Futaba 2.4 major malfunction!!!!!
08-14-2008, 10:43 AM
#76
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lyndonville, VT
Posts: 3,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba 2.4 major malfunction!!!!!
The R617RF draws 80mA of current with no transmitter signal present, with the transmitter signal present, a little less.
While 80mA is not all that much current, it is still much more than our old 72Mhz ones did and will generate some heat, when added to high ambient temperatures and letting a plane set in the sun on a hot day can combine to overheat the receiver. I managed to force one of my R617's up to 54C on a hot day by letting the plane bake in the sun for 1 hour, the temperature at the receiver was in the mid 40C range, then I turned on the receiver (with no transmitter on) and in about a half hour the receiver temp was up to 54C, transmitter was then turned on and the controls were tested over the next 15 or 20 minutes with no problems observed. Even here in the north country I keep my planes in the shade when not flying, some folks throw a white towel over their models, I think the best thing are those fold out windshield things for the car, just "tent" one of those over a plane if there is no shade available.
Pete
While 80mA is not all that much current, it is still much more than our old 72Mhz ones did and will generate some heat, when added to high ambient temperatures and letting a plane set in the sun on a hot day can combine to overheat the receiver. I managed to force one of my R617's up to 54C on a hot day by letting the plane bake in the sun for 1 hour, the temperature at the receiver was in the mid 40C range, then I turned on the receiver (with no transmitter on) and in about a half hour the receiver temp was up to 54C, transmitter was then turned on and the controls were tested over the next 15 or 20 minutes with no problems observed. Even here in the north country I keep my planes in the shade when not flying, some folks throw a white towel over their models, I think the best thing are those fold out windshield things for the car, just "tent" one of those over a plane if there is no shade available.
Pete
08-14-2008, 10:45 AM
#77
Senior Member
My Feedback: (6)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Goshen,
VA
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba 2.4 major malfunction!!!!!
Under Receiver Installation and Channel Assignment, Step 3 in the TM-14 manual.
"If possible, please make sure that the two antennas are placed at 90 degrees to each other. Please note: This is not a critical figure, however, the most important thing is to keep the antenna away from each other as much as possible."
From what I have learned, it is 'critical' to have the antennas set 90 degrees to one another. I at first had them parallel very far from each other. There is no 'if possible' or 'not a critical figure' option unless you like glitches. This now sounds like a 'duh' moment... but the manual did not explicitly state 90 degrees, but instead 'if possible' and 'not a critical figure'. I was the first in our local group to go 2.4g, so I was basically on my own with the poor help from the Futaba.
I feel like I should premise this with the statement, I have never had a radio glitch on 72mhz. On page two of the same manual, under Antenna of the TM-14, number 1, it makes a statement much like the statement made about 72mhz.... basically the signal is strongest from the side of the antenna. Well, on my 72mhz stuff, the antenna is fixed in that it extends from the top and does not rotate. So, I thought, I'll just set the antenna on the TM-14 straight up as well. Well, I think there is one major basic difference between 72 and 2.4. 72 is much more forgiving in this regard. I believe this is why there are multiple antennas on 2.4 receivers and that there is almost no transmission from the point of the module antenna or reception through the tip of a receiver antenna. Instead, it is extremely critical to be broadcasting to the plane from the side of the module antenna and receiving from the side of at least one receiver antenna, therefore for me, pointing the module antenna downward works very well. I actually believe the signal degrades in a geometric progression as the angle changes from 90 degrees down to 0 degrees or parallel to the module antenna... almost to the point of no signal. So, this is one more thing to think about before flying... I always try to remember to point the antenna downward. I tried a flight with my glider, setting it to the side, which did pretty good as I sat back in my chair relaxed... but it glitched and I realized the antenna was sort of pointing toward the plane. A good diagnosis and quick move of the antenna and I had it back.
I also am conscious of flying above me. Basically this puts the plane in a situation where the back of the antenna is pointing at the receiver. When gliding at extreme heights, one needs to be aware of the antenna on the module, as the higher it goes, the more one may need to reposition the module antenna during flight. I do not have any glitch situations yet due to this... but trying to stay aware of it.
This is stuff I never had to think about with 72mhz. I have to question my assumption that 2.4g is superior. Yes, it does have many advantages, but it also has some major disadvantages.
After discovering these nuances, via my 'crash and learn' process, I have had good experiences. I've only had one other flight which had some glitches which I have not had time to troubleshoot, but I think it might have been a drop of water on one of the receiver antenna tips... we'll see.
I still believe that Futaba has grossly dropped the ball with regards to providing publications with their products. My only manual in writing, the TM-14 manual, states that the receiver is to be installed just like a 72mhz receiver, 'wrapped in foam'. The 617s apparently have just become available in the last month or few. There was plenty of time to include a new installation manual which included a re-write of at least this known issue. I'm glad I do have internet service and I'm glad I do visit sites like Futaba's and this and other forums, or I would not have known about the potential heat issue due to using foam.
Basically, there are three areas which are not well covered, nor has new information been provided 'with' the products. Maybe, if I purchased another TM-14, (I'm hoping I'll only ever need the one?) I might get a new updated manual?
