Futabas new 2.4 10C and JR's 2.4 9303
03-30-2008, 12:58 PM
#201
RE: Futabas new 2.4 10C and JR's 2.4 9303
ORIGINAL: superdave01
For someone to see TWO recievers less reliable then ONE then they dont understand how they work and communicate with each other.
If you feel that way you should read up, once you understand how they work you will agree that there not a reliability issue.
For someone to see TWO recievers less reliable then ONE then they dont understand how they work and communicate with each other.
If you feel that way you should read up, once you understand how they work you will agree that there not a reliability issue.
I am not sure if you understand that the spectrum setup (main and remote connected) is not a redundent system (aka two mains completely separate) that are commonly understood. Huge difference. Seems to me in your earlier post you agreed with my analysis and in this post you changed mind :-)
03-30-2008, 01:23 PM
#202
RE: Futabas new 2.4 10C and JR's 2.4 9303
Here is a quote from http://www.chiefaircraft.com/rcmsec/...Receivers.html, on R922.
"This unique MultiLInk â„¢ receiver design contains a main unit which houses the power bus, and it includes 3 remote receivers which come with one of each: 9â€, 12†and 24†remote receiver extensions. The dual path redundancy of Spektrum’s DuaLinkâ„¢ technology, plus the fact each of the receivers is mounted in a slightly different location, exposes each to a different view of the RF environment and creates a bulletproof RF link in all conditions."
Is it a understatement about one main one remote rx system?
"This unique MultiLInk â„¢ receiver design contains a main unit which houses the power bus, and it includes 3 remote receivers which come with one of each: 9â€, 12†and 24†remote receiver extensions. The dual path redundancy of Spektrum’s DuaLinkâ„¢ technology, plus the fact each of the receivers is mounted in a slightly different location, exposes each to a different view of the RF environment and creates a bulletproof RF link in all conditions."
Is it a understatement about one main one remote rx system?
03-30-2008, 02:07 PM
#203
RE: Futabas new 2.4 10C and JR's 2.4 9303
ORIGINAL: nonstoprc
Here is a quote from http://www.chiefaircraft.com/rcmsec/...Receivers.html, on R922.
"This unique MultiLInk â„¢ receiver design contains a main unit which houses the power bus, and it includes 3 remote receivers which come with one of each: 9â€, 12†and 24†remote receiver extensions. The dual path redundancy of Spektrum’s DuaLinkâ„¢ technology, plus the fact each of the receivers is mounted in a slightly different location, exposes each to a different view of the RF environment and creates a bulletproof RF link in all conditions."
Is it a understatement about one main one remote rx system?
Well - I don't understand the confusion here
One more shot at it : read the abvove description again-
the 922 has 3 receivers ALL are remote units
The 7000 or the 921 0r the 6200 or the 7000 have TWO complete receivers EACH looking at a pailr of "channels" if you will- but one is in a common housing with the power signal distribution buss in each case. The 921 CAN if desired ,have another COMPLETE rx added
Now back to the Futaba - It is A receiver - in a common housing with the power / signal buss.
Which setup appeals to you -is up to you - some guys extend the antenna on the Futaba - to get a reception ability , they feel is better
The XPS when it first came out was very explicit in rx recommendation : "put the rxup where the signal has a clear shot at arriving at the rx.
I felt this was an obvious thing in that the antenna for 2.4 is very short compared against the 72 mhz--so I did the same thing
Others , for God knows what reason ,figured the RECIEVER location of the 72 stuff - was good enough for 2.4.
A jump of illogic if ever there was one. But -there you go - some strapped em down to power distribution boards and -some of those setups worked - How -I don't know.
Bottom line :
For 2.4 to operate properly you have to get an antenna located such that it is not blanked out
Looks like an obvious thing to me -
tiny slow foam airplane needs hardly any fussing about - and tiny light cheap rx are perfectly suited
If you up the size- speed range - go to a better rx setup .
why pack around a large rx on a tiny plane ?
Here is a quote from http://www.chiefaircraft.com/rcmsec/...Receivers.html, on R922.
"This unique MultiLInk â„¢ receiver design contains a main unit which houses the power bus, and it includes 3 remote receivers which come with one of each: 9â€, 12†and 24†remote receiver extensions. The dual path redundancy of Spektrum’s DuaLinkâ„¢ technology, plus the fact each of the receivers is mounted in a slightly different location, exposes each to a different view of the RF environment and creates a bulletproof RF link in all conditions."
