Crash One

My Feedback: (42)

I took about 20 to SEFF and had the firmware updated. All mine were marked V 1.2 after the update. I would think the new one's would be marked with a sticker or something.

Ed

What is wrong with that boy ?

rino

My Feedback: (121)

Just a friendly question.

Forum moderator: post in question. Ticket 7603.

rmh

the planes in the pic are small electric powered models -using the A123 cells (4) to power the 3-1/4 lbs . A diamante and a AJ300 each with EFlite 32 motors and 13x6.5 and 13x8 props
I pull waaay over 30 amps on these cells and use a small external BEC to power the radio. they only get warm -I have not loaded em with big prop loads yet - being happy with current (pun) performance.
so far -I can slurp up over 2 amps from the 2300MA packs and still have almost full power (unlimited verticals) at over 7 minutes of aerobatic floggin around.

So if any nervous Nellies are afraid these cells have no more poop than their present setup --guess again-

alcarafa

Hi everybody:

Here is some interesting information about 2.4 ghz sistems, check it up and lets here your comments.

http://004edc4.netsolhost.com/fm__spread_spectrum.htm


Nice landings 2 all U.

Rafa

bruce88123

This has been out for a while. What kind of comment would you like? Basically it states that they found, through testing, that FliteMetal does not appreciably interfere with 2.4 GHz signals.

pilotpete2

Jack,
Even if Futaba WANTED their system to be compatible with Spektrum (doubtful) there would probably be patent issues involved. Have you ever seen cross brand compatible PCM receivers??, Why would SS be any different?
Futaba has not been "experimenting" with SS for the last 15 years, they have been implementing it in industrial applications for the last 15 years.
Maybe they just wanted to get it right[8D] (I will sooo be accused of drinking the Kool-aid for that one).
Many are sitting on the fence to see how this all plays out, but many are betting that the approach taken by Futaba is technically superior, time will tell
Pete

rmh

Technically superior?
Which provides what improvement?

FWIW-- I see only one real problem to be sorted out for SS.
The setup of antenna in the model - to prevent ommitted reception.
Some installations I have seen are simply buried too deep in the models
My gut feeling early on, was to place the rx as high a possible -that is in the the canopy area -so the rx can"see" what's happening - this position, is also typically as far away friom other bits n pieces as practical.
-Having done quite a few setups now (all Spektrum), I am enjoying 100% reliability with all types of models . A local friend also stuck one in an all carbon glider -with whiskers poking out the sides
we tried turning off tx in the air etc -it worked just fine, even at very extended range and altitude
I have a new model 6200rx coming which I am putting in another electric model .
I fly these using A123 cells for power and a Park bec BEC for radio power -range is as far as I can see- here is a small model setup.

Gordito Volador

My Feedback: (1)

Dick,

Antenna placement and a reliable power supply says it all. You can't beat the laws of physics regarding path diversity and propagation at 2.4 Gig, radio theory doesn't care who the manufacturer is. I think that we will find that even brand "X will do the remote Rx/Antenna thing in the future.

Regards, Bill

onewasp

Bruce,

I've been at this RC hobby for-------well a l-o-n-g time.
I've flown 26.995 @ 5 watts, through the five 27MHz spots, through the beginning 75/72MHz spots, over thirty years as a HAM, 72MHz synthesized, through Simple Simul, single channel, reeds, all the propo sets on multiple frequencies and in late 2006 sold my 10X and went to DX7.

In a word----the best yet!

Locally we have in excess of 60 DX7 set ups and these are being flown by expert class through rank beginner------zero problems/signal loss to date.

What are you waiting for?

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

They already 'external' mounted the TX ant..... I agree.
Physics is a tough set of laws to "beat"....

jfetter

Actually, I very much doubt anything is proprietary as far as the technology goes, all of it has existed for some 30+ years. Spektrum uses DSSS (Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum) and Futaba use FHSS (Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum), don't go and think they have done anything other than use 2 existing standards. My issue is with Futaba being the "follower" here and then claiming their system is better. If it was actually better and they in fact have been "implementing it in industrial applications for 15 years" as you state then where is your curiosity as to why they didn't bring it to the market for christs sake! Spektrum has also stated that they first started playing around with FHSS and gave it up because of technical issues and DSSS proved to be the better technology, why don't you beleive that? IMO, the guy who actualy does the work to bring it to the market seems to warrant some benefit of the doubt here.

You also say "many are sitting on the fence to see how this all plays out", what fence is that? I purchased a DX7 without any brand loyalty coming in (I never heard of them before!) because the system works. What else can it do other than work as designed? Futaba on the other hand comes out with a system after the market swings so hard to DSS that only an idiot could miss the signs and then says "oh yea, ours is better". These are the same guys that market 1024 and 2048 bit resolution, do you know what that really means? It means the number of discrete positions their controls can step through, does any of that matter to the person flying with his analog finger that probably can't move less than 1 millimeter anyway? No, it doesn't as I am not sure any servo even has 2048 steps from one throw to the opposite.