Let me be loud in saying I love the radio! They did an excellent job with the software and hardware. I'm only 6 months into this hobby and have a Hitec Optic and Eclipse (both with good manuals). I simply watched as I amassed 72mhz receivers (each with a good manual).... got to the point with one plane where I needed 10 channels, so I took the major plunge before I had more invested in 72. Seemed like a good move before it got even harder.... 10 planes at the moment. I became totally disenchanted with the system... lost faith completely... worked through multiple problems that didn't need to be problems if there were just good accurate instructions. This was after full success in the 72mhz arena. There's nothing like the feeling of having a very expensive new toy that didn't work as good as the way cheaper older toy. No excuse Futaba.... NO excuse!
"If possible, please make sure that the two antennas are placed at 90 degrees to each other. Please note: This is not a critical figure, however, the most important thing is to keep the antenna away from each other as much as possible."
From what I have learned, it is 'critical' to have the antennas set 90 degrees to one another. I at first had them parallel very far from each other. There is no 'if possible' or 'not a critical figure' option unless you like glitches. This now sounds like a 'duh' moment... but the manual did not explicitly state 90 degrees, but instead 'if possible' and 'not a critical figure'. I was the first in our local group to go 2.4g, so I was basically on my own with the poor help from the Futaba.
I feel like I should premise this with the statement, I have never had a radio glitch on 72mhz. On page two of the same manual, under Antenna of the TM-14, number 1, it makes a statement much like the statement made about 72mhz.... basically the signal is strongest from the side of the antenna. Well, on my 72mhz stuff, the antenna is fixed in that it extends from the top and does not rotate. So, I thought, I'll just set the antenna on the TM-14 straight up as well. Well, I think there is one major basic difference between 72 and 2.4. 72 is much more forgiving in this regard. I believe this is why there are multiple antennas on 2.4 receivers and that there is almost no transmission from the point of the module antenna or reception through the tip of a receiver antenna. Instead, it is extremely critical to be broadcasting to the plane from the side of the module antenna and receiving from the side of at least one receiver antenna, therefore for me, pointing the module antenna downward works very well. I actually believe the signal degrades in a geometric progression as the angle changes from 90 degrees down to 0 degrees or parallel to the module antenna... almost to the point of no signal. So, this is one more thing to think about before flying... I always try to remember to point the antenna downward. I tried a flight with my glider, setting it to the side, which did pretty good as I sat back in my chair relaxed... but it glitched and I realized the antenna was sort of pointing toward the plane. A good diagnosis and quick move of the antenna and I had it back.
I also am conscious of flying above me. Basically this puts the plane in a situation where the back of the antenna is pointing at the receiver. When gliding at extreme heights, one needs to be aware of the antenna on the module, as the higher it goes, the more one may need to reposition the module antenna during flight. I do not have any glitch situations yet due to this... but trying to stay aware of it.
This is stuff I never had to think about with 72mhz. I have to question my assumption that 2.4g is superior. Yes, it does have many advantages, but it also has some major disadvantages.
After discovering these nuances, via my 'crash and learn' process, I have had good experiences. I've only had one other flight which had some glitches which I have not had time to troubleshoot, but I think it might have been a drop of water on one of the receiver antenna tips... we'll see.
I still believe that Futaba has grossly dropped the ball with regards to providing publications with their products. My only manual in writing, the TM-14 manual, states that the receiver is to be installed just like a 72mhz receiver, 'wrapped in foam'. The 617s apparently have just become available in the last month or few. There was plenty of time to include a new installation manual which included a re-write of at least this known issue. I'm glad I do have internet service and I'm glad I do visit sites like Futaba's and this and other forums, or I would not have known about the potential heat issue due to using foam.
Basically, there are three areas which are not well covered, nor has new information been provided 'with' the products. Maybe, if I purchased another TM-14, (I'm hoping I'll only ever need the one?) I might get a new updated manual?
Let me be loud in saying I love the radio! They did an excellent job with the software and hardware. I'm only 6 months into this hobby and have a Hitec Optic and Eclipse (both with good manuals). I simply watched as I amassed 72mhz receivers (each with a good manual).... got to the point with one plane where I needed 10 channels, so I took the major plunge before I had more invested in 72. Seemed like a good move before it got even harder.... 10 planes at the moment. I became totally disenchanted with the system... lost faith completely... worked through multiple problems that didn't need to be problems if there were just good accurate instructions. This was after full success in the 72mhz arena. There's nothing like the feeling of having a very expensive new toy that didn't work as good as the way cheaper older toy. No excuse Futaba.... NO excuse!
08-14-2008, 10:55 AM
#78
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Grand Paririe,
TX
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba 2.4 major malfunction!!!!!
In this thread the:
"Stan" refered to did send in his registration card, he always sends them in and he got NOTHING from Futaba to help him save his planes and possibly a life.
Ive know Stan for more then 20 years, Nothing but a top notch guy!
Futaba is WAY more interested in there reputation then our aircraft or life.
Dave
"Stan" refered to did send in his registration card, he always sends them in and he got NOTHING from Futaba to help him save his planes and possibly a life.
Ive know Stan for more then 20 years, Nothing but a top notch guy!
Futaba is WAY more interested in there reputation then our aircraft or life.
Dave
08-14-2008, 11:40 AM
#80
Senior Member
My Feedback: (6)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Goshen,
VA
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba 2.4 major malfunction!!!!!
The [link=http://2.4gigahertz.com/features/receiver-tips.html]Futaba Receiver Tips[/link] does actually cover this issue on their website! I think this is actually included with the downloadable module manual now as a separate document. Why isn't this included with new receivers????? This same information is 'officially' posted on at least this website and maybe rcg as well?
