8FG
#2
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Chicago,
IL
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 8FG
Sure. It's a great radio. Probably Futaba's best bang for the buck radio at the moment. It's pretty capable with its programming and has some really cool new features. I'd say that it will take care of all or at least most of the needs of the majority of people in the hobby. It's also one of the fastest radios on the market with a very low as well as extremely consistent latency when paired up with the R6008HS receiver. It's designed from the ground up as a fully integrated 2.4GHz system.
I could go on and on about different features of it that I like.
I could go on and on about different features of it that I like.
#4
RE: 8FG
I love mine. Stock 1700mAh battery gives a good 7 hours of flying or more on a charge. Six cell (nominal 7.2V) makes it compatible with a 2S lipo, for those that want to go that route.
Almost 4000 model memories with a 2Gig SD card, the ability to upgrade the software without sending the radio in for service and the ability to store your model setups in a folder on your computer, makes it a very good value at its price point[8D]
Pete
Almost 4000 model memories with a 2Gig SD card, the ability to upgrade the software without sending the radio in for service and the ability to store your model setups in a folder on your computer, makes it a very good value at its price point[8D]
Pete
#7
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Chicago,
IL
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 8FG
It very well could be. It's a solid all around performer. I had the option of getting a 10C for the same price, but I decided to still go with the 8FG. The SD card was one of the main selling points, and it has proven to be a very useful feature indeed. There was recently a software update for the 8FG that added in even more functionality. The SD card made the update process nice and simple. Besides, you can't really beat having all the models you could ever want programmed in your transmitter at the ready.
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cape Town, SOUTH AFRICA
Posts: 2,744
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
RE: 8FG
Its a fantastic radio. As capable as the 10C in terms of prgramming and seems to point the way that Futaba is heading for replacement of the 10c, 12 and 14MZradio's
I'm wrestling with chosing between it and the 10c at he moment.
I'm wrestling with chosing between it and the 10c at he moment.
#9
My Feedback: (10)
RE: 8FG
I have a pimped out 9CAP with the hansen chip, duck antena, and 2500 mah NiMh, so memory is not a problem but is very important to any TX I consider for future purchase.
The reason I didn't jump on the 7 for my racing activities was the memory issue. I'm looking hard at this one and the new Spectrum 8 with telemetry. That looks like something I'd like to have too.
The reason I didn't jump on the 7 for my racing activities was the memory issue. I'm looking hard at this one and the new Spectrum 8 with telemetry. That looks like something I'd like to have too.
#10
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Chicago,
IL
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 8FG
From what I've seen so far the DX8 doesn't look as capable as the 8FG on the programming side of things. For example, the DX8 doesn't have specific glider programming. Though you'll probably be able to set up most gliders on it, depending on the specific kind of glider, you might also have to use all of the user programming mixes to get it to work correctly and you'd be limited on the different kinds of conditions and the like that you could use.
There is also some info going around through the grapevine that the 8FG uses bidirectional RF chips and is telemetry ready, only needing a software update as soon as Futaba comes out with a telemetry system. I'm not holding my breath, but it would be a very interesting turn of events. Link with more info: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1277715
I also think Futaba offers a more reliable radio platform in general and uses marginally better RF technology with thair FASST (DSSS and FHSS hybrid) system than Spektrum does with DSM2 (DSSS with a second redundant channel).
If you're interested in telemetry, Hitec's Aurora 9 is another option. It's a very capable radio on the programming side of things, but it has a couple minor but systemic issues including verying degrees of deadband near the edges of stick travel, and a kind of built-in expo that makes the sticks overly sensative around the center (some 3D guys aren't able to make the center soft enough with expo for their liking). Though overall it's users seem to be very happy with it.
There is also some info going around through the grapevine that the 8FG uses bidirectional RF chips and is telemetry ready, only needing a software update as soon as Futaba comes out with a telemetry system. I'm not holding my breath, but it would be a very interesting turn of events. Link with more info: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1277715
I also think Futaba offers a more reliable radio platform in general and uses marginally better RF technology with thair FASST (DSSS and FHSS hybrid) system than Spektrum does with DSM2 (DSSS with a second redundant channel).