Is it a understatement about one main one remote rx system?
Well - I don't understand the confusion here
One more shot at it : read the abvove description again-
the 922 has 3 receivers ALL are remote units
The 7000 or the 921 0r the 6200 or the 7000 have TWO complete receivers EACH looking at a pailr of "channels" if you will- but one is in a common housing with the power signal distribution buss in each case. The 921 CAN if desired ,have another COMPLETE rx added
Now back to the Futaba - It is A receiver - in a common housing with the power / signal buss.
Which setup appeals to you -is up to you - some guys extend the antenna on the Futaba - to get a reception ability , they feel is better
The XPS when it first came out was very explicit in rx recommendation : "put the rxup where the signal has a clear shot at arriving at the rx.
I felt this was an obvious thing in that the antenna for 2.4 is very short compared against the 72 mhz--so I did the same thing
Others , for God knows what reason ,figured the RECIEVER location of the 72 stuff - was good enough for 2.4.
A jump of illogic if ever there was one. But -there you go - some strapped em down to power distribution boards and -some of those setups worked - How -I don't know.
Bottom line :
For 2.4 to operate properly you have to get an antenna located such that it is not blanked out
Looks like an obvious thing to me -
tiny slow foam airplane needs hardly any fussing about - and tiny light cheap rx are perfectly suited
If you up the size- speed range - go to a better rx setup .
why pack around a large rx on a tiny plane ?
03-30-2008, 08:27 PM
#204
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Grand Paririe,
TX
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futabas new 2.4 10C and JR's 2.4 9303
Maybe i mistyped ..... NOTHING is failure proof, But if you have one reciever and the front end amp of it fails you will wish you had another. Same goes for any component in the reciever.
Some redundancy is better then none, to suggest otherwise????
Every system has at LEAST one point where a single component failure cause total failure, Including JR/Spektrum.
If you like Futaba then fly it, If you dont then dont.
Some redundancy is better then none, to suggest otherwise????
Every system has at LEAST one point where a single component failure cause total failure, Including JR/Spektrum.
If you like Futaba then fly it, If you dont then dont.
03-31-2008, 06:28 AM
#205
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: annapolis, MD
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futabas new 2.4 10C and JR's 2.4 9303
Really nice to see the specs for the 10C showing at least G3 spec resolution in FAAST mode. As mentioned in another post, I've "pre-ordered" a 10C from Espirit hoping that will get me one as soon as any are available. Even with all the indecision voiced here , I suspect lots are being ordered at Tower.
My point in mentioning the G3 mode is that I buy my R/C gear to last..my 8UAFS is going on 8 years now so obviously I don't want to buy something limited to yesterdays technology which for a while there, appeared to be the deal with 10C performance. The reputed much faster processor, 2048, and channel grouping would pretty much address my main 8U/9C issues along with known "C" series features like triple rates and condition(s) not avail in the 8U. The lack of model ID isnt enough to sway me to JR, while is sure sound nice, I've had the check model habit for a long time now and only rarely goof up, usually without totalling the aircraft...last time was from just not hitting the "acccpt" buttons together and then not being able to see easily in the dark( good news is the CLIK XL foamie survived a full power nose in!).
My point in mentioning the G3 mode is that I buy my R/C gear to last..my 8UAFS is going on 8 years now so obviously I don't want to buy something limited to yesterdays technology which for a while there, appeared to be the deal with 10C performance. The reputed much faster processor, 2048, and channel grouping would pretty much address my main 8U/9C issues along with known "C" series features like triple rates and condition(s) not avail in the 8U. The lack of model ID isnt enough to sway me to JR, while is sure sound nice, I've had the check model habit for a long time now and only rarely goof up, usually without totalling the aircraft...last time was from just not hitting the "acccpt" buttons together and then not being able to see easily in the dark( good news is the CLIK XL foamie survived a full power nose in!).
03-31-2008, 11:34 AM
#206
RE: Futabas new 2.4 10C and JR's 2.4 9303
ORIGINAL: crossup
Really nice to see the specs for the 10C showing at least G3 spec resolution in FAAST mode. As mentioned in another post, I've "pre-ordered" a 10C from Espirit hoping that will get me one as soon as any are available. Even with all the indecision voiced here , I suspect lots are being ordered at Tower.
