Konrad

No, luck has little to do with it. We are looking at probability. Remember statistics don't necessarily apply to the individual. Here we are talking about the the statistical infant mortality rate of electrical components. The burn in is trying to weed out these failure before the product enters service. I also try to show that the construction method can give a strong clue as to what products are prone to failure. It is more than just chance or luck!

That's more a political statement. My DRO concern was a "proven" issue in the federal administrative courts of the USA. and as such the FTC issued a fine. I generally will not support firms that have a proven history of operating with total disregard to the laws of the land. The operative word is "generally". Sometimes you have no choice but to dance with the devil. Here in the 80's I had the choice to move away from the low grade Futaba servos to other reputable brands. Don't forget I did say that the Futaba S3002 was the best servo I had in that time frame. So my eyes weren't jaded by the geopolitical geoeconomics of the time.

Duh, by definition FF is free or RF concerns. Kind of a worthless statement wouldn't you think?

Doom and gloom! Did I not say that FrSky is the best value in the RC RF market? Did I not say that it wasn't a safety issue? In that thread we also learned that FrSky is discounting the vendor for his very proactive stance on warning us of the "rare bricking issue". I think he also said, it you must, to upgrade the RX via a cable. So what was the issue you all had with me giving notice to the RCM&E membership of this potential flaw in the FW that "MIGHT" brick your RX? That I think 3 months is an unacceptable time to wait for a fix on a FW that has the potential to destroy your property?

The mechanical issue where easy to see. The Futaba amp failure might be open to interpretation. I didn't mention the S133 with its poor anchoring of the gearbox idler shafts (often designed to seat less than 1D* in the housing). I left these out as I was running these in my 1/2A ships propped to run 22K plus RPM. (So undo vibration might be a contributing factor). I recall have both mechanical and electrical isues with the S133. Anyway this was 40 years ago. But to this day I avoid Futaba as I have very little faith in there engineering. I also had some issue with their parent company dumping DRO (digital read outs) on to the USA market in the late 70's. * D is the depth of journal/boss as defined by the Diameter of the shaft.

Here is a photo of the amp from a Corona SB2038 servo. Again you can see how the assembly method might result in premature failure by overheating the silicon junction. Not all Corona servos are assembled this way. So it is best to open them up and check. Having opened up a lot of Corona servos, I noticed the the DS 843MG seems to be built on a different philosophy from the others. So much so that I think the DS 843MG is a rebranded servo from an other OEM

I agree T9 is a premier dealer. FrSky can work and work well. Just that "trouble free" is not a term most would use when describing FrSky products and/or their management philosophy.

The worst servo brand I've had was Futaba*. The S126 with her 1/4 turn case screws the S132 with the armature falling into the brushes, come to mind. These are just two servo. Now these failures would not have been found with a burn in as they were not electrical failures rather mechanical from poor mechanics from a vibration point of view. I did have a very short service life from the S135 with what I thought was premature amp failure. Now the Corona brand often uses the same lead soldered directly to the chip construction that I showed with the Freewing branded servo. I've posted the Corona construction issues elsewhere. *Note when talking about brand failures it might be good to mention the time line. In my case I had a rash of servo failure with Futaba servos in the 80's. In the same time period the best servo I had was the Futaba S3002. But this was $79 in the 80's!

Not to upgrade the firmware until it has been properly vetted. 3 months and we (I) are still waiting for a stable release Also don't shoot the messengers be it the dealers. There was a lot of defense of FrSky poor validation process claiming that I was only dealing in hearsay. A warning from me might be hearsay. But a warning from the dealer that was FrSky premier North American service center is a bit more creditable.

LOL, It might look that way. I post here to help the membership get the most from their hobby budget, be that time or money. I don't post here to be part of a mutual admiration society. I get very little of value from post that say this that and the other thing was great. I like to learn what issues you might have had and how you solved the issue, be it with a build, flying qualities or product. I assume you are much the same. This is why I bring forward issues I've had. I try to define the isssue and then offer workarounds if I know how to address the issue. Case in point the issue with FrSky's servo tray has the bearing retention feature on the wrong side of the pillow block easy to fix. Or issues that are a little more suttle. Like the proper set up of wire driven elevators. In both case I have a workaround. It is far too easy to say something is junk and runaway. Here I don't have a workaround as I don't have accces to the code. All I can do is share the warnings from a creditable source, FrSky's dealer and premier service center, Aloft Hobbies. I can try to put pressure on the OEM to try to release a creditable product in the first place. And the only way I know how to do that is to try to influence, positively or negatively, their sales!

