You should be getting that kind of range with the antenna removed on a 10x.

I lost a Kangaroo when it went into failsafe on final because I range tested with the antenna installed but collapsed all the way. I think the best I got was about 200', but flew it anyway. That was with a JetCat V2.0 ECU. I was able to improve the range considerably with a Revolution whip antenna and a new RX (JR945). Then when I upgraded to V4.0 ECU it got even better.

I think Chris hit the points. Do not have the regulators mounted right next to the RX. Move them away if possible. Let me know if that doesn't work.

IMO, there's no need for a whip antenna, particularly in a BobCat. The antenna out the wing is an excellent position.

300' with the antenna off is more then you need. I usually accept no less then 60-70 paces, which for me is probably more like 180'. Of course, an antenna fully out, long distance range check is really the best way to check things, but sometimes that is not practical.

Thanks guys
I'm pretty sure I know what I did wrong now. I ran that phone cable looking thing that goes to the turbine right by the receiver. I'll range check it without the antenna in before I try a flight. I'll update after I get to fly it next saturday.
Scott

I'm just not getting it. Current theory is he's getting a failsafe routinely 4 times in a row at about the same flight time. Has to be a real one because even with the miss set throttle he's not moving the trim down in flight so it's a real loss of RF at the receiver end. His ECU shows "R/C Off" and not "Failsafe" (and has he said that's a flight result or from his last ground run??) because of the programming - the ECU see's R/C Off rather than a failsafe from the receiver. And he's thinking the data cable next to the receiver is the issue for the range check and the flameouts. What happened to "Hold" mode in this scenario. How long does his receiver hold before doing the presets? Did he notice a "Hold" on the controls? Because it's an R/C Off the solenoid would shut immediately, cutting off fuel and yet there's cases here with a smoke trail.

Hurry up and fly again so we can see the next chapter unfold!

How are your standard ground range checks looking?

Matt
I reprogrammed the ECU yesterday. I also realized I had run all the wiring from the ECU to the turbine right by the receiver. Not sure what I was thinking, I know better. I'll try and do a range check tonight in my yard and report back.
Scott

Range check results: I got 130 as big as I could step paces with the antenna off. If I held it above my head I could get more. I then installed the antenna and walked to end of our dirt road which is almost a half mile. My son on the other end with the two way radios reported everything working. This is significantly better than I got at the flying field on test flight day. In fact after a disappointing test on the ground we put it on the table for a second test. I have had this receiver in my old Maverick and Bobcat #1 neither of which were crashed. That's why I was surprised with the results on test fly day. I really think moving the ECU cables just improved my range.
Scott

It seems my problem has been solved. I logged three 8 minute + flights today. Thanks for the advice Tony F and others.
Good Luck
Scott

Looks like JetCat have a bit of work to do concerning screening of leads etc. from/to the ECU.
Using any old phone cable is not the best way to go I feel.
I once had a problem when my trasnmitter was about 6 inches from the phone cable from ECU to Turbine. Very strange things were being shown on the Graphic display. Took me about 1/2 hour to suss it out.

Now we are cooking with grease ---- Tony has got it ---

Your JR with trans antenna removed should get a base line range check clean all directions with no turbine equipment operating or plugged in of a least 300 feet ----- if it won't send it in and get it fixed.

At full throttle and ready for flight everything operating, you should be able to get a clean range check a minimum of 225 feet ant removed. I've got a whole bunch of ideas on how to improve a bad range check but from what you and others have said --- just do the base line RF check and then check the below items. I think your problems will disappear ------

1. What version of ECU are you using? Should be 4.0(d) or newer.

2. I also would never fly with one receiver battery pack, two batteries, two switches, and I don't like regulators. Why unless you plan to use packs with more than six volts output, 5 cell packs will not sustain voltage levels high enough to harm anything.
Lee H. DeMary
AMA 36099

Lee
It's the 4.0 L version. A couple of my buddies are running the two pack two switch system. I've been considering it.
Scott

Scott
1. You will do more than consider a two pack setup if you install a digital volt meter (i4c) take a look at it before and after a run-up and taxi around ----- add enough time to the ground experiment to include a flight ----say a total of 12 mins. Then move all flight controls and watch the voltage readings ----- that will be the last time you'll fly with only one pack!
2. OK if you "are sure" the ECU is that new ----- then do the baseline, and full throttle range checks remember you want to see no less than 225 feet full throttle ---- no trans antenna, aircraft above ground level about 3 feet ---- all directions ----same battery pack you have now ---- for this range check --- use the same setup you've been having the "timed trouble with" ------
3. Make sure you do the failsafe setup for the turbine correctly as Tony mentioned. You said you were charging the ECU batt each time great -----and after a good run time how does that packs voltage look? What fail safe settings are you programing into you 10X?? How about a good up elevator failsafe kick so you can see an airborne RF problem -----
Lee

Lee
Thanks for the advice. I think I'll pull out the 4.8 1800 pack and try a double switch, double 1400 pack set up before I fly again. The turbine battery has needed very little charge after a flight.
Scott