I really think they 'fear' presenting any negative information about 2.4g at all. Maybe Futaba should run for president? They seem to be really good at avoiding anything that could possibly be perceived as a negative.
I really think they 'fear' presenting any negative information about 2.4g at all. Maybe Futaba should run for president? They seem to be really good at avoiding anything that could possibly be perceived as a negative.
08-14-2008, 11:58 AM
#81
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lyndonville, VT
Posts: 3,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba 2.4 major malfunction!!!!!
OK, your point on transmitter antenna orientation is very valid, I don't think this is properly addressed by the manufacturers (any), they should be more specific.
I have the TM-8 module and use it always turned to the right at 90dg., I never have to move it, whether in the carrying case or flying. With it turned to the side you will always have the strongest signal out front, the only weak "null" areas are if your plane gets near to 90dg. to your left or right. This is only a problem if you don't "pan" with your body to follow your plane, when I enter the landing pattern I tend to turn at least 45dg. in the direction of the plane, so no issue there. Gliders, I fly thermal gliders also, and feel the horizontal antenna orientation is the preferred one for gliders, as there is absolutely no null, or weak signal anywhere overhead.
As to Futabas wording regarding the receiver antennae, by not critical, I think they mean close to 90dg. as in eyeballing it. The sheet with my TM-8 module showed suggested arrangements.
I probably take a lot for granted with instruction as far as setup goes, due to a lifelong career in electronics and over twenty years flying RC. The specifics I dwelt on were the linking and failsafe related info.
I hope you have continued good luck with fasst, I've been delighted with my setups so far, and I was one of those "Glitches, what glitches" guys, but shoot downs have increased at our field, partly due to kids trying to fly with hand me down 72Mhz stuff at a middle school only a half mile away.
Best of luck,
Pete
I have the TM-8 module and use it always turned to the right at 90dg., I never have to move it, whether in the carrying case or flying. With it turned to the side you will always have the strongest signal out front, the only weak "null" areas are if your plane gets near to 90dg. to your left or right. This is only a problem if you don't "pan" with your body to follow your plane, when I enter the landing pattern I tend to turn at least 45dg. in the direction of the plane, so no issue there. Gliders, I fly thermal gliders also, and feel the horizontal antenna orientation is the preferred one for gliders, as there is absolutely no null, or weak signal anywhere overhead.
As to Futabas wording regarding the receiver antennae, by not critical, I think they mean close to 90dg. as in eyeballing it. The sheet with my TM-8 module showed suggested arrangements.
I probably take a lot for granted with instruction as far as setup goes, due to a lifelong career in electronics and over twenty years flying RC. The specifics I dwelt on were the linking and failsafe related info.
I hope you have continued good luck with fasst, I've been delighted with my setups so far, and I was one of those "Glitches, what glitches" guys, but shoot downs have increased at our field, partly due to kids trying to fly with hand me down 72Mhz stuff at a middle school only a half mile away.
Best of luck,
Pete
08-14-2008, 12:05 PM
#82
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lyndonville, VT
Posts: 3,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba 2.4 major malfunction!!!!!
I think you have a lot of hot weather in Singapore, or at least a lot of humidity, am I right?
Since we fly in rather cool temperatures, even in the middle of summer, I've left mine in the foam. The informal test i related to was with a receiver wrapped in foam, probably would have been a little cooler without, but probably not that much.
Cheers,
Pete
Since we fly in rather cool temperatures, even in the middle of summer, I've left mine in the foam. The informal test i related to was with a receiver wrapped in foam, probably would have been a little cooler without, but probably not that much.
Cheers,
Pete
08-14-2008, 01:59 PM
#83
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Linköping, SWEDEN
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba 2.4 major malfunction!!!!!
dumorian, Try pointing the antenna to the side to possibly avoid problems while flying high and/or right above yourself. This should help unless you like to fly a lot only three feet above ground. Should work well even if you are a slope soarer standing on top of the slope while flying. The most "dangerous" directions would be to the sides but if you are like me you will turn slightly to follow the model when you fly out to the sides and this turning will solve that problem.
It has surprised me that it isn't common knowledge in our hobby that the antennae of our radios has the best range when measured "side on". But I know that this is not so because I have taught several members in my club this fact during this summer alone. And, yes, FASST/2.4GHz is more critical in this respect so therefore most systems employ antenna diversity (multiple antennas) to aid here.
I also agree that Futaba's documentation is very bad, but I think this goes for most of the documentation and not only that for FASST. Maybe the FASST documentation has set a new low in quality from Futaba though... When it comes to Futaba receivers I have never seen any documentation whether FASST or older systems.
It has surprised me that it isn't common knowledge in our hobby that the antennae of our radios has the best range when measured "side on". But I know that this is not so because I have taught several members in my club this fact during this summer alone. And, yes, FASST/2.4GHz is more critical in this respect so therefore most systems employ antenna diversity (multiple antennas) to aid here.
I also agree that Futaba's documentation is very bad, but I think this goes for most of the documentation and not only that for FASST. Maybe the FASST documentation has set a new low in quality from Futaba though... When it comes to Futaba receivers I have never seen any documentation whether FASST or older systems.
08-14-2008, 03:05 PM
#84
Senior Member
My Feedback: (6)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Goshen,
VA
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba 2.4 major malfunction!!!!!