If you're interested in telemetry, Hitec's Aurora 9 is another option. It's a very capable radio on the programming side of things, but it has a couple minor but systemic issues including verying degrees of deadband near the edges of stick travel, and a kind of built-in expo that makes the sticks overly sensative around the center (some 3D guys aren't able to make the center soft enough with expo for their liking). Though overall it's users seem to be very happy with it.
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cape Town, SOUTH AFRICA
Posts: 2,744
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
RE: 8FG
The T8FG does indeed use bidirectional RF chips. I saw a system decked out with a really trick FPV system that operated with the T8FG. I was not given the details but the FPV system uses the T8FG's RF system to transmit the images back to the heads up unit worn by the pilot. Its the only Futaba, only radio capable of doing that at the moment according to the guy who was doing the outfitting...
Also, Futaba are rumoured to be working on a telemetry suit developed in conjunction with Hyperion. This will also mean Futaba will use Life batteries are std in their new radio's..
Not holding my breath because with Futaba it could be 3yrs away or it could be 3 weeks away. All I do know is that when it's out it will work.
lastly the T8FG' upgradable software seems to lend credibility to the rumour that it will be be baseline Tx offered by them that will be upgradable and have the telemetry functionality.
Its the main reason, albeit unconfirmed, that I am leanng toward the T8FG in the short term. The T10C has been out a while...
On the Spektrum, I doubt I will touch those radio's soon. Too many anecdotal reports of radio failures where those systems have been involved.
The Futaba just seem to be robust to a much lower power level.
Also, Futaba are rumoured to be working on a telemetry suit developed in conjunction with Hyperion. This will also mean Futaba will use Life batteries are std in their new radio's..
Not holding my breath because with Futaba it could be 3yrs away or it could be 3 weeks away. All I do know is that when it's out it will work.
lastly the T8FG' upgradable software seems to lend credibility to the rumour that it will be be baseline Tx offered by them that will be upgradable and have the telemetry functionality.
Its the main reason, albeit unconfirmed, that I am leanng toward the T8FG in the short term. The T10C has been out a while...
On the Spektrum, I doubt I will touch those radio's soon. Too many anecdotal reports of radio failures where those systems have been involved.
The Futaba just seem to be robust to a much lower power level.
#12
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Chicago,
IL
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: 8FG
Yes, all the FASST receivers I've tested work down to 2.6 volts, much lower than the minimum voltage for most regular and digital servos, and significantly lower than the minimum voltage of Spektrum receivers.
Many Spektrum users argue that you shouldn't be flying on that low of a voltage anyway. While that is true, it's still not a good idea to have your receivers be the weakest links in your electrical systems. Voltage isn't consistent, and the more current you draw, the lower the voltage will drop, because the receiver pack (and all batteries for that matter) can only convert stored capacity to usable capacity so quickly, and as they age, or suffer from voltage suppression (often incorrectly referred to as memory effect) the amount of current they can supply (and thus voltage) will be lowered, so a battery pack that works perfectly fine one time, might not the next. The main reason for not having your receiver's minimum operational voltage higher than or at the same level as your servos' is that if the receiver loses power because of a low voltage dip, you will have a more significant loss of control, and have to wait for the voltage to recover enough to boot the receiver and wait for it to reconnect to the transmitter's signal, if it is even able to recover at all. Having the receiver's operational voltage level lower than the servos' means that it is actually much more difficult to get the voltage low enough to cause the receiver to fail unexpectedly.
The fact that earlier Spektrum receivers took so long to reboot and reconnect with their corresponding transmitters only compounded the issue. Fortunately they have improved the reboot and reconnect times, though they apparently still haven't been able to lower the operational voltage enough.
Futaba FASST receivers have always worked at lower voltages and reconnected quickly (twice as fast or more than the early Spektrum receivers). Futaba's older R606FS receiver (now long since discontinued) did take a whole second and a half to reconnect, but the newer receivers connect up within a fraction of a second.
Add on to this that Futaba's signal technology has been shown through both theoretical and empirical evidence to be marginally more robust than Spektrum's DSM2 technology, and that they make more capable, higher end radios on the programming side of things; the choice between them should be rather clear for the more knowledgeable and advanced user. Of course, there is plenty of misinformation and irrational brand loyalty out there that it can make finding out the truth and relevance of these issues rather difficult.
Spektrum radios are fine for many beginners, people that just want to fly BNF foamies, park flyers, and some sport pilots, but I wouldn't recommend them for more advanced RC pilots.