I guess this will end up being a my brand versus your brand argument, not what I originally intended (I was more annoyed that any company would have the stones to be a late entry in the market and then claim superiority)...

Jack

Capt Jim

My Feedback: (168)

jfetter..I am in complete agreement with your last post. I am offended that Futaba seems to consider the RC fraternity stupid, and insignificant. Stupid in that they believe we simply believe their rhetoric without questioning anything. Insignificant in that the RC market apparently isn't worth paying close attention too...perhaps not a very significant piece of their overall business plan.
Spektrum broke into the radio market as an unheard of newcomer. JR (the builder of Spektrum systems) quickly jumped in, apparently realizing that the trend to DSSS is absolutely enormous and quite likely irreversible. Futaba...the sleeping giant then comes along and blatantly tells us in their ads that they've been doing all this for years. And they make their entrance with a wimpy 6 channel rig.
Ho hum...I am not impressed at all by their statements, or with their new products.
I had been a Futaba user for decades. Since the arrival of Spektrum, I have completely retrofitted my entire squadron, and the Futaba gear, excellent though it is on 72mhz...is up for sale. I made the switch, and never looked back. ...and I could not be more pleased.

Sir Lance

Gentlemen, I hope this does not sound like a lengthy often asked question. We are having a HUGE problem in the Johannesburg area of South Africa. The problem is continual major bursts of interference on our frequency band which in this country is 35Mhz. We have noticed, due to what seems to be poor maintenance on our national broadcasting antrennaes,these blasts of intereference coming accross our band which has to date downed many aircraft, both on PPM & PCM. I am one of the victims. We have complained to our ICASA which is the supposed frequency regulated body i this country which has proved to be a total toothless lion. A friend of mine is a few months away from a doctorate in electronic engineering. He took the trouble to use a spectrum monitor fitted with a recorder, plus videotaped the output screen during one of the periods of interference. When said friend approached the company who is contracted to the national broadcaster for the actual maintenance & procurement of the broadcasring equipment, it was strongly intermated that he would be sued if he tried to use the evidence.

To say that this is a major problem is an understatement. Two of our top pattern aerobatic champions have lost their very expensive aircraft in this region, & this is only the very tip of the iceberg going down to the poor Sunday flyer scratching together the money to fly most weekends. Literally hundreds of aircraft have been lost since the problems began at the beginning of the year.

To most, the feeling is hey!, we live in Africa, we all know that due to al the corruption here, most people can get away with anything. But this attitude is not stopping our beloved aircraft from falling. On one of my sport planes, I was flying with a JR SPCM receiver at about 500 ft agl. The aircraft just went into failsafe & carried on uninterrupted by all of my corrective actions, right into the ground.

All of the accidents that we have been having have the same symtoms. At first we attributed it to finger trouble, battery or wiring harness failure, shootdowns, and other factors. But soon the real culprit was revealed once people started investing in spectrum analysers such as my friend.

In a nutshell, we as taxpayers here have no control over what government or quasi-government organisations can do or not do.

Then 2.4 GHZ spread Spektrum arrived! All of us thought that FINALLY we had found the solution. But then doubts & reports of problems started creeping in. As an example, at the aerobatic nationals this year, the visiting Argentinian champion, Marcello Colombo, advised that those of us flying F3A 2X2m pattern ships which have parts made from carbon, should revert to pcm as they have done in Argentina after losing a few such pattern birds. From what I've read and heard, carbon totally blocks the signal.

Myself & many pilots here in this country would greatly appreciate advice on this subject as it seems that our light at the end of the tunnel has been cruelly switched off and that we are back at square one. I for example, have to reduce my fly to once a month at a flying field 200 miles away from Johannesburg where the "skies are clean". Luckily I as able to cancel my order for the new 2.4 Ghz XP9303, as have hundreds of others. It has to be said though, that those pilots flyinf wooden sport aeroplanes go on for hours about how well the system works & that "sweet connetcted feeling".

Please could we have some feedback & advice on this as we are getting a bit desperate down here!

pilotpete2

Dick,
As far as FHSS being superior, I have no qualifications to make that judgement, but is only an impression I get from listening to those who have the training in RF that I don't have, but it does seem that FHSS would be harder to jam then DSSS

Jack,
When we start seeing the "clone" 3rd party Spektrum and FASST receivers then we'll know there is nothing proprietary.
The fence I alluded to is simply that the vast majority of flyers are staying with 72Mhz for the time being, until the smoke settles.
I just attended an IMAC competition, there was a definite bias towards waiting, nobody was on SS.

