Model memories?

[Tom Wright 2]

When putting together an ARTF or building from scratch or plan, have we got so lazy that we cant be bothered to set every thing properly, test fly and adjust as necessary so that all your sports models can be flown from one simple TX that does not have a model memory?

Most i am sure would agree that the advent of 2.4 has done much to eliminate crashes caused by interference but are we getting sucked in to the add mans constant quest to get us buying more and more gizmos and new improved versions ? and how do we actually benefit from these extra complications ? and is this tech firestorm detracting from true airman-ship and building skills ?

Several questions there , and one more to close , why would a cheap TX with no screen be less reliable than £500 quids spent on a fairground fitted with an aerial ?

 

TW2.

Edited By tom wright 2 on 07/04/2011 16:33:23

[Ralph Yeates]

Tom

easy answer boys and toys ;o) but honestly if you fly Helies and planes then you you need the screen to set up the pitch curves and throttle curves on the helli.

Why doe the 14MZ cost so much answer because the possibilities are limitless does it make you fly any better NO.

all the best

Ralph

[Tom Wright 2]

Fair comment Ralph i should have said fixed wing sports models.

 

TW2.

[Steve W-O]

I don't think it is just a case of setting the model up properly, but things like flap pre-sets and mixes are a lot easier with memories.

 

Also things like expo, some models I put some in, some not, and it saves a lot of time not to have to set everything for each model.

 

So, yes, with a modern transmitter and all its features, the memories are very convenient.

 

To ask a slightly different question, would the model still fly as well on a simple non computer radio, it would still fly, and just as well, just that it would not be possible to use some of the features and have so much enjoyment from it.

[Tom Wright 2]

No argument with that Steve but it does touch on one off my questions ,does the addition of expo and mixes detract from developing good  airman ship ?And does the extra complication effect reliability or increase the chance of pilot error.

 

TW2.

Edited By tom wright 2 on 07/04/2011 16:40:56

Edited By tom wright 2 on 07/04/2011 16:46:49

[Ultymate]

Tom I've no idea where you're going with this, there is no way that the availability of expo and rates will detract from the development of good airmanship as you put it. Both mixes and expo are there to enhance the performance of the aircraft, the transmitter still doesn't fly it for you. If you have bottomless pockets there are systems that will though, we have a guy in N.Wales who does commercial aerial photography and he has a system with onboard GPS and autopilot that will fly his heli to a pre-determined location and hold station whilst he takes care of the photography side of things.

[Tom Wright 2]

Ultymate.

Thanks for that, my point would be if took all the expo and mixes off would the average pilot still fly the model as well ?and that is only part off my original question ,any views as to why a inexpensive simple tx would be less reliable than a all singing job.

TW2.

Edited By tom wright 2 on 07/04/2011 17:43:29

[Ultymate]

You seem totally confused on this issue, for a start reliability doesn't come into it assuming that both radios continue to function. The ability to use expo and mixes whether pre-programmed or free allow the pilot who knows how to to have a far more sophisticated set up on his model than he could otherwise do. Some of the high end radios allow the operator to set up conditions as well which explained simply can ,at the flick of a switch give totally different setups for the same model whilst flying. You seem to be under the illusion that simple equates to reliable but in practice with transmitters I've personally not found that to be true. On another thread you've advocated having one tranny for each model,ie no model memory function, this would leave me and  many of my acquaintances in the hobby driving to the field with a car full of transmitters.

Edited By Ultymate on 07/04/2011 18:12:02

Edited By Ultymate on 07/04/2011 18:12:57

[Tom Wright 2]

Ultymate.

I am certainly not confused , neither have i advocated a tx for every model, haven't looked back but that may have been KC .

If complicated TX are such essentials ,how come a crash followed by the cry wrong memory is now often heard?

 

TW2.

[Tim Mackey]

Without mixing facilities, many slope gliders would be pretty much unable to land some of their models safely. Try activating crow/ butterfly 4 servo wing system machines, together with compensatory elevator deflection manually - whilst constantly trying to keep your expensive mouldie ship on a straight and appropriate glide path for an accurate landing using ailerons and rudder with no motive power to alter height.

