Julian Thacker

This post applies to 2.4 gear rather then 35MHz. In my club we have had a single occurrence of possible mobile phone interference with a transmitter, in this case while in flight. The model was being flown by an experienced and capable pilot when his phone rang in his pocket (this was prior to the BMFA recommendation). As the phone rang his model went out of control and crashed. The two possible explanations I have come up with are a) the phone did interfere with the tx operation, b) the pilot's attention was diverted by the phone tone and he lost concentration and control of the model. My money is still on the 2nd possible cause but the pilot is certain his control of the model was not affected by the phone call. Probably irrelevant but the radio was a Multiplex (I have no idea which model but it was 2.4). Purely out of interest I recently tested another radio by putting it into rage test mode, walking out about 100 metres, and then calling the model restrainer on my mobile. We had a conversation with both of us holding our phones as close as we could manage to the tx at my end and the rx at his end and the model responded to all commands faultlessly. I am not claiming this was a scientific test but it did reassure me that my radio appeared to be fairly resistant to interference from my and my mate's mobile phones. Obviously another phone may have had a different effect. Oh, I have metal cased and plastic cased txs; this test was with a plastic cased tx.   Julian Edited By Julian Thacker on 14/10/2020 20:56:52

Just seen this. Why would you pay between £37 and £54 on Ebay for the Delta 8 when the 3106 is available from model shops for around £25? The orange is £20 from HK but if I were you I would stick with Futaba rxs at these prices. I have used a 3106 for 18 months now just to see if it was any good and so far it has been 100% reliable. Just get that single antenna out in the open away from shielding objects. Oh, its easier to bind too as it t-fhss but without the telemetry.

Posted by Don Fry on 29/06/2019 22:36:03: Posted by paul coleman 1 on 29/06/2019 18:47:49: Taranis,old hat now foxfan,horus is the new dude in town now lol. It also guides a plane. Exactly! You will find people who tell you this, that and the other are now de rigueur and without it you are a loser. Whether those same people can actually fly well is another matter - and the tx they use certainly isn't the deciding factor.

There seem to be a lot of amusing anecdotes here but not a great deal of thought about whether a SO is a necessary role within a club. If you think it is not, I wonder who you think is responsible for coordinating actions concerning safety when they are required. It can't be 'everyone' because we all know that when that is the case 'everyone' thinks someone else will do it. My main club flies on MoD property which is also open to the public for walking, cycling, the occasional horse rider, and a lot of dog walkers, many of them professional walkers judging by the number of dogs they are in charge of. It is part of our agreement and our licence conditions that we have a Safety Plan and a club officer to review and maintain that plan. The plan is reviewed by the MoD prior to issuing a new annual licence. We also maintain a register of unplanned 'arrivals' which contributes to the plan review. We need a focal point to receive, analyse and initiate action where necessary. That does not mean every individual flyer is not responsible for the safe execution of each and every flight he makes. It does not absolve every individual member from acting if (s)he sees an action or situation they believe to be unsafe. That happens to be the law as well. My point is a SO is required in my club and I am left wondering in what circumstances a well run club would not require one. Making the right choice of individual is the responsibility of the committee, and if that choice proves unwise they can make another one.

It would seem the DfT/CAA had minds made up from the outset what they wanted to do and consulting with the established model flying organisations was not on the list, in spite of statements to the contrary. Registration was always going to happen once agreed within EASA. The issue is not registration, but how the registration process is managed, who pays for it, the age restrictions, and the requirement to pass a meaningless competency test. In my view it is also about a missed opportunity to actually improve the safety of model flying above its already very high level (as acknowledged by the BMFA). As they stand the proposals will have the opposite effect in my view. If you have not already done so please check the BMFA call to action document. It contains all the information you need to make a considered response to the proposals, rather than just respond to the CAA 'consultation' document, which is designed to curtail discussion about the proposals apart from cost and who pays. It does look as if the responses so far have had some effect but there is still time for more to respond to Richard Moriarty CAA CEO, Baroness Vere Aviation Minister, Chris Grayling Minister for Transport (good luck with that one though!) and your MP. Julian

Posted by Nigel R on 07/05/2019 18:08:41: They might show up to a flying site if they're bored. Seems unlikely though, doesn't it? We'll all be registered. Really, this just provides an easy means to clobber an unregistered pilot doing something naughty, which they get caught red handed on; an unequivocal legal red line. Unequivocal maybe but as Martin observed above, what chance an overworked bobby is going to turn up in a field to check if a model weighs more than 250g? History taught us that laws which can not be enforced will be broken. And the minority who break them knowingly and with deliberate intent will view as irrelevant the new proposals. If I want to disrupt Gatwick flight schedules I am not likely to register.