Capt Jim,
I cannot accept the notion that Spektrum broke into the R/C market. It was a well financed, well coordinated marketing plan involving Horizon/Spektrum and JR. I'm sure the plan all along was to introduce Spektrum in the entry level radios under the Spektrum name, then introduce the Spektrum technology to the higher end JR radios.
As far as rhetoric and hype in advertising, so what else is new
Now implying that the 6EX is wimpy, that's an understatement, but it does seem to be a solid system, though it is about the least capable 6 channel computer radio on the market.
As far as 1024 and 2048 resolution, well I never was sold on PCM
Where is this going to leave Hitec and Airtronics???
Pete

Mac_Man_UK

Sir Lance,

dare I SUGGEST a large axe being swung at the feeder cables ?? Well... 2 swings actually about a couple of metres apart...

pilotpete2

Mac_Man,
Hey, that's how we "cowboys" over on this side of the pond are sposed to handle problems.
Pete

fizzwater2

My Feedback: (61)

Sir Lance - don't feel like the lone ranger.. I am an engineer that works in the Navigation aid and landing system business, and we have run into similar issues in some countries. One I can remember had two strong relatively unregulated FM transmitters in the approach area of an airport (fortunately not too busy) and the 2nd IM product of these two carriers was right on top of the localizer frequency - causing out of tolerance signals in space to commercial air traffic. We had to either switch the frequency of the ILS at that airport, or get at least one of the two stations shut down.

I wasn't in on the final decision, but I was part of the troubleshooting effort. I feel your pain..

bruce88123

I'm betting that they changed the ILS frequency. Easier than pushing a rope uphill.

bigbird007

Sir Lance,

Check this out:

http://004edc4.netsolhost.com/fm__spread_spectrum.htm (This is on flight metal and not carbon fiber)

One would think that if you are flying carbon fiber planes you might have the funds to buy a Spektrum or some other 2.4 radio and test it out on some sort of test plane. Maybe get a bunch of guys to go in on it. You could even add a second satellite receiver.I'm only flying sport and 90 size scale but have only had one problem in 6 months and I caused it. Today I watched to of our club members on 72mHz crash into the woods saying "I don't have it!" while I didn't have a bit of problem. Our situations are NOT similar, I know, but from what I've read spread spectrum sounds like just the ticket for your problem. I do know I won't go back to 72mHz!

smooreace

Harder to jam... definately... but who is trying to jam or transmitters? Is there some terrorist threat on RC aircraft?

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

By design, for ALL three current 2.4Ghz manufacturers to release their products with FCC type acceptance, they must transmit ONLY on empty channels within the 2.4Ghz band, and they must "listen" to the current environment when turned on initially to know what channels are empty.

Gonna be hard to interfere if the TX modules are technically not able to transmit unless they find empty channels.

smooreace

Actually, when you think about it, DSSS is theoretically a cleaner signal since the frequency is changes based on a pre determined sequence.... and as Aerobob stated, it wont start transmitting till it finds a clean place to start. So if there are, lets say 10000 individual frequencies in this sequence, then there would be NO frequency overrun, and no bind issues untill that 10001 person shows up and cant find a clean spet to start his DSSS transmitter. In a FHSS world, there are likely about the same number of frequencies as in the DSSS system, so 10000 is still our magic number... but 5000 people are using a FHSS transmitter.... randomly jumping from freq to freq... what are the odds that there be an overlap, and a subsequent glitch!! Exagerated numbers?!?? Ya, probably to some degree, but you get the point. A field of Futabas WILL have overlaps from time to time. A field of Spektrums CANT, untill one guy shows up with a Futaba and contaminates the organized harmony of Spektrum.

All this only theory, I have no firm data to base any of that on, only applying similar logic to both systems

jfetter

Just to clarify, DSSS systems only transmit on 2 of the 80 available channels, 2 are used at the same time (DSM2), leaving only 40 that can operate concurrently. Also, DSSS systems do not change (hop channels) once they acquire, they stay locked on those 2 channels until they are turned off. Finally, the part about the entire system that prevents "jamming" or accidentally taking control of someone elses aircraft is what binding accomplishes. Binding basically says to the Rx that this transmitter, with this GUID (Globally Unique IDentifier, one of 2 billion possible BTW) is your daddy, don't talk to any strangers! To make that even safer, the Rx also is told what model number the TX is currently on so along with the GUID, the model (1 through 20) has to match as well for the Rx to listen. The most important part of all of this, FHSS or DSSS, it is a FEDERAL CRIME to begin transmitting on any channel in the 2.4 GHz frequency range without first scanning and aquiring an empty channel. So regardless of which technology you go with, I think the possibilitiy of 2 systems trying to talk on the same channel is so remote, you're just as likley to be hit by lightning 4 times WHILE being bit by a shark ;-)

Jack

alcarafa

I agree with you, what are you waiting for?

And could add :

To fly in 72 mhz is like flying in black and white.

This is 21 st century fly in full color.

Safer, cheap and nothing to worry about.

Very affordable dx7 price just take a look, http://www.lightflightrc.com/ wish I've found this site before I bought mine.

Nice landings 2 all U.

Rafa