I still dont get it, beautiful expensive planes, cheap parts!
06-05-2014, 01:06 PM
#76
My Feedback: (80)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: clute, TX
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a 3W 150 that is stamped "TOC" 92. Come and talk to me in 22 years and we will see where your china engines are. I also have a G62 that was "old" when I got it 20 years ago. Still runs great! I always buy the BEST and never buy new!
06-05-2014, 01:35 PM
#77
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lockport,
NY
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-05-2014, 01:56 PM
#78
My Feedback: (22)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Windham,
ME
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just installed some Hitec 5645's in a 4m Fox glider and I have not been to impressed. When I move the controls the blue lights on my powersafe rx flicker? Checked with an amp meter and there only pulling .3 amps max. Usually buy JR digi's but I tried to save a dollar...in the end it will probably cost more. Lesson learned
06-05-2014, 02:56 PM
#79
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: , ON, CANADA
Posts: 974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing that isn't often taken into account when discussing "cheap Chinese" products is the incredibly rapid pace the quality of these products are improving by. Ten years ago, a no-name "Made in China" RTF was a 2 channel toy controlled by thrust vectoring, and it would set you back at least $100. $100 bucks now can get you a sophisticated 4 channel foam warbird with relatively good quality components.
It's this reason why I can't seriously consider any story about how "that cheap receiver I bought five years ago failed". There have been enormous gains in quality (especially in the No-Name category) in such a short time that it's impossible to judge something from only a few years past experience.
The best way to find if something is good is to try it out yourself, especially if you are willing to spend hundreds more on perceived quality.
It's this reason why I can't seriously consider any story about how "that cheap receiver I bought five years ago failed". There have been enormous gains in quality (especially in the No-Name category) in such a short time that it's impossible to judge something from only a few years past experience.
The best way to find if something is good is to try it out yourself, especially if you are willing to spend hundreds more on perceived quality.
06-05-2014, 03:02 PM
#80
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: , ON, CANADA
Posts: 974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Times are changing...For the good.
One thing that isn't often taken into account when discussing "cheap Chinese" products is the incredibly rapid pace the quality of these products are improving by. Ten years ago, a no-name "Made in China" RTF was a 2 channel toy controlled by thrust vectoring, and it would set you back at least $100. $100 bucks now can get you a sophisticated 4 channel foam warbird with relatively good quality components.
It's this reason why I can't seriously consider any story about how "that cheap receiver I bought five years ago failed". There have been enormous gains in quality (especially in the No-Name category) in such a short time that it's impossible to judge something from only a few years past experience.
The best way to find if something is good is to try it out yourself, especially if you are willing to spend hundreds more on perceived quality.
The hobby is also no longer at all what it was ten years ago. I started just as electric power was (pardon the pun) taking off, and never would have guessed where it would be now. A large part of it has been these lower cost components flooding the market. Until the onset of inexpensive brushless motors and LiPos, it was always cumbersome and expensive to get into R/C flying. Now it is incredibly easy and cheap with fantastic online resources. This has been incredibly beneficial to our hobby as a whole, and I'm seeing far more people getting into building and flying from discovering YouTube series' like FliteTest, with a focus on inexpensive scratch built foam construction and these cheap components that are somehow being seen here as "threatening" to the hobby.
It's this reason why I can't seriously consider any story about how "that cheap receiver I bought five years ago failed". There have been enormous gains in quality (especially in the No-Name category) in such a short time that it's impossible to judge something from only a few years past experience.
The best way to find if something is good is to try it out yourself, especially if you are willing to spend hundreds more on perceived quality.
The hobby is also no longer at all what it was ten years ago. I started just as electric power was (pardon the pun) taking off, and never would have guessed where it would be now. A large part of it has been these lower cost components flooding the market. Until the onset of inexpensive brushless motors and LiPos, it was always cumbersome and expensive to get into R/C flying. Now it is incredibly easy and cheap with fantastic online resources. This has been incredibly beneficial to our hobby as a whole, and I'm seeing far more people getting into building and flying from discovering YouTube series' like FliteTest, with a focus on inexpensive scratch built foam construction and these cheap components that are somehow being seen here as "threatening" to the hobby.