Could not agree more. Worry about the cosmetics once you are well past the trainer stage. You will learn better and faster that way too! Julian

Posted by PatMc on 05/12/2018 21:23:40: Don, I don't see how it's any more of a gamble than with the instructor on a buddied Tx. It was the norm at one time & there were no more training disasters then than there are now. Having trained many pupils for many years with and without buddy box I would say It depends on the pupil! It is (imo) beyond argument much less stressful for the instructor to be able to take control without having to grab the tx from the student. Some students, and not only older ones, take quite a while before they can fly a circuit anywhere near reliably. Having to repeatedly get the tx back before recovery is annoying to both student and instructor. It is also (imo!) beyond dispute that some students get to a level where they can fly fairly confidently most of the time but can suddenly get 'lost', and that can require very swift response from the instructor. The BB is much faster! Once the pupil is getting to the landing stage the buddy box is the only way to save some of the arrivals that may not rekit the model but will most probably end proceedings for that model that day. Some students also find it helpful to use a neck strap and recovering the tx in a hurry becomes virtually impossible. So yes, it's possible to train without but the buddy box is an instructor's best friend (imo!). Julian

Posted by SONNY MONKS on 04/12/2018 18:26:18: After switching to the horus x10,from the spektrum dx6,its a no brainer,the quality of the x10 is second to none,screen easy to view in all weathers,where spektrum was rather poor,overall for £346,i dont think there will be many sets that beat the x10 for value, I am an unlikely defender of Spektrum but you are comparing a premium FrSky set with a budget Spektrum set. I am sure we are all happy for you that you like your x10 but your post adds nothing to Bob Smitham's query (admittedly off topic). As for the quality of the x10 being second to none, I suspect many would add their voice to mine that is simply not true. But 'quality' is as much subjective as objective (it shouldn't be but it is) so rather than quibble semantics let's agree with your last statement. Julian

Posted by Bob Smitham on 03/12/2018 21:07:48: Hiya Julian. The worry is based on arithmetic.Only 17% of forum members,most club members(I may be being presumptuous). A limited amount of trainers per club made me think a Frsky system may be a stumbling block with compatibility on the buddy box front. Anyone wanting too construct and fly a traditional build coming from the multirotor, fixedwing, FPV non BNF ,DIY drone world.Would in roughly 50% of cases be using Frsky. Again not a scientific study but based on using non scale/balsa build forums for a few years. In the world of multirotor and fixed wing FPV and open source flight controllers.The Taranis does appear to be a standard. The FPV racing crowd with no need for 16 channels are now being targeted with the "lite" model that is a PS4 games console controller in looks and ergonomics.The younger flyers appear to be buying them by the bucket load. Hi Bob As others have pointed out, FrSky can buddy with most other makes. However, unless you have a very patient and time rich instructor that may not be a feasible route. You could do what one of our members did and buy a 2nd hand 2nd Taranis to buddy with his own - which has several advantages including simple setup, spare tx if one ever does fail, you are not dependent on one instructor's availability, etc. I would not recommend a PS4 style tx regardless of how popular it may be with some - it is unlikely to ever become a useful tx as and if you progress in fixed wing flying. Just my thoughts YMMV Julian

Posted by Bob Smitham on 03/12/2018 19:00:11: Posted by conrad taggart on 08/11/2018 16:53:19: Posted by Ron Gray on 09/04/2018 18:50:33: The problem with this survey is that it doesn't really show trends. A survey of all those who have bought a new Tx over the last year would give a better indication of where 'we' are going. Agree, plus if it took first time buyers or beginners into account it would give you a good indication of where things are going to be in the longer term. Suspect FRSKY would do rather well here Entering this side of the hobby from the multi rotor/Foam side of the hobby(4 years in).I would agree with your point.If this poll was conducted on any other forum that wasn't a traditional build based forum.The results would put FrSky and especially the Taranis at I'd say a conservative 50%.This doesn't take in to account the new budget FrSky models that appear(not a scientific study)to be eating away at the Spectrum share of the market. It worries me a little in looking for a club to join.Would any qualified trainer be using a Taranis for buddy boxing. Why does it worry you? There are FrSky users in our club, though more like 10% than 50%, but if you want training our club could meet your aims as I suspect most could. In our case definitely yes. I have seen zero evidence that FrSky is eating into the Spektrum BnF and PnP market - in fact I have yet to see a FrSky model in this category. Rather than worrying about things that don't matter, get out there and enjoy, and if you want training, presumably for a BMFA certificate, there will be many places you can achieve it. Julian

