I have taken an age to build my Flash and am finally at the stage of programming my 'old' 35MHz Weatronic RX. In doing so I visited the Weatronic website to download some software (which didn't work but that is another story). On the website I see the 2.4 FHSS system and it looks really good. Has anyone used it? Any pictures of how the TX module is attached (ideally to a Futaba 9Z but any will do)?

Secondly, can someone put my mind at rest about Weatronic customer service? The few threads I have found during my search for info have not been very confidence inspiring.

&lt;meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">&lt;meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document">&lt;meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11">&lt;meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
</span></span>&lt;link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Gerhardp\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\cli p_filelist.xml" /><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Hi Siclick33, there is not too much fuss about the Weatronic systems, because there are not too many issues to deal with. Once you get acquainted with the system, there is not much that people had problems with. Since all the power systems and servo settings are integrated into the dual receiver unit, no interference issues will occur if you follow the guidelines.
In regards to the 2.4 dual receiver systems, it is being delivered to first customers as the small version (Dual Micro series) right now and the big Dual receivers (R-series) will be following soon.
It has even more features and abilities that are unmatched. You don't have to touch them, but they are available, once you choose to use them. Even the Micro dual receivers are fully programmable. Yet you can use them without the help of a computer. (plug and play)
For example Fail-Safe options: You have two Fail Safe's available. One is the channel Fail-Safe and the other is the servo Fail-Safe. Should you choose to activate the servo Fail-Safe, it will override the channel Fail-Safe. Why? .... You could want to program Fail-Safe to lower the flaps and deflect both ailerons full up to cause as much drag as possible. This is just one example.
You can download a small brochure from the following website </span></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">www.weatronic-usa.com</span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and check out some more features of the new 2.4 system. Pricing is also very compatible and with the Micro series you have the option of trying out many of the features without having to commit to a full system.

Cheers,
</span>
Gerhard</span></meta&gt;</meta&gt;</meta&gt;</meta&gt;

<div>I helped David Gladwin setup and link his (no English instructions) Weatronics 2.4 system into a Bobcat at Scampton last weekend.</div><div>Once we had it in and working it was rock solid. Easy to install (like FASST) both aerials at 90 degrees and not satellites.</div><div>We did ranges tests and then David flew it all day on Sunday. It worked along side FASST and Spektrum with no issues and has some nice features.</div><div>Initial impressions are very good..</div><div></div><div>Paul</div>

Hello

Here you can see some pictures with the WC2 TX and DR 12-30.

JPZ

Whilst it's possibly one of the best 2.4 systems functionality wise it has too also take the award for 'clunkiest' looking

I guess another useful feature it has is that you can take shelter under the TX if it rains

HI
I am surprised that they have not managed to integrate Form and Function better.( doesnt look like they even attempted it) and as rule I HATE having lose fly leads between one box and the other I would rather have them integrated into one unit as the Futaba system has. No matter how careful you are they are always going to get caught, they are always going to get damaged.I do agree it is butt ugly.

As regards features in my opinion they have set the bar and the bigger companies are doing the bare minimum as regards Spread Spectrum development. We have hardly scratched the surface yet and every development so far is being forced out of them. Fed back from the RX is NOT a big deal and to me one of the big advantages of moving to this tech but so far only Weatronic have done it.


M

Hello,

For my MC22SGraupner, this is perfect and it is not ugly.
You must know that a flat antenna is more effective than an antenna like Spektrum of Futaba.

Weatronic looks after relialibity and not the "look".


Jean Fi

It has been a while since I studied Antenna theory but I dont remember anything that said a flat antenna was superior over stub antenna</p>

if it is why is every other manufacturer sticking with more traditional antennas?</p>

Can you give me a steer to the appropriate theory?</p>

</p>

Mike,

Take a look at any patch antenna that gives you more gain than the 3 dB of an omni and you will see that they are flat...

http://www.l-com.com/productfamily.aspx?id=6291

Patch antennas like the ones obviously used in the Weatronics system give you somewhere around 6 to 8 dB gain in the primary direction of the antenna.

Bob

Hi
Thanks for the steer. But it confirmed what I had drenged out of the back of my memory ( antenna theory never was my favourite subject and too be honest Maxwell's equations did my head in) but I did remember that flat Antennas were highly directional. So yes you get the gain but at a cost. That being said I am very curious what they have in that weatronics box.

But it doesnt answer my question. Why hasnt anyone else adopted a flat antenna?

M

Another 5 faultless flights at Wroughton today with the Weatronics Micro in my BobCat.  I can live with the patch antenna of this system. , the greeen light indicating a solid connection makes it all worthwhile. A superb piece of kit, which I will be using in all my small and medium models, the larger unit will go into my big scale models, such as the AW Hawks, Mig 29 and SkyGate  Hawk. </p>

</p>

Regards, David Gladwin</p>

Hi Mike,
The "patch" antennas are being used by most every single cell phone that is of new design. They strive for efficiency, as weight and performanceare conflicting parameters.
A ground range of almost two miles being more than twice that of another well known brand is another testimonial for the right choice of antenna systems. The technologies of the other brands are also about 3 to 4 years old and no one else, other than Weatronic, has done the R&amp;D and committed to make this step. It is based on a lot of lab measurement work and commitment to provide the best available. There are a lot of different antennas available and with that the choice is very important.
Three years ago Weatronic has done a bold step to integrate all the power systems plus programming into one Dual Receiver system and created a new standard.
Weatronic's philosophy is commitment to providing the best available and being a step ahead. You can even log everything that is going on in the transmitter module as well as the feedback from the receiver,
I hope you understand now why Weatronic has gone a different route and not following the bunch.