Ron, That's not a bug that's a feature! I don't need to to point a gun at my head an pull the trigger to know that a gun and its bullets are deadly. If statements are coming just from me then I'd agree with folks taking them as hearsay. But in this case the reports are coming from what I'd call a creditable source, FrSky's own premier service center for North America. Combine that with my and most folks history with FrSky's RF Firmware upgrade, it is strongly recommended that we wait. But if you must upgrade the workaround appears to be to avoid the use of OTA protocol to upgrade the RX. This isn't about software bugs. Rather critical functionality loss (bricking). Most creditable software release with have a read me file, detailing the known issues in a release. This give us the end customer the information to make an informed decision on the need to upgrade and how to avoid known issues. That is my point we are not BETA testers. I'm the end user. If the problem was with nightlies or other not ready for release versions then fine. But this is a released FW. This goes to the heart of the issue with FrSky their utter contempt (from my perspective) for the customer and as of late their dealer network. It is this dealer network that filters out the customer induced issues such as mine with the X6R and X8R pin output*. And real product issues such as this FW or this bearing retention issue. How does my flying my FF models help with my FrSky issues? *I had an issue upgrading the FW on a set of X6R. I had just done the FW update of a dozen X8R were it is typical of FrSky to have the signal pin towards the RX face label. The X6R has the Neg pin towards the face label. I had plugged in the cable as I had done with the X8R, and couldn't get the X6R to read the FW. This was a use error and not what most would call a problem with FrSky's product. Aloft brought that error to my attention at no charge!

Oh, I’ve had many issues with FrSky going back to 2016. The fact that a service dealer is recommending that we hold off on updating is telling! With the known history of FrSky’s software validation, I’d strongly recommend that we heed his knowledgeable experience and advice with FrSky and particularly with this issue. I love the FrSky mixer based OS similar to the Multiplex Profi of the early 90’s. Taken as a whole FrSky still offers the best value in the RC RF market. But historically and apparently still today FrSky doesn’t have a robust FW/SW validation process. This has cost me many hours tracking down a problems only to find it is code. Aloft has been exemplary in supporting me (the customer)with warranty and after sales support. What I wanted to highlight was that FrSky still has a systemic problem in their software engineering. And that it is the dealer network that has added a lot to the positive experience we the end user enjoy. If FrSky is to stay the RC vendor of choice they need to get their engineering house in order and to value the input from their dealer network. This latest FW release and subsequent follow on issues is showing me that the management at FrSky has not learned much if anything from their previous Tx/Rf software issues/failures. To be clear FrSky is still the leader in the value statement when it comes to our RC components. But there is so much more that could be done if FrSky would just implement a culture of continuous improvement. At the organizational level I don’t see much improvement. This is seen in the end product. Be it the SW validation and hardware issues.

Here is the notice posted by the proprietor of the premier North American service dealer for more than 10years, Aloft Hobbies. * https://forum.alofthobbies.com/index.php?threads/important-frsky-rf-version-3-0-1.4420/ I haven’t seen an all clear statement where Aloft would recommend (stake their reputation) on the validity/robustness of the new FW release. *There has been a rash of Tx issues with Tx’s not sold through Aloft that Aloft will no longer service FrSky Tx’s and associated modules. Aloft is forced to direct customers with this and any Tx issues to FrSky USA so that they (FrSky) can feel the customer’s pain directly.

That’s one take away. But what I wanted to show was, please perform a burn in on all electrical systems, particularly system critical components, regardless of branding! My last Freewing a 64mm F14 had 2 dead servos NIB. These failures were traced to misplaced (rigged) servo connectors. One burned an amp as a result of the positive and negative being reversed in one of the housings. The other suffered push back pins as the pins had been rotated 90 degrees prior to installing in the housing and failed to engage the pins retention feature. This resulted in intermittent contact. If I hadn’t pulled plugs to test I most likely would’ve lost the ship. Then there’s the Avanti with 2 servos with burned (split) chip housings on the amps. Some could make the argument that the BEC might be the culprit. I’m not willing to say what was the root cause of the failures. I suspect overheated silicon junctions from the poor layout of the PC board. What I am saying is my burn in process has found issues on the bench prior to flight. I’m sure we have all seen ships crash early in the flight testing stage. I’m sure many of the crashes could have been avoided with a burn in procedure.