I agree. Pointing the antenna to the side is a great alternative and I may revisit my thoughts with that. I do bring a chair to the field and in most cases sit down when flying a glider. Each time a lay my radio on the bench or on the ground when powering up a plane, the tm antenna moves upward... or straight up. So, I thought, I'll beat this and turned it to the side. Then while sitting facing the airstrip, on approach, during one of my final low turns, the plane glitched. EEK!!!! But as antenna were in the forefront of my mind, I quickly moved it downward or turned the radio or something... been a month or so ago now... and regained signal. That's when I decided to do the down direction again. Now I just have to be rethinking about very high overhead... which isn't as much of a problem because I'm like 100 mistakes high! 
My manual also had the graphics showing the 90 degree antenna setups. But I interpreted the text as meaning the suggested method... not critical when in fact it is. So I was having first the receiver antenna problem and then a combination with the transmitter antenna. I actually crashed the plane myself the final time as I had lost all faith in the radio. In fact this last time was a sudden wind that had started down at that end of our field when where we stood was calm. My buddy flying his big gas Showtime had a difficult time landing once that wind hit the airstrip... and he doesn't mind wind at all! I was reached a point of total mistrust after 3 or 4 ground hits due to glitches and I don't remember how many recoveries. It was a new plane at the time, so I was looking at everything and was not limited in my search to just the receiver/radio... in fact that was the one thing I had initially trusted the most.
My manual also had the graphics showing the 90 degree antenna setups. But I interpreted the text as meaning the suggested method... not critical when in fact it is. So I was having first the receiver antenna problem and then a combination with the transmitter antenna. I actually crashed the plane myself the final time as I had lost all faith in the radio. In fact this last time was a sudden wind that had started down at that end of our field when where we stood was calm. My buddy flying his big gas Showtime had a difficult time landing once that wind hit the airstrip... and he doesn't mind wind at all! I was reached a point of total mistrust after 3 or 4 ground hits due to glitches and I don't remember how many recoveries. It was a new plane at the time, so I was looking at everything and was not limited in my search to just the receiver/radio... in fact that was the one thing I had initially trusted the most.
08-14-2008, 03:28 PM
#85
Senior Member
My Feedback: (6)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Goshen,
VA
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba 2.4 major malfunction!!!!!
I do a bit of 3d... still a newby to the hobby... but I keep getting lower and lower.... I'm just going to keep revisiting the best tm antenna setting for individual planes.
I guess as I am so new, 6 months... 72mhz was pretty much worked out. Everybody at all serious about flying knows how it works and perhaps I had some guidance along the way. I think I hit it right with all my setups off the start though. 2.4g on the other hand is new and not everybody has been exposed to it yet. And I think you are right... It's not just Futaba... there are other issues, such as long receiver reboots and lots of other snafus out there across the board. This is not to say that 2.4g is a bad thing.... I'm really only disappointed that our radio suppliers have not been forthcoming in providing good solid information and putting it out there for all to easily find.
It's not a bad radio, it's not a bad receiver, it's not a bad transmitter, it's not a bad frequency.... or at least it isn't in my case. It has just been an uninformed user... The plane I crashed so many times was a Seagul Extra 300. The kit cost $89! It came with 'complete' assembly and use instructions. Is this too much to ask when spending a few thousand on a radio and a passel of receivers?
I guess as I am so new, 6 months... 72mhz was pretty much worked out. Everybody at all serious about flying knows how it works and perhaps I had some guidance along the way. I think I hit it right with all my setups off the start though. 2.4g on the other hand is new and not everybody has been exposed to it yet. And I think you are right... It's not just Futaba... there are other issues, such as long receiver reboots and lots of other snafus out there across the board. This is not to say that 2.4g is a bad thing.... I'm really only disappointed that our radio suppliers have not been forthcoming in providing good solid information and putting it out there for all to easily find.
It's not a bad radio, it's not a bad receiver, it's not a bad transmitter, it's not a bad frequency.... or at least it isn't in my case. It has just been an uninformed user... The plane I crashed so many times was a Seagul Extra 300. The kit cost $89! It came with 'complete' assembly and use instructions. Is this too much to ask when spending a few thousand on a radio and a passel of receivers?
08-14-2008, 06:22 PM
#86
RE: Futaba 2.4 major malfunction!!!!!
ORIGINAL: dumorian
Under Receiver Installation and Channel Assignment, Step 3 in the TM-14 manual.
"If possible, please make sure that the two antennas are placed at 90 degrees to each other. Please note: This is not a critical figure, however, the most important thing is to keep the antenna away from each other as much as possible."
From what I have learned, it is 'critical' to have the antennas set 90 degrees to one another. I at first had them parallel very far from each other. There is no 'if possible' or 'not a critical figure' option unless you like glitches. This now sounds like a 'duh' moment... but the manual did not explicitly state 90 degrees, but instead 'if possible' and 'not a critical figure'. I was the first in our local group to go 2.4g, so I was basically on my own with the poor help from the Futaba.
I feel like I should premise this with the statement, I have never had a radio glitch on 72mhz. On page two of the same manual, under Antenna of the TM-14, number 1, it makes a statement much like the statement made about 72mhz.... basically the signal is strongest from the side of the antenna. Well, on my 72mhz stuff, the antenna is fixed in that it extends from the top and does not rotate. So, I thought, I'll just set the antenna on the TM-14 straight up as well. Well, I think there is one major basic difference between 72 and 2.4. 72 is much more forgiving in this regard. I believe this is why there are multiple antennas on 2.4 receivers and that there is almost no transmission from the point of the module antenna or reception through the tip of a receiver antenna. Instead, it is extremely critical to be broadcasting to the plane from the side of the module antenna and receiving from the side of at least one receiver antenna, therefore for me, pointing the module antenna downward works very well. I actually believe the signal degrades in a geometric progression as the angle changes from 90 degrees down to 0 degrees or parallel to the module antenna... almost to the point of no signal. So, this is one more thing to think about before flying... I always try to remember to point the antenna downward. I tried a flight with my glider, setting it to the side, which did pretty good as I sat back in my chair relaxed... but it glitched and I realized the antenna was sort of pointing toward the plane. A good diagnosis and quick move of the antenna and I had it back.