Posted by conrad taggart on 08/11/2018 16:53:19: Posted by Ron Gray on 09/04/2018 18:50:33: The problem with this survey is that it doesn't really show trends. A survey of all those who have bought a new Tx over the last year would give a better indication of where 'we' are going. Agree, plus if it took first time buyers or beginners into account it would give you a good indication of where things are going to be in the longer term. Suspect FRSKY would do rather well here You might be right but in my club most beginners are buying Spektrum - their pnp and bnf and what is generally perceived (you may not agree with the perception) as easier programming are powerful incentives and yes, you could get a module but Spektrum seem to be moving their rx line up so that they do not support modules too well. As a module based user that is not working in their favour with me but in general it is probably a good move on their part. Julian

In a probably vain attempt to get this thread back on topic if you want a Futaba rx at 'reasonable' price - around £27 - the R3106GF would meet the requirement. This is advertised as a full range HV rx. Although T-FHSS, it does not support telemetry and only has a single antenna. I bought one when they were released at the beginning of this year and have been using it in my EF Extra EXP which is my most flown model - maybe 10 flights a week. So far the rx has performed faultlessly. I was concerned about the single antenna but have it mounted vertically in a plastic tube near the canopy roof so well away from blocking battery, carbon wing joiner, etc. I range tested very carefully in all orientations and at considerable distance - about 100 yards - which is further than I normally go. I am not sure what the Futaba range test mode is in terms of reduced signal strength though. All in all I am perfectly happy with my first x-FHSS rx but as I have several spare FASST and FASSTEST rxs I won't need to buy one yet awhile. Julian

Thanks for responding Bob. Blimey, you flew yours on lipos? Mine was on 8 cell 2000 mAh NiCds! With an Aveox brushless motor that cost the best part of £300 with its sensored controller - which only just fitted in the model. I remember the first time I powered it up and thought - 'WOW'! It was so powerful compared to my Speed 600 motors. Then I bought a Schulze sensorless controller and thought it must be magic the way it knew where the motor rotor was. Happy days - nothing wrong with nostalgia Julian

Bob, I am interested to know why you feel it is not as good as the original. Did you have an u/c on the original? I ask because I think it does everything as well or better - which it should do as a much later development. Although the quality is not top notch it is a huge improvement on my original at least. Unless landing on tarmac I would not put an u/c on this model; it hand launches extremely easily and the u/c will only slow it down once airborne. Julian

Mine has been fine so far. Julian

There is plenty of choice but my experience does not support the idea all brands are equally reliable. I have recently been training someone whose choice was a budget brand. The ergonomics and feel of the tx were not great and we have had big problems getting the rims to work equally on master and slave txs - in fact we haven't managed to equalise them - they are way out of even and even then there is a twitch when control is passed. The link has been solid though. the learner has now changed brands. In another case a non budget brand lost control for about two seconds when the instructor took back control from the student - it was a most unpleasant experience though control was regained in time to save a crash. Other examples are failing trim switches, switches and gimbals - you may argue all brands get these but again experience suggests they are more likely to occur on budget radios. YMMV Julian

It’s a pity you can’t use a Futaba 617 Rx with the 8 channel module...they slipped up there. Eh? You can. The 8 channel module is selectable between 7 and 8 channel modes - or at least the one I had for my 9zap was. Julian

Posted by Stuart Morris on 28/08/2018 15:19:50: I have used Futaba since 1990 and see no need to change. I was finding Futaba receivers getting very expensive so I moved to FrSky receivers. Their entry level receiver is 1/3 the cost of Futaba 607 and has fail safe on all channels where Futaba only have fail safe on throttle. No brainer really. The 607 was of course discontinued several years back. It is true the 617 has full configurable f/s on throttle only; however if you are like me and set all other channels to hold on f/s then in practice it has f/s on all 7 channels as it will hold last known signal position on those channels. If you have a tx that can transmit SFHSS and/or TFHSS then there are some fairly cheap Futaba rx offerings in those flavours. I have been testing the R3106GF out for about 8 months in an extreme 3D model and so far it has not put a step wrong - around £25.

