (mine or a fellow flier[X(]). This include the ability to minimize the impact of it by having features like redundancy (ala Weatronic) or multiple frecuencies (a la 2.4Ghz).

martinan

It sounds like the best system would be a dual transmitter/receiver system that simultaneously scans two different frequencies (one scans 2.4gHZ and the other 72mHZ).

Or a dual receiver/antenna system that scans 2.4gHZ from both ends of the spectrum (no pun intended).


Hmmm...