I also am conscious of flying above me. Basically this puts the plane in a situation where the back of the antenna is pointing at the receiver. When gliding at extreme heights, one needs to be aware of the antenna on the module, as the higher it goes, the more one may need to reposition the module antenna during flight. I do not have any glitch situations yet due to this... but trying to stay aware of it.
This is stuff I never had to think about with 72mhz. I have to question my assumption that 2.4g is superior. Yes, it does have many advantages, but it also has some major disadvantages.
After discovering these nuances, via my 'crash and learn' process, I have had good experiences. I've only had one other flight which had some glitches which I have not had time to troubleshoot, but I think it might have been a drop of water on one of the receiver antenna tips... we'll see.
I still believe that Futaba has grossly dropped the ball with regards to providing publications with their products. My only manual in writing, the TM-14 manual, states that the receiver is to be installed just like a 72mhz receiver, 'wrapped in foam'. The 617s apparently have just become available in the last month or few. There was plenty of time to include a new installation manual which included a re-write of at least this known issue. I'm glad I do have internet service and I'm glad I do visit sites like Futaba's and this and other forums, or I would not have known about the potential heat issue due to using foam.
Basically, there are three areas which are not well covered, nor has new information been provided 'with' the products. Maybe, if I purchased another TM-14, (I'm hoping I'll only ever need the one?) I might get a new updated manual?
Let me be loud in saying I love the radio! They did an excellent job with the software and hardware. I'm only 6 months into this hobby and have a Hitec Optic and Eclipse (both with good manuals). I simply watched as I amassed 72mhz receivers (each with a good manual).... got to the point with one plane where I needed 10 channels, so I took the major plunge before I had more invested in 72. Seemed like a good move before it got even harder.... 10 planes at the moment. I became totally disenchanted with the system... lost faith completely... worked through multiple problems that didn't need to be problems if there were just good accurate instructions. This was after full success in the 72mhz arena. There's nothing like the feeling of having a very expensive new toy that didn't work as good as the way cheaper older toy. No excuse Futaba.... NO excuse!
Under Receiver Installation and Channel Assignment, Step 3 in the TM-14 manual.
"If possible, please make sure that the two antennas are placed at 90 degrees to each other. Please note: This is not a critical figure, however, the most important thing is to keep the antenna away from each other as much as possible."
From what I have learned, it is 'critical' to have the antennas set 90 degrees to one another. I at first had them parallel very far from each other. There is no 'if possible' or 'not a critical figure' option unless you like glitches. This now sounds like a 'duh' moment... but the manual did not explicitly state 90 degrees, but instead 'if possible' and 'not a critical figure'. I was the first in our local group to go 2.4g, so I was basically on my own with the poor help from the Futaba.
I feel like I should premise this with the statement, I have never had a radio glitch on 72mhz. On page two of the same manual, under Antenna of the TM-14, number 1, it makes a statement much like the statement made about 72mhz.... basically the signal is strongest from the side of the antenna. Well, on my 72mhz stuff, the antenna is fixed in that it extends from the top and does not rotate. So, I thought, I'll just set the antenna on the TM-14 straight up as well. Well, I think there is one major basic difference between 72 and 2.4. 72 is much more forgiving in this regard. I believe this is why there are multiple antennas on 2.4 receivers and that there is almost no transmission from the point of the module antenna or reception through the tip of a receiver antenna. Instead, it is extremely critical to be broadcasting to the plane from the side of the module antenna and receiving from the side of at least one receiver antenna, therefore for me, pointing the module antenna downward works very well. I actually believe the signal degrades in a geometric progression as the angle changes from 90 degrees down to 0 degrees or parallel to the module antenna... almost to the point of no signal. So, this is one more thing to think about before flying... I always try to remember to point the antenna downward. I tried a flight with my glider, setting it to the side, which did pretty good as I sat back in my chair relaxed... but it glitched and I realized the antenna was sort of pointing toward the plane. A good diagnosis and quick move of the antenna and I had it back.
I also am conscious of flying above me. Basically this puts the plane in a situation where the back of the antenna is pointing at the receiver. When gliding at extreme heights, one needs to be aware of the antenna on the module, as the higher it goes, the more one may need to reposition the module antenna during flight. I do not have any glitch situations yet due to this... but trying to stay aware of it.
This is stuff I never had to think about with 72mhz. I have to question my assumption that 2.4g is superior. Yes, it does have many advantages, but it also has some major disadvantages.
After discovering these nuances, via my 'crash and learn' process, I have had good experiences. I've only had one other flight which had some glitches which I have not had time to troubleshoot, but I think it might have been a drop of water on one of the receiver antenna tips... we'll see.
I still believe that Futaba has grossly dropped the ball with regards to providing publications with their products. My only manual in writing, the TM-14 manual, states that the receiver is to be installed just like a 72mhz receiver, 'wrapped in foam'. The 617s apparently have just become available in the last month or few. There was plenty of time to include a new installation manual which included a re-write of at least this known issue. I'm glad I do have internet service and I'm glad I do visit sites like Futaba's and this and other forums, or I would not have known about the potential heat issue due to using foam.