I have just spotted this thread. Hopefully you have had no more problems Alex. I have a 12Z and it has been solid for well over 10 years now. I bought a 2.4 TM14 module for it around 10 years ago and have slowly moved most of my existing models (and all new ones) over to 2.4 over that time. I am posting because I also experienced a problem with a Kyosho F16 EDF with the 14 channel PCM2048 rx supplied with the tx. This happened about 10 years back now and I never got to the root cause. It probably was nothing to do directly with the rx but I never felt comfortable with that rx after that and reverted to PCM1024 and PPM rxs and never had a problem again. Likewise I have never had a problem with the 2.4 module in the 12Z. As a matter of interest are you using the PCM2048 rx in your hack model? I still have that rx and it could be useful to have a 14 channel rx available. If you do decide to get rid of the 12Z remember they still have some value, especially if they are clean and undamaged. Don't bin it! Julian

Andy I had no idea Spektrum rxs were so pricey. I have just bought what I thought was a very expensive rx - the R7014SB - a 14 channel Futaba FASST/FASSTest rx for £166. I only have one model that uses 14 channels and I did not want to get into SBUS. I have been checking out the relatively cheap T-FHSS rxs this year and so far I have noticed no difference in reliability over FASST/FASSTest. Julian

Just caught up with this thread so I'll add my comments. Unlike Martin I have had only good experiences with Futaba. I have no problem with the programming though that is probably because I have been using programmable Futaba txs since the FF7. On the other hand the JR3810 I use for Spektrum UMX is a nightmare to program in comparison for me. I bought what I thought would be my last tx in 2007 - a 12Z. It did everything and more than I needed in what imo is still one of the cleanest and most ergonomically well designed cases ever produced. Then I bought a Phase3 Squall and no 35 Mhz rx could cope with the esc in that model. (They later marketed it as needing 2.4 to operate.) So I bit the bullet and bought the 2.4 module for the 12Z. It cured the Squall's problems and slowly I bought more 2.4 rxs. I had no problem with 35 but the convenience of no frequency clashes was attractive. I am now 90% 2.4 and have been flying it for 10 years with zero issues. Last year I succumbed and bought an 18SZ. The touch screen programming is faster and simpler than all other input mechanisms and the 12Z is now relegated to backup duties and for buddy boxing when training my grandson. The ability to use telemetry was initially attractive but tbh I rarely use it now. Voice fell into the same category. Futaba pluses - rock solid protocol(s!) (yes, too many of them), very good build quality at least on the high end sets, easy to program for me, low bug rate in s/w releases and not too frequent either Futaba minuses - rxs are expensive (though a basic 6 channel rx is now available for well under £30), they are not as innovative as Spektrum or FrSky (though most of their innovation is of little use or interest to me personally) These are of course very personal views. Julian

Quick update on my experiences with this model after several months and around 100 flights. It is a very smooth flying and well behaved model imo. I fly on 4s 2200s and 5s 2200s (Graphene) with a Hacker A30-10L on an APC 8x8E prop. You need to cut the cross bracing out of the canopy to allow the bigger battery to fit. The flutter returned and I tried many cures and eventually found it was the elevator causing the problem. I reinforced the elevator joiner with a carbon rod and this stiffened the two halfs up considerably - it was easy to deflect one while holding the other before. I also cut off about 5mm of elevator at the trailing edge. This completely cured the flutter. The model is fast - over 100 mph on 5s - but still not as fast as the Rare Bear on 6s. It is a lovely model to carve big aeros in the sky though and will do most conventional aerobatics with reasonably pure control response. It will slow down nicely for landing, even with the weight of 5s on board, but has a very good glide so unless you are comfortable making your last two turns at low level you will need a fairly long run in on finals. Overall I am very happy with it and feel it's a worthy successor to ES1. Julian

I have not had a breaking prop problem since I disabled the brake on the ESC and land with the prop freewheeling. If you land hot into long wet grass your chances of breakage are much higher but otherwise you will be very unlucky to break a prop. This is based on 10 of flights on a Voodoo, 100s on a RareBear and a few on the ES2. Julian

Ok, mea culpa! I fixed the aileron servo hatches with the horn slot inboard - RTFM! After switching them round and repositioning the horns on the ailerons all is fine. I have moved the connectors to the most inboard hole at the servo end and that seems to have cured the flutter. On a 5s 2200 40C pack the model is fast and direct - a real pleasure to fly - about the same speed as an Eflite Rare Bear on 6s but at around half the watts. Julian