Sorry I didn’t see this earlier. A burn in of all electrical systems/components is a very good idea. Particularly if there is no functional testing done prior to delivery of the components. It was asked is there a benefit to the components doing a burn in. In the case of motor driven components with brushes the answer is yes. The burn in at lower current levels allows the motor to brushes to seat against the armature before seeing in use high current loads. Here is a write up on some of the issues I’ve had with low grade servos.

Cellulose makes a good base for other paints. It will often cause lifting issues if put on top of other chemistries. so it looks like you are going on the right path.

This is to close the loop. Here is my fix for FrSky's oversight with regard to the proper location of the bearing retension feature. I really wish firms would use their product before releasing them to the public. Firms have to learn that we aren't paying for the 5 cents of plastic but rather the engineering that makes the plastic usable/valuable! Here I removed the misplaced lip with a #11 blade to allow the bearing to be installed from the servo side of the tray. I've added a 0.5mm thick piece of plastic sheet to the outside of the pillow block to retain the bearing. The bearing is help captive between the servo arm and this 0.5mm sheet of plastic.

Have you looked at the more modern Archer Plus RX? https://alofthobbies.com/collections/frsky-archer/products/frsky-archer-gr6-access-glider-receiver

Ethos supports this FrSky module. https://alofthobbies.com/collections/modules/products/frsky-tw-lite-pro-module I use this with a lot of my older full carbon gliders as I don't know how to route the tandum 900mhz antenna to the out side of the fuselage. Be this as it may, going to another model location in the TX often address most binding issues I've had with Ethos.

Yes, My fix was to start the binding process with a new model location. This has worked 3 times for me.

Light slope work is perfect for the Sophisticated Lady! It is nice to explore the lift away from the face at the same time knowing you can come back to the lip and find lift if need be. One of the real joys of this type of soaring is catching a thermal out in front of the face and the specking out after the thermal breaks free of the slope.

Venom? I just don’t tolerate ineptness. FrSky has tried to discount, on social media, the input of their dealer network who are warning of the flaws in the update. This is the wrong way to address SW problems. Even more so with FrSky’s SW/FM history and its impact on the end user. We as the end customer can’t (shouldn’t ) accept mediocrity in our products! I’m not suggesting that we all have to have the latest high priced products. Just that the products and support meet specifications and safety concerns. The only way I know to get firms to meet (maintain) this lowest of requirements is to make sure those that fail suffer in the marketplace. Is this too much to ask of our hobby providers?

With “bricked” hardware there is no safety issue as the brick won’t fly. But yes the regulatory agency assumes the OEM has properly validated the FW/SW release. With our toys (sorry drones) this is often a false assumption! Our toys are not built/ managed to the level one would expect with life critical of financial systems. Again that is the fallacy of the regulation. If you can show that the update is not robust then you are in the clear when going up against the regulatory courts.

None. I heeded the advice of my dealer /importer. The bricking is only one of a long list of reported bugs in the release of RF FW 3.0.1 that have been known by FrSky since January. My concern is how unresponsive FrSky is to the issues. I’d also like to direct FrSky and her customers to follow the advice of her dealers. I’d have thought after the problems with getting a stable ACCST v2 that there would have been some lessons learned on how to validate a software release. With all FrSky software releases I’ve learned to wait 2 or so weeks to see it the fix/ upgrade really is a fix of just another bag of bugs. I have to admit that with RF PROTOCOLS I loathe to wait. But as I don’t think it is a safety issue, I again will wait awhile to see if the reports back to the dealers is indicating a robust software release. I have no faith that FrSky has or will have validated the release. This is based on historical data.

Don’t recall any other FW upgrade with credible bricking reports. Even the fixes for very dangerous ACCST D-16 V-1 USM (Uncommanded Servo Movement) with its 900ms reboot time didn’t brick the RX. We (I) should be thankful that there isn’t the rapid fire trail of poorly vetted upgrades that was the ACCST v2 fix. But if leaving the known buggy 3.0.1 Rf firmware up, FrSky should list the known bugs and risks associated with the firmware. As I think the risk is to hardware and has no operational risk it isn’t a safety issue, unlike the ACCST V1 D-16 issue was. FrSky needs to implement some kind, any kind of FW quality program. And when problems arise trust the reports from their dealers.