Basically, there are three areas which are not well covered, nor has new information been provided 'with' the products. Maybe, if I purchased another TM-14, (I'm hoping I'll only ever need the one?) I might get a new updated manual?
Let me be loud in saying I love the radio! They did an excellent job with the software and hardware. I'm only 6 months into this hobby and have a Hitec Optic and Eclipse (both with good manuals). I simply watched as I amassed 72mhz receivers (each with a good manual).... got to the point with one plane where I needed 10 channels, so I took the major plunge before I had more invested in 72. Seemed like a good move before it got even harder.... 10 planes at the moment. I became totally disenchanted with the system... lost faith completely... worked through multiple problems that didn't need to be problems if there were just good accurate instructions. This was after full success in the 72mhz arena. There's nothing like the feeling of having a very expensive new toy that didn't work as good as the way cheaper older toy. No excuse Futaba.... NO excuse!
08-14-2008, 07:04 PM
#87
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tokoroa, , NEW ZEALAND
Posts: 3,848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba 2.4 major malfunction!!!!!
ORIGINAL: summerwind
in regards to the "critical" antenna placement..................i have range checked my 12Z with the 6014,608 and 2 606 Rx's with the antenna's setup at 90 degrees apart, and run side by side..............i can get to where i can't hardly see the surfaces moving, "read that as ove 100 paces"...............so i doubt that it really is critical, but in a plane where the owner is sloppy with metal to metal connections and what not, then it might make the difference in the air. but if one follows the guidlines of proper radio installation and proper control linkage hookiup, i doubt you will see any problems if you aren't setting the antenna at exactly 90 degrees apart.
in regards to the "critical" antenna placement..................i have range checked my 12Z with the 6014,608 and 2 606 Rx's with the antenna's setup at 90 degrees apart, and run side by side..............i can get to where i can't hardly see the surfaces moving, "read that as ove 100 paces"...............so i doubt that it really is critical, but in a plane where the owner is sloppy with metal to metal connections and what not, then it might make the difference in the air. but if one follows the guidlines of proper radio installation and proper control linkage hookiup, i doubt you will see any problems if you aren't setting the antenna at exactly 90 degrees apart.
Do you remember the old days of TV aerials on the roof of every house?
Some were mounted with their elements flat, some with them vertical. The orientation of the elements is called the polarization.
If your transmitter antenna is at one orientation and your receiver is at another, the signal strength received can be reduced by 75% compared to when they're both at the same orientation.
So although you may get a reasonable range-check on the ground, having your antennas operating in the same plane (ie: not 90 degrees to each other) could increase the chance of lockouts when the model is at certain attitudes in relation to the transmitter.
08-14-2008, 09:37 PM
#88
RE: Futaba 2.4 major malfunction!!!!!
ORIGINAL: Joystick TX
Ira, you said it could indicate that your code has been lost. What else could having to rebind mean?
It seems that there is still a lot of confusion about what needs to be done and how to do it.
From what I have read so far, if a Futaba ever needs rebinding, the code has been set to the default (for some reason) and it should be sent in for repair.
ORIGINAL: ira d
If you find that you have to rebind your receivers especialy more than one receiver
that could indiacate your code has been lost.
If you find that you have to rebind your receivers especialy more than one receiver
that could indiacate your code has been lost.
Ira, you said it could indicate that your code has been lost. What else could having to rebind mean?
It seems that there is still a lot of confusion about what needs to be done and how to do it.
From what I have read so far, if a Futaba ever needs rebinding, the code has been set to the default (for some reason) and it should be sent in for repair.
I suppose it could mean somthing happened to the receiver but its more likely the
transmitter has lost its code.
08-14-2008, 10:14 PM
#89
My Feedback: (25)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Tullahoma,
TN
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba 2.4 major malfunction!!!!!
I went to the futaba support forum and because I was having problems getting the 617fs receiver that came with my 7C to link to ask about the possibility of my 7C (it has the I inspection sticker) losing its code. Here is the question and the response from Bax below. It sounds like a pretty straight foward answer to me that if you have the new software it is not possible. Here is the link to the entire post:
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7829939/tm.htm
quote:
ORIGINAL: fossil
I guess what I am asking is: does my 7C 2.4 radio that has the (I) sticker still have the possibility of losing or re-setting of its identifier code for whatever reason? Is it still a possibility?
Thanks,
Randy
No. If your transmitter has the "I" sticker, it has the new software that eliminates the possibility of a code reset.
_____________________________
Bill Baxter, Manager Hobby Services/Futaba Service/North America
3002 N. Apollo Dr. Ste. 1 Champaign, IL 61822 USA
Service Phone: 217 398-0007
Email: [email protected]
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7829939/tm.htm
quote:
ORIGINAL: fossil
I guess what I am asking is: does my 7C 2.4 radio that has the (I) sticker still have the possibility of losing or re-setting of its identifier code for whatever reason? Is it still a possibility?
Thanks,
Randy
No. If your transmitter has the "I" sticker, it has the new software that eliminates the possibility of a code reset.
_____________________________
Bill Baxter, Manager Hobby Services/Futaba Service/North America
3002 N. Apollo Dr. Ste. 1 Champaign, IL 61822 USA
Service Phone: 217 398-0007
Email: [email protected]
08-15-2008, 03:02 AM
#91
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Grand Paririe,
TX
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba 2.4 major malfunction!!!!!