Thanks,

Gerhard

As much as I hate to say it, A lot of the guys on here are not gonna touch that thing until it becomes a single unit. That big clunky flat antenna is not really functional, you will have to attached everytime you fly to the TX. Just a big hassle. That being said, it won't see the same sucess the first unit had. You are right, Weatronic did have ground breaking technology. A small box provided, dual rcvr's, redundant power, easy programming, sequencing of servos, the list goes on and on. But, now that you this "contraption" on top of the TX people will look elsewhere to accomplish the same attributes that the weatronics does. Personally I would spend more $$ in individual items to "work around" the clunkyness. my .02 FWIW

Sean

My first question was about customer service and my mind hasn't entirely been put at rest. This thread was 'dragged up' 6 weeks after I posted the initial question. Support isn't just required for setting up the module but also for faults/repairs.</p>

I am tempted to give this a try but the TX module does appear to be a bit of a pain. I am also not sure about the legality of some of the systems in the UK (e.g Graupner MC19 and Multiplex EVO/Profi) as it appears that some TXs need to be 'modified', looking at the literature. However, this is not a problem for me using a Futaba 9Z.  I am also not a great fan of the battery redundancy that only uses one battery. I would much prefer the battery usage to be 'shared'.</p>

I think the Weatronic is almost the perfect system but a few niggles make it a less straightforward choice.</p>

p.s. Gerhard, I think you need to add a signature to show your affiliation to Weatronic.</p>

As one of the few who is actually flying a Weatronics unit with a patch antenna I can say there is NO hassle at all ! It took me about 30 seconds to install the unit (OK, about 20 ) and I haven't touched it since. Removing and reinstalling the unit, if neccessary, takes seconds.

It took a LITTLE getting used to (but so did NOT having 1.5 meters of telescopic aerial when I switched to Spektrum 2.4). It looks a little odd but what the system delivers FAR ouweighs thisminor aspect.

PLEASE give the function a hands-on trial a before pre-judging !


Regards, David Gladwin.

Sorry, finger trouble causing duplication.
[/quote]

Mike,

More than likely its because nobody else has a downlink - the Weatronics unit does. In order to get a reliable downlink at the distances our models fly, you have to have a higher gain than simple 1/4 wave dipoles can give you. In the research work I'm working on with NASA, we have a 5W transmitter on the aircraft (at 2.2450 GHz, but that's close enough to 2.4 to illustrate the problem), and a one meter steerable dish antenna that gives us more than 30 dB of gain. Still, at the distances that a jet can fly we get data dropouts. Yes, we are operating at a much higher bandwidth than the Weatronics unit needs to for its downlink, but the bottom line is, you need a high gain antenna on the ground to receive data from an aircraft...

Bob

Hi Sean,
I have heard both arguing about the beauty or the lack of beauty of it. Some people don't care about the looks and strive for funcionality. Of course is it is also a matter of taste and to some the looks are more important than performance. So be it. Some people rather throw out the baby with the bath water.
Weatronic recommends to actually leave the transmitter module on the receiver and put it in the transport case attached to the transmitter while not in use. It is what it is at this time an it will lead to further developments down the road.
The switch from 72 MHz to 2.4 GHz has caused a lot of problems with all, the manufacturers and the users as well. This is just the beginning and I am excited about what the new system is capable of assisting you.

Hi Siclick33,
I am an independent distributor here for the US (Technodynamik-USA c/o Weatronic-USA) and I would not at all be selling this product if it were an average transmitter / receiver system that has no distinction from the others. I do not deny, that it is in my own interest to promote this product. I would not put up my name for something that I can not stand up for.
My interest is promoting cutting edge technology and with that improving the safety and reliability of the hobby. I started the dedicated Weatronic forum in RC-Universe to actually help people to understand the system and its potential better.

Thanks

Gerhard

David,

I respect your opinion but will have to say that just about everything you touch and report about almost always seems to work "flawless" for you. Personally I have a 12x and not much room in the box. I really liked the old units being all in one box and super redundant. The programming was very nice and pretty easy to use. I do wish weatronic success but for my useage I will work off of dual switches, powerboxes,2 batteries, 3-4 satellites on rx's until they can make it an all in one unit again.


thanks
sean

That's not the case, Jeti and Multiplex both have telemetry and both use the normal 2.4Ghz Tx aerial.

H.

That may be because I choose my equipment with great care. However, when I do point out something, here or in RCJI, that does NOT work well such as the FC Mig 29 original hydraulics, or the original BobCat elevator servo spec. I do get a LOT of sometimes very unpleasant hassle, abuse even ! I tell it like it is.

Several guys were involved in setting up the Weatronics Micro 2.4 at Scampton, after we got it bound (German instructions) everyone actually saw it working "flawlesly" from its very first flight for which they gave me a solo slot, , switch on, check green and fly ! Installation of the Tx took seconds and we swapped over the receivers in about 2 minutes , securing the antennae with Joe's black tape , job done ! Even the range check is now made simpler. (Select range check on Tx, amber flashing light, walk away from model till red light flashes Rf at limit of range) ) Now we know the button pushing sequence binding is simplicity itself.

No remote receivers, but has dual battery inputs on just a tinySINGLE box incorporating dual receivers and telemetry and upgradable firmware, AND these receivers are cheap compared with JR 12 channel 2.4 receivers.

Last Sunday at Wroughton, just flew it all day, worked flawlessly !

I will keep flying it, you should try it!

Regards, DavidGladwin.

slow computer !</p>