[Tim Mackey]

I haven't heard "wrong memory" blamed for a crash for yonks - pretty much a thing of the past with modern 2.4G radios.

[Ultymate]

Posted by tom wright 2 on 07/04/2011 18:22:30:

Ultymate.

I am certainly not confused , neither have i advocated a tx for every model, haven't looked back but that may have been KC .

If complicated TX are such essentials ,how come a crash followed by the cry wrong memory is now often heard?

 

TW2.

Apologies Tom I thought it was you advocating a trannie per model on the other thread obviously "wrong memory"

[Tom Wright 2]

Thanks for that Tim and Ultymate.

My questions are just away of expanding comments from various other threads ,i must admit to having a thing about simplicity equating to reliability ,and i do fly com screen gear as well , its just interesting to here all the different view points ,as sometimes something really good is brought to the surface and makes a good topic.

 

TW2.

[kc]

Yes, I am the person who keeps a seperate TX for each model......all 3 of them. ( why do people need so many models all rigged up? )

I might proceed to eliminate the older Tx for reliability and put them in a memory in future though.

If I had so many models in the car that I had no room for the transmitters........I would.buy bigger cars or build smaller models!

Being serious, it is one less thing to go wrong, and several clubmates have blamed wrong memory on 2 occasions this year. The worst example last year was a pilot sorting through the memories suddenly caused an electric model to run away at full throttle in the pits and take a large chunk out of someone elses wing. Better than someones leg though. Nasty and somewhat unexplained, but thought to be throttle reversed and affecting the ESC.

 

Presumably Tim is referring to Spektrum which eliminates the problem with model match.. How come nobody else does the model match stuff? patents? When you think that everybody's car alarm fob only operates their own car, it cannot be that hard to design a circuit that works only one Rx and Tx can it?  ( I was going around saying that years before they invented 2.4 RC )

 

I rather think the point that Tom is making is that the cheap 2.4 systems are as reliable as the expensive models but less gizmos to get wrong = more reliable in practice. I might consider one of these cheap Tx if they had manual trims!

Edited By kc on 07/04/2011 19:33:18

[Tom Wright 2]

Hi KC.

Been out for a evening flying session after we got a power cut ,so im late getting back to the thread.

Thanks for the above we obviously share similar views,Firstly your last para sums up very nicely one of the questions i put forward for comment.

The cheap HK combo does have manual trims, why they fit those slow bleeping things to better sets is another discussion.

The pits incident you describe is something i have also seen happen the guy had a posh TX but i think it got him confused.

I also have three TX in regular use both the popular makes have had problems but the cheapy gets used much more and has never let me down or the  other five guys in the group who also have cheapies as well as the popular makes.

My flying activities go back over 50 years so i have a lot of models none of which have got written off, so as i don't like pulling receivers in and out of models i need loads of them, when i came across the HK which is made by F Sky and cost about £10 i was able to set up all the models that fall into the under 7kg and up to 6ft span class and since then have also flown them in bigger without problems,i must say that if i had say three or four models a T6ex with four futaba RX would be the way to go.

 

TW2.

Edited By tom wright 2 on 07/04/2011 22:06:25

[Tom Wright 2]

Just to add to the above i have never had a stick pot problem but i do carry out a detailed annual inspection of each TX and that includes applying switch cleaner to the pot tracks,

 

TW2.

[leccyflyer]

Posted by kc on 07/04/2011 19:25:54:

Yes, I am the person who keeps a seperate TX for each model......all 3 of them. ( why do people need so many models all rigged up? ) - #1

 

I might proceed to eliminate the older Tx for reliability and put them in a memory in future though.

If I had so many models in the car that I had no room for the transmitters........I would.buy bigger cars or build smaller models!