So your saying Futaba ( Bax) "SAYS" no way can be a problem again...... after the way they handeled the problem to begin with can we trust there word this time?
Remember, In there Service Advisory they said they couldnt find a problem, So does this mean they have mastered a way to fix "UnKnow" problems?
And remember to they said to take your transmitter to have it chacked, Said that if it passed you were fine, Now we find out thats simply NOT true either.
Ill never trust Futaba ever agin.
Remember, In there Service Advisory they said they couldnt find a problem, So does this mean they have mastered a way to fix "UnKnow" problems?
And remember to they said to take your transmitter to have it chacked, Said that if it passed you were fine, Now we find out thats simply NOT true either.
Ill never trust Futaba ever agin.
08-15-2008, 08:06 AM
#92
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Brisbane Qld, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba 2.4 major malfunction!!!!!
The Rxs have two atennas that need to be placed at 90*.
Is there any reason why the new 2.4ghz Txs could not have two antennas, that could be placed at 90*. (many wireless computer routers have two antennas).
This would eliminate the problem with reduced signal at 90*left or right or with the model directly overhead (depending on how you place your Tx antenna).
So to any 2.4ghz gurus. Why dont they use two Txs antennas to minimise Tx signal degredation.
Cheers
Is there any reason why the new 2.4ghz Txs could not have two antennas, that could be placed at 90*. (many wireless computer routers have two antennas).
This would eliminate the problem with reduced signal at 90*left or right or with the model directly overhead (depending on how you place your Tx antenna).
So to any 2.4ghz gurus. Why dont they use two Txs antennas to minimise Tx signal degredation.
Cheers
08-15-2008, 08:21 AM
#93
Senior Member
My Feedback: (6)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Goshen,
VA
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba 2.4 major malfunction!!!!!
ORIGINAL: summerwind
in regards to the "critical" antenna placement..................i have range checked my 12Z with the 6014,608 and 2 606 Rx's with the antenna's setup at 90 degrees apart, and run side by side..............i can get to where i can't hardly see the surfaces moving, "read that as ove 100 paces"...............so i doubt that it really is critical, but in a plane where the owner is sloppy with metal to metal connections and what not, then it might make the difference in the air. but if one follows the guidlines of proper radio installation and proper control linkage hookiup, i doubt you will see any problems if you aren't setting the antenna at exactly 90 degrees apart.
in regards to the "critical" antenna placement..................i have range checked my 12Z with the 6014,608 and 2 606 Rx's with the antenna's setup at 90 degrees apart, and run side by side..............i can get to where i can't hardly see the surfaces moving, "read that as ove 100 paces"...............so i doubt that it really is critical, but in a plane where the owner is sloppy with metal to metal connections and what not, then it might make the difference in the air. but if one follows the guidlines of proper radio installation and proper control linkage hookiup, i doubt you will see any problems if you aren't setting the antenna at exactly 90 degrees apart.
I sat the plane on our wooden flight bench up off the ground. I put the radio in range check mode. I had my friend watch the led on the receiver. As I moved away from the plane to the side of the antennas, I had pretty good reception out to maybe 100 paces. When I moved to the front of the plane, antenna tips... suddenly the led was switching from green to red to green to red.... very quickly. It was too fast to pick up with control surface movement and required having an observer at the plane. It was at this moment that I realized every glitch during flight occurred at distance and at the point where the plane was flying toward me or away from me... which meant the antenna's were pointed toward the radio or away, but neither had a side exposed to the radio. In most cases, the plane would start to spiral or turn and I would regain control quickly. In some cases I was too close to the ground and all I had time to do was prepare it for 'weed landing'.
Spending some time with the radio, a friend and moving things around is enlightening. I could kill the signal by being between the radio and the plane (note to self: think about people walking in front of you during flight). Having the friend change the orientation of the plane saved a lot of steps and was the only way to get a report on the state of reception.
So, this is not a case of sloppy connectors. It is a case of needing to be sure you thoroughly test especially having the receiver antenna oriented to point toward the radio or any configuration where side antenna exposure is minimized. Most folks never actually move the plane or move around the plane. In the air, the plane is constantly presenting different sides to the radio... every angle imaginable in the case of an aerobatic plane. This testing also shows how you can kill a signal by pointing the tm antenna at the plane.
Watching control surfaces move I discovered is by no means an accurate test. The receiver can relink too quickly to see the glitch. It takes someone at the plane. The plane should not be on the ground due to ground interference. Both the radio and the plane should be moved about to as many angles as possible. At least as a first learning experience.
In retrospect, I think what Futaba might have been trying to state in the manual, is that 90 degrees is critical, but doing it precisely as their illustrations show is not critical. The wording was very poor and easily interpreted to several very different meanings.
If I had been flying a slowflyer or glider, I would likely have never seen the glitches. As I was flying a pattern/3d setup, the glitches were obvious, abrupt and caused bad results. Magically, after I moved one of the receiver antennas to point up into the canopy and left one pointing back at the tail, all problems ended. That would be 90 degrees apart! This means that while in flight, never at any angle is there less than a 45 degree exposure to at least one of the antenna sides.
09-02-2008, 01:23 AM
#94
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: istanbul, TURKEY
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba 2.4 major malfunction!!!!!