06-06-2014, 02:53 AM
#81
Interesting posts. The technology changes in the past 25 years is nothing short of amazing. Battery technology is super great! I switched all my planes over to LIFE batts and wow, that was the best decision I made in years.
One thing I always wonder about is how folks will say "My x receiver caused my crash" and they sell it, yet the guy that buys it never has one issue. How is that possible if the receiver is at fault? I can testify to buying something that I am pretty sure was sold because the person knew it was his issue crashing his planes as he wanted to switch brands.
I am not mentioning brand names in this case, but just giving information to prove a point. I am still running this radio four years later without one issue - not one!
Some of my best deals have come this way and I know some folks would never deny they are wrong with their assumptions, but four years of flying and thousands of flights is proof enough that it was not the radio that had caused the original crashes. The same goes with receivers. You find some guy says a receiver caused all his crashes and he sells it to someone else and they never have an issue. Why is that? It begs the question though as to what actually was the culprit?
I have learned not to assume and also to do a good investigation and so far I have found the root cause to every single problem I have had in any glitches or strange actions with my planes, except recently I had an issue with some ailerons glitching and almost lost a 50cc bipe. However based on past experience I believe I know the cause (connector) yet just could not pinpoint the exact location on this plane. I did what I know and believe I have resolved the issue. I will know as soon as I test. A good process of diagnostics by isolation works well with RC planes.
Time will tell, but I wager it is not a receiver based on my experience. I know that others would automatically assume the receiver and sell it. I have seen guys crash a plane and even before they check it out they have said, radio is bad yet they have flown hundreds of flights up to that point. I remember one guy yellling that his radio was the problem and after he gathered up the pieces of his downed plane and came back and investigated he realized that he had not pulled his antenna out! Factless assumption is pretty pointless - isn't it?.
I am in no way implying that components do not fail, yet they don't fail as often as most scream they do. The nice thing is that a lot of us get good parts cheap because of others being ignorant about such things.
One thing I always wonder about is how folks will say "My x receiver caused my crash" and they sell it, yet the guy that buys it never has one issue. How is that possible if the receiver is at fault? I can testify to buying something that I am pretty sure was sold because the person knew it was his issue crashing his planes as he wanted to switch brands.
I am not mentioning brand names in this case, but just giving information to prove a point. I am still running this radio four years later without one issue - not one!
Some of my best deals have come this way and I know some folks would never deny they are wrong with their assumptions, but four years of flying and thousands of flights is proof enough that it was not the radio that had caused the original crashes. The same goes with receivers. You find some guy says a receiver caused all his crashes and he sells it to someone else and they never have an issue. Why is that? It begs the question though as to what actually was the culprit?
I have learned not to assume and also to do a good investigation and so far I have found the root cause to every single problem I have had in any glitches or strange actions with my planes, except recently I had an issue with some ailerons glitching and almost lost a 50cc bipe. However based on past experience I believe I know the cause (connector) yet just could not pinpoint the exact location on this plane. I did what I know and believe I have resolved the issue. I will know as soon as I test. A good process of diagnostics by isolation works well with RC planes.
Time will tell, but I wager it is not a receiver based on my experience. I know that others would automatically assume the receiver and sell it. I have seen guys crash a plane and even before they check it out they have said, radio is bad yet they have flown hundreds of flights up to that point. I remember one guy yellling that his radio was the problem and after he gathered up the pieces of his downed plane and came back and investigated he realized that he had not pulled his antenna out! Factless assumption is pretty pointless - isn't it?.
I am in no way implying that components do not fail, yet they don't fail as often as most scream they do. The nice thing is that a lot of us get good parts cheap because of others being ignorant about such things.
06-06-2014, 03:25 AM
#82
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Spring Hill,
FL
Posts: 4,734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luchnia - I lost my second RC plane to radio failure. I was inverted and tried a half loop to come back to upright and it went straight into the ground.