My point in mentioning the G3 mode is that I buy my R/C gear to last..my 8UAFS is going on 8 years now so obviously I don't want to buy something limited to yesterdays technology which for a while there, appeared to be the deal with 10C performance. The reputed much faster processor, 2048, and channel grouping would pretty much address my main 8U/9C issues along with known "C" series features like triple rates and condition(s) not avail in the 8U. The lack of model ID isnt enough to sway me to JR, while is sure sound nice, I've had the check model habit for a long time now and only rarely goof up, usually without totalling the aircraft...last time was from just not hitting the "acccpt" buttons together and then not being able to see easily in the dark( good news is the CLIK XL foamie survived a full power nose in!).
Really nice to see the specs for the 10C showing at least G3 spec resolution in FAAST mode. As mentioned in another post, I've "pre-ordered" a 10C from Espirit hoping that will get me one as soon as any are available. Even with all the indecision voiced here , I suspect lots are being ordered at Tower.
My point in mentioning the G3 mode is that I buy my R/C gear to last..my 8UAFS is going on 8 years now so obviously I don't want to buy something limited to yesterdays technology which for a while there, appeared to be the deal with 10C performance. The reputed much faster processor, 2048, and channel grouping would pretty much address my main 8U/9C issues along with known "C" series features like triple rates and condition(s) not avail in the 8U. The lack of model ID isnt enough to sway me to JR, while is sure sound nice, I've had the check model habit for a long time now and only rarely goof up, usually without totalling the aircraft...last time was from just not hitting the "acccpt" buttons together and then not being able to see easily in the dark( good news is the CLIK XL foamie survived a full power nose in!).
IF you ever get heavily into electric stuf -you may change your mind --iti s Faaaar to easy to finish a flight with an electric
turn throttle to off then---put the plane in the pits and grab another and fire it up -- without remembering to disconnect the power mains on the last one.
Why?
No amount of flight schol training will prevent this "goof up" which is typically caused by someone coming up and saying hi as you go back to the pits . Or some other momentary thought interuption. Your train of thought gets interrupted and - there you are .
anyway the electrics cause a particular "potential risk" which IC engines don't have. So make certain you have a check list that covers this type of thing
03-31-2008, 02:20 PM
#209
My Feedback: (14)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bowling Green,
KY
Posts: 1,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futabas new 2.4 10C and JR's 2.4 9303
Seems that some have the opinion, now that "model match" is here, that all radios without it are suddenly dangerous and should not be considered for use by anyone but idiots.
I have owned three computer radios without "model match". Have I forgotten to switch to the correct model before starting the engine? You bet, more than once. Have I ever started an engine on an unrestrained model? Never. Have I taxied out with the wrong model program selected? Yup. Did I take off with the wrong program selected? Nope. Do I check my controls before I take off? Everytime and carefully. Not just because of the program. I want to see the throws, are my ailerons backwards, do I have enough throw on all surfaces, are they all centered, do they all move in the proper direction. If they do, and I have the wrong program, (because many are very, very, similiar), then it will fly safely, if not as good as ususal.
So if one (1) feature should dictate what radio we use. Then why not take Futaba's much more robust and time test FAAST system as the only reasonable choice? Think about it.
I have owned three computer radios without "model match". Have I forgotten to switch to the correct model before starting the engine? You bet, more than once. Have I ever started an engine on an unrestrained model? Never. Have I taxied out with the wrong model program selected? Yup. Did I take off with the wrong program selected? Nope. Do I check my controls before I take off? Everytime and carefully. Not just because of the program. I want to see the throws, are my ailerons backwards, do I have enough throw on all surfaces, are they all centered, do they all move in the proper direction. If they do, and I have the wrong program, (because many are very, very, similiar), then it will fly safely, if not as good as ususal.
So if one (1) feature should dictate what radio we use. Then why not take Futaba's much more robust and time test FAAST system as the only reasonable choice? Think about it.
03-31-2008, 02:25 PM
#210
RE: Futabas new 2.4 10C and JR's 2.4 9303
ORIGINAL: Flying Geezer
Seems that some have the opinion, now that "model match" is here, that all radios without it are suddenly dangerous and should not be considered for use by anyone but idiots.