What I find distasteful is Spektrum's/Horizon's misrepresentation of not only how their system works, but also how Futaba's works. Here's a glaring example: http://www.rcmodelreviews.com/horizons_tricks.shtml Also, note that the Futaba receiver used in the video he is referring to was one of the by then discontinued R606FS receivers. There are a few other notable examples of misrepresentation as well, of course; just have a look at the Spektrum website. The FASST system is not a pure FHSS system as Spektrum seems to imply, but rather (as I've mentioned) a kind of DSSS and FHSS hybrid, using the best of both for improved reliability and reduced impact on specific portions of the 2.4GHz band (probably why DSM2 isn't legal to use in Japan, making it kind of ironic that JR uses DSM2 for its US market).
Futaba's R6008HS receiver (which comes standard with the 8FG) has both signal and battery programmable fail safes on each individual proportional channel, which enables you to have an in the air user defined warning if your receiver voltage is getting dangerously low, as well as either holding the channel's last position or going to a predefined position in the event of signal loss (neither of which I have ever actually experienced using the FASST system, except for purposefully in the controlled tests I've conducted).
Many Spektrum users argue that you shouldn't be flying on that low of a voltage anyway. While that is true, it's still not a good idea to have your receivers be the weakest links in your electrical systems. Voltage isn't consistent, and the more current you draw, the lower the voltage will drop, because the receiver pack (and all batteries for that matter) can only convert stored capacity to usable capacity so quickly, and as they age, or suffer from voltage suppression (often incorrectly referred to as memory effect) the amount of current they can supply (and thus voltage) will be lowered, so a battery pack that works perfectly fine one time, might not the next. The main reason for not having your receiver's minimum operational voltage higher than or at the same level as your servos' is that if the receiver loses power because of a low voltage dip, you will have a more significant loss of control, and have to wait for the voltage to recover enough to boot the receiver and wait for it to reconnect to the transmitter's signal, if it is even able to recover at all. Having the receiver's operational voltage level lower than the servos' means that it is actually much more difficult to get the voltage low enough to cause the receiver to fail unexpectedly.
The fact that earlier Spektrum receivers took so long to reboot and reconnect with their corresponding transmitters only compounded the issue. Fortunately they have improved the reboot and reconnect times, though they apparently still haven't been able to lower the operational voltage enough.
Futaba FASST receivers have always worked at lower voltages and reconnected quickly (twice as fast or more than the early Spektrum receivers). Futaba's older R606FS receiver (now long since discontinued) did take a whole second and a half to reconnect, but the newer receivers connect up within a fraction of a second.
Add on to this that Futaba's signal technology has been shown through both theoretical and empirical evidence to be marginally more robust than Spektrum's DSM2 technology, and that they make more capable, higher end radios on the programming side of things; the choice between them should be rather clear for the more knowledgeable and advanced user. Of course, there is plenty of misinformation and irrational brand loyalty out there that it can make finding out the truth and relevance of these issues rather difficult.
Spektrum radios are fine for many beginners, people that just want to fly BNF foamies, park flyers, and some sport pilots, but I wouldn't recommend them for more advanced RC pilots.
What I find distasteful is Spektrum's/Horizon's misrepresentation of not only how their system works, but also how Futaba's works. Here's a glaring example: http://www.rcmodelreviews.com/horizons_tricks.shtml Also, note that the Futaba receiver used in the video he is referring to was one of the by then discontinued R606FS receivers. There are a few other notable examples of misrepresentation as well, of course; just have a look at the Spektrum website. The FASST system is not a pure FHSS system as Spektrum seems to imply, but rather (as I've mentioned) a kind of DSSS and FHSS hybrid, using the best of both for improved reliability and reduced impact on specific portions of the 2.4GHz band (probably why DSM2 isn't legal to use in Japan, making it kind of ironic that JR uses DSM2 for its US market).
Futaba's R6008HS receiver (which comes standard with the 8FG) has both signal and battery programmable fail safes on each individual proportional channel, which enables you to have an in the air user defined warning if your receiver voltage is getting dangerously low, as well as either holding the channel's last position or going to a predefined position in the event of signal loss (neither of which I have ever actually experienced using the FASST system, except for purposefully in the controlled tests I've conducted).