Years later I realized that my pushrod collapsed.
I lost another plane on maiden when the radio went nuts. In that case I had attached a brass tube to the muffler with rubber hose and then connected the brass tube to the aluminum landing gear with a spring. The receiver (wrapped in foam) sat on top of the landing gear location. Again, I thought it was a fault with the radio but I'm sure it was all that metal - particularly the spring - generating noise that made the receiver go nuts.
Point is that a lot of times people honestly think it's the radio when it's something else. Then when you get the radio you won't have the problem because you didn't hook your muffler extension to an aluminum landing gear with a metal spring.
Then there are all those guys who just can't admit they crashed their plane. It's always a radio failure with them.
Years later I realized that my pushrod collapsed.
I lost another plane on maiden when the radio went nuts. In that case I had attached a brass tube to the muffler with rubber hose and then connected the brass tube to the aluminum landing gear with a spring. The receiver (wrapped in foam) sat on top of the landing gear location. Again, I thought it was a fault with the radio but I'm sure it was all that metal - particularly the spring - generating noise that made the receiver go nuts.
Point is that a lot of times people honestly think it's the radio when it's something else. Then when you get the radio you won't have the problem because you didn't hook your muffler extension to an aluminum landing gear with a metal spring.
Then there are all those guys who just can't admit they crashed their plane. It's always a radio failure with them.
06-06-2014, 04:11 AM
#83
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Jupiter,
FL
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luchnia - I lost my second RC plane to radio failure. I was inverted and tried a half loop to come back to upright and it went straight into the ground.
Years later I realized that my pushrod collapsed.
I lost another plane on maiden when the radio went nuts. In that case I had attached a brass tube to the muffler with rubber hose and then connected the brass tube to the aluminum landing gear with a spring. The receiver (wrapped in foam) sat on top of the landing gear location. Again, I thought it was a fault with the radio but I'm sure it was all that metal - particularly the spring - generating noise that made the receiver go nuts.
Point is that a lot of times people honestly think it's the radio when it's something else. Then when you get the radio you won't have the problem because you didn't hook your muffler extension to an aluminum landing gear with a metal spring.
Then there are all those guys who just can't admit they crashed their plane. It's always a radio failure with them.
Years later I realized that my pushrod collapsed.
I lost another plane on maiden when the radio went nuts. In that case I had attached a brass tube to the muffler with rubber hose and then connected the brass tube to the aluminum landing gear with a spring. The receiver (wrapped in foam) sat on top of the landing gear location. Again, I thought it was a fault with the radio but I'm sure it was all that metal - particularly the spring - generating noise that made the receiver go nuts.
Point is that a lot of times people honestly think it's the radio when it's something else. Then when you get the radio you won't have the problem because you didn't hook your muffler extension to an aluminum landing gear with a metal spring.
Then there are all those guys who just can't admit they crashed their plane. It's always a radio failure with them.
06-06-2014, 07:59 AM
#85
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
worst servos EVER! In my 25 years of being in this hobby, i have literally had 50! Of those servos either be DOA, quit while bench testing or have the worst centering capabilites of even the cheapest servos. I would never recommend someone use those. Spektrum has better digital metal gear servos for similar prices.
If you compete, your equipment must be precise in order to be competitive with the rest. If you are fighting servo centering in the air, you cant keep a straight line let alone preform a maneuver with much accuracy.... Its not about just having higher standards as bragging rights to show off your $200 servo's or whatever... its knowing that the airplane is capable of exactly what you are wanting it to do.
Hitec 5645's (and 5625's) are very strong servo's.. but if you want your rudder for instance to actually center back to neutral.. good luck, cause they DO NOT center for crap.. and these are not cheap servo's either at $50 a piece. Its baffeling that they still produce them as terrible as they are. I have however found a good use for them, and the only thing I will use them for now, and thats a engine Choke.
06-06-2014, 11:23 AM
#87
Senior Member