Dear friends,
I have a Cermark Pitts S2B .It has 2 servos on both wings and it means 4 servos on the wings.It has 1 servo on elevator , one servo on the rudder,one servo on the throttle. I use R 617 FS receiver and Futaba T12FGA 2.4 radio.All servos are Futaba S3050 ...
I use Y cables each wings so I have 2 Y cables. I mixed the two wings . I used foam wrap for receiver from Futaba directives...
Last week when I making the radio set up s ,the signal was lost. "Interesting" I've sad. I had Turn off the receiver and turn on ,it was OK but 2 minutes later again the signal was lost...I can not understand anything from that situation.Antenna positioning 90 degrees and it is OK, cables are OK, Battery is 5 cell 1500 mAh and it is OK, What is my problem ?
My radio from Singapore and receiver from England, is it a regional factor ? ( It works when I linked the receiver to the Tx but ????)
Regards
Mehmet Arcasoy
I have a Cermark Pitts S2B .It has 2 servos on both wings and it means 4 servos on the wings.It has 1 servo on elevator , one servo on the rudder,one servo on the throttle. I use R 617 FS receiver and Futaba T12FGA 2.4 radio.All servos are Futaba S3050 ...
I use Y cables each wings so I have 2 Y cables. I mixed the two wings . I used foam wrap for receiver from Futaba directives...
Last week when I making the radio set up s ,the signal was lost. "Interesting" I've sad. I had Turn off the receiver and turn on ,it was OK but 2 minutes later again the signal was lost...I can not understand anything from that situation.Antenna positioning 90 degrees and it is OK, cables are OK, Battery is 5 cell 1500 mAh and it is OK, What is my problem ?
My radio from Singapore and receiver from England, is it a regional factor ? ( It works when I linked the receiver to the Tx but ????)
Regards
Mehmet Arcasoy
09-08-2008, 06:03 PM
#97
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: White Bear Township,
MN
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba 2.4 major malfunction!!!!!
I started reading this thread along with other threads in the radios forum to help me make 'the right choice' regarding my first 2.4GHZ radio.... Futaba 10C or JR 9303
This thread started out by describing a problem with Futaba FASST transmitters. By the time I finished up the first page or 2 of posts it seemed obvious that Futaba was definitely not the way to go, so choose JR. Then the thread mentioned over heating problems with JR receivers.
I wish I could say that I will never forget to power off the transmitter, but I make all of the common mistakes and then some.
In an effort to boil this thread down to a couple questions...
- Has the "forget to power off" problem been resolved by Futaba or JR on either the 10C or 9303 radios?
- Do the new receivers REQUIRE air movement to avoid overheating? Assume that I won't wrap the receiver in foam.
Perhaps there isn't a clear choice and I should choose based solely on the price of the day.
Mike Roerig
This thread started out by describing a problem with Futaba FASST transmitters. By the time I finished up the first page or 2 of posts it seemed obvious that Futaba was definitely not the way to go, so choose JR. Then the thread mentioned over heating problems with JR receivers.
I wish I could say that I will never forget to power off the transmitter, but I make all of the common mistakes and then some.
In an effort to boil this thread down to a couple questions...
- Has the "forget to power off" problem been resolved by Futaba or JR on either the 10C or 9303 radios?
- Do the new receivers REQUIRE air movement to avoid overheating? Assume that I won't wrap the receiver in foam.
Perhaps there isn't a clear choice and I should choose based solely on the price of the day.
Mike Roerig
05-05-2009, 01:13 PM
#100
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Austin,
TX
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Futaba 2.4 major malfunction!!!!!
I have been a Futaba (and only Futaba) user since the 70s. I currently own a Futaba 6 ch 2.4Ghz system and I just purchased a Futaba 7C 2.4GHz system in March 09 from Tower Hobbies. I purchased the new Futaba 7C for use on a electric YAK54. After very careful bindng, range checking etc I maidened the YAK54 on April 14 - Take off was beautiful - first turn back to me and I lost all control - smashed right in front of me.- TOTALLED! I had no control what so ever.
In order to eliminate the loss of control issue due to an electric motor/ESC, I installed this new Futaba system in my favourite nitro bipe last Saturday and was at the field on Sunday. Again range check etc with engine running no issues seen. Take off was good but again I LOST ALL CONTROL SHORTLY THERE AFTER AND CRASHED!!!. NO BODY ELSE WAS FLYING. THANK GOD I DID NOT HIT ANYBODY IN THE SPECTATOR AREA.
I believe this system is clearly defective. I called Tower but they just told me that it was a warranty issue and that I should contact Hobby Services. I called Hobby Services and they have never heard of such a problem - just wanted me to send it in - which I have done.[:@].
The loss of 2 planes because of a brand new defective RADIO system is just too much to take these days.[:@]
In order to eliminate the loss of control issue due to an electric motor/ESC, I installed this new Futaba system in my favourite nitro bipe last Saturday and was at the field on Sunday. Again range check etc with engine running no issues seen. Take off was good but again I LOST ALL CONTROL SHORTLY THERE AFTER AND CRASHED!!!. NO BODY ELSE WAS FLYING. THANK GOD I DID NOT HIT ANYBODY IN THE SPECTATOR AREA.
I believe this system is clearly defective. I called Tower but they just told me that it was a warranty issue and that I should contact Hobby Services. I called Hobby Services and they have never heard of such a problem - just wanted me to send it in - which I have done.[:@].
The loss of 2 planes because of a brand new defective RADIO system is just too much to take these days.[:@]