I have owned three computer radios without "model match". Have I forgotten to switch to the correct model before starting the engine? You bet, more than once. Have I ever started an engine on an unrestrained model? Never. Have I taxied out with the wrong model program selected? Yup. Did I take off with the wrong program selected? Nope. Do I check my controls before I take off? Everytime and carefully. Not just because of the program. I want to see the throws, are my ailerons backwards, do I have enough throw on all surfaces, are they all centered, do they all move in the proper direction. If they do, and I have the wrong program, (because many are very, very, similiar), then it will fly safely, if not as good as ususal.
So if one (1) feature should dictate what radio we use. Then why not take Futaba's much more robust and time test FAAST system as the only reasonable choice? Think about it.
Seems that some have the opinion, now that "model match" is here, that all radios without it are suddenly dangerous and should not be considered for use by anyone but idiots.
I have owned three computer radios without "model match". Have I forgotten to switch to the correct model before starting the engine? You bet, more than once. Have I ever started an engine on an unrestrained model? Never. Have I taxied out with the wrong model program selected? Yup. Did I take off with the wrong program selected? Nope. Do I check my controls before I take off? Everytime and carefully. Not just because of the program. I want to see the throws, are my ailerons backwards, do I have enough throw on all surfaces, are they all centered, do they all move in the proper direction. If they do, and I have the wrong program, (because many are very, very, similiar), then it will fly safely, if not as good as ususal.
So if one (1) feature should dictate what radio we use. Then why not take Futaba's much more robust and time test FAAST system as the only reasonable choice? Think about it.
Time tested?
Dear me
My watch is all screwed up
But it does work - wasn't it supposed to?
Use the radio you like and make fun of the Model Match -if you like .
The choice is yours.
03-31-2008, 02:39 PM
#211
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Grand Paririe,
TX
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futabas new 2.4 10C and JR's 2.4 9303
I always do a control movement check..... well till i forget to....... gonna happens, even to the perfect, surprised its not happened to me yet but MANY last second checks.
03-31-2008, 02:56 PM
#214
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futabas new 2.4 10C and JR's 2.4 9303
ORIGINAL: Flying Geezer
Seems that some have the opinion, now that "model match" is here, that all radios without it are suddenly dangerous and should not be considered for use by anyone but idiots.
I have owned three computer radios without "model match". Have I forgotten to switch to the correct model before starting the engine? You bet, more than once. Have I ever started an engine on an unrestrained model? Never. Have I taxied out with the wrong model program selected? Yup. Did I take off with the wrong program selected? Nope. Do I check my controls before I take off? Everytime and carefully. Not just because of the program. I want to see the throws, are my ailerons backwards, do I have enough throw on all surfaces, are they all centered, do they all move in the proper direction. If they do, and I have the wrong program, (because many are very, very, similiar), then it will fly safely, if not as good as ususal.
So if one (1) feature should dictate what radio we use. Then why not take Futaba's much more robust and time test FAAST system as the only reasonable choice? Think about it.
Seems that some have the opinion, now that "model match" is here, that all radios without it are suddenly dangerous and should not be considered for use by anyone but idiots.
I have owned three computer radios without "model match". Have I forgotten to switch to the correct model before starting the engine? You bet, more than once. Have I ever started an engine on an unrestrained model? Never. Have I taxied out with the wrong model program selected? Yup. Did I take off with the wrong program selected? Nope. Do I check my controls before I take off? Everytime and carefully. Not just because of the program. I want to see the throws, are my ailerons backwards, do I have enough throw on all surfaces, are they all centered, do they all move in the proper direction. If they do, and I have the wrong program, (because many are very, very, similiar), then it will fly safely, if not as good as ususal.
So if one (1) feature should dictate what radio we use. Then why not take Futaba's much more robust and time test FAAST system as the only reasonable choice? Think about it.
I just about pee'd my pants after reading your post I was laughing so hard. You definetely got the JR boys worked up again. Time for model match discusion number 138.
03-31-2008, 03:10 PM
#215
My Feedback: (14)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bowling Green,
KY
Posts: 1,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futabas new 2.4 10C and JR's 2.4 9303
I really tried to resist Xcellheli, but these partisans just make it TOOOOOOOOOO easy.
There's an old saying, "don't bring up politics or religion." People are opinionated to the point of unreasonabilty.
Guess we better make it politics, religion, radios, and maybe pickup trucks.
There's an old saying, "don't bring up politics or religion." People are opinionated to the point of unreasonabilty.
Guess we better make it politics, religion, radios, and maybe pickup trucks.
03-31-2008, 03:42 PM
#216
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Lafayette,
IN
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futabas new 2.4 10C and JR's 2.4 9303
Model Match, Greatest thing since sliced bread.....Oh I am on the right plane, off I go ! OOOOOOOOOOO
I am spinnind down no control ..OOOOOO brown out , low battery, lock out...OOOOOOOOOOO...
It all comes down to we all must ck everything all the time young or old...2.4 or 72 .still needs all the CKs......
What ever RADIO system you have.....
Tony
DX7, 12FG 72/2.4
I am spinnind down no control ..OOOOOO brown out , low battery, lock out...OOOOOOOOOOO...
It all comes down to we all must ck everything all the time young or old...2.4 or 72 .still needs all the CKs......
What ever RADIO system you have.....
Tony
DX7, 12FG 72/2.4
03-31-2008, 03:50 PM
#217
RE: Futabas new 2.4 10C and JR's 2.4 9303
ORIGINAL: Flying Geezer
If I have offended any members of the JR/Spectrum party I assure you it was not unintentional.
If I have offended any members of the JR/Spectrum party I assure you it was not unintentional.
It's "time tested"----
03-31-2008, 05:11 PM
#218
RE: Futabas new 2.4 10C and JR's 2.4 9303
ORIGINAL: Flying Geezer
If I have offended any members of the JR/Spectrum party I assure you it was not unintentional.
If I have offended any members of the JR/Spectrum party I assure you it was not unintentional.
03-31-2008, 05:40 PM
#221
Senior Member
My Feedback: (61)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: **,
NJ
Posts: 4,741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futabas new 2.4 10C and JR's 2.4 9303
Flyin Geezer--on your 12FG, is it possible to also group together 2 rudder servos like you would elevators and ailerons ? Im guessing yes but I figure Id ask.
03-31-2008, 05:45 PM
#222
My Feedback: (14)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bowling Green,
KY
Posts: 1,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futabas new 2.4 10C and JR's 2.4 9303
I'm not sure Josey. I don't fly craft large enough to need more one rudder servo. I could look it up in the manual if you'll give me a few weeks.
How 'bout you big bird pilots, can anyone answer Josey's question?
How 'bout you big bird pilots, can anyone answer Josey's question?
03-31-2008, 06:04 PM
#223
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Phoenix,
AZ
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futabas new 2.4 10C and JR's 2.4 9303
ORIGINAL: Flying Geezer
Seems that some have the opinion, now that "model match" is here, that all radios without it are suddenly dangerous and should not be considered for use by anyone but idiots.
Seems that some have the opinion, now that "model match" is here, that all radios without it are suddenly dangerous and should not be considered for use by anyone but idiots.
What has happened since multi model transmitters became available ?
Probably about 10,000 additional crashes.
I have witnessed at least 20 crashes and several severe injuries caused by being on the wrong model. Saw one go in yesterday. He always does a pre-flight but was distracted when someone went to the line when he was setting up and asked him some questions about the plane.
However, Hobby Shops hate Model Match. 10,000 crashes generate a lot of business.
So, if you want to stimulate the economy, by not using Model Match, please do so. Maybe it will get us out of this recession.
03-31-2008, 06:11 PM
#224
My Feedback: (14)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bowling Green,
KY
Posts: 1,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futabas new 2.4 10C and JR's 2.4 9303
Still another good reason to get rid of that dreaded "model match", it's hurtin' the economy.
PJ, if you've seen that many crashes caused by failure to select the right model program, then failing to check their control surfaces before take off, then you had better consider gettin' some new flying buddies.
That bunch sound about a dangerous as a pet rattlesnake.
PJ, if you've seen that many crashes caused by failure to select the right model program, then failing to check their control surfaces before take off, then you had better consider gettin' some new flying buddies.
That bunch sound about a dangerous as a pet rattlesnake.
03-31-2008, 06:37 PM
#225
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Phoenix,
AZ
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futabas new 2.4 10C and JR's 2.4 9303
ORIGINAL: Flying Geezer
PJ, if you've seen that many crashes caused by failure to select the right model program, then failing to check their control surfaces before take off, then you had better consider gettin' some new flying buddies.
PJ, if you've seen that many crashes caused by failure to select the right model program, then failing to check their control surfaces before take off, then you had better consider gettin' some new flying buddies.
I travel to many places to fly and most of the crashes and injuries were not at my club field.
However, the one yesterday was.