Being serious, it is one less thing to go wrong, and several clubmates have blamed wrong memory on 2 occasions this year. The worst example last year was a pilot sorting through the memories suddenly caused an electric model to run away at full throttle in the pits and take a large chunk out of someone elses wing. Better than someones leg though. Nasty and somewhat unexplained, but thought to be throttle reversed and affecting the ESC. #2

 

Presumably Tim is referring to Spektrum which eliminates the problem with model match.. How come nobody else does the model match stuff? patents? When you think that everybody's car alarm fob only operates their own car, it cannot be that hard to design a circuit that works only one Rx and Tx can it? ( I was going around saying that years before they invented 2.4 RC ) #3

 

I rather think the point that Tom is making is that the cheap 2.4 systems are as reliable as the expensive models but less gizmos to get wrong = more reliable in practice. I might consider one of these cheap Tx if they had manual trims!

Edited By kc on 07/04/2011 19:33:18

#1 - Possibly because they enjoy different aspects of the hobby and have more interests that are provided by just three models. People are different - some like to fly lots of different models, and accumulate a number of models over the years. That's why they need more than three model memories.

 

Those models might have different set-ups - expo, elevons, dual rates, various mixes - that require multiple model memories and which would require lots of fiddly changes to the transmitter if such model memories were not available and neede to be manually set each time the model was used.

 

#2 That should simply never happen, since no model should never ever be live and unrestrained, which would permit such an accident. The chap's problems go far deeper than model memories.

 

#3 Model Match is Spektrum's system. which os protected as their intellectual property.

[kc]

I can believe that Model Match is perhaps claimed to be Spektrum's intellectual property, but what I cannot believe is that Futaba etc cannot invent a similar system of their own! Well actually the Japanese have never invented anything *, what i mean is they cannot find a 'gaijin' ( foreigner ) to invent it for them! We have so many other things that work like that--you would be horrified if anyone else had a car key fob that opened your car, or an electric garage door opener that opened your garage or another phone that answered your calls . ( Well before Spektrum sold any 2.4 stuff I drove down the road pressing my garage door opener to see if it opened anybody elses garage door. It didn't. So I discussed this about 10 or 12 years ago with my fellow club members saying that's what we need & why haven't we got this on our RC systems. So I dont see the idea as a Spektrum invention! And for safety things I dont see that anyone should be able to claim exclusive use for themselves )

So I feel sure it can be done by other RC manufacturers if they wanted to.

 

* if you want to contest this then name a Japanese invention!

[leccyflyer]

Posted by kc on 07/04/2011 23:49:05:

I can believe that Model Match is perhaps claimed to be Spektrum's intellectual property, but what I cannot believe is that Futaba etc cannot invent a similar system of their own! Well actually the Japanese have never invented anything *, what i mean is they cannot find a 'gaijin' ( foreigner ) to invent it for them! We have so many other things that work like that--you would be horrified if anyone else had a car key fob that opened your car, or an electric garage door opener that opened your garage or another phone that answered your calls . ( Well before Spektrum sold any 2.4 stuff I drove down the road pressing my garage door opener to see if it opened anybody elses garage door. It didn't. So I discussed this about 10 or 12 years ago with my fellow club members saying that's what we need & why haven't we got this on our RC systems. So I dont see the idea as a Spektrum invention! And for safety things I dont see that anyone should be able to claim exclusive use for themselves )

So I feel sure it can be done by other RC manufacturers if they wanted to.

 

* if you want to contest this then name a Japanese invention!

Japanese ~Inventions

 

Unfirtunately just having the idea isn;t the same as inventing something - you have to actually work out how to do it.

 

Otherwise, I'd quite like to claim to have invented the foldable TV monitor that folds into a matchbox for storage and can be folded out to a full 32" full colour HD screen.

 

What you describe with regard to the garage door openers is not the same as Model Match. It is more akin to the universally applied GUID that all of the 2.4ghz systems use. A Spektrum, Futaba or any manufacturers transmitter should not operate any receiver that it hasn't been previously bound to - irrespective of whether it has Model Match or not.

Edited By leccyflyer on 08/04/2011 00:07:23

[Steve W-O]

First, if I heard some one blame "wrong memory" for a crash, I would have the same opinion of them as I would for a full size pilot climbing from a ile of twisted metal at the end of a runway saying "forgot the flaps"

 

It's just another form of pilot error like not charging the RX battery.

 

How much is cheap? My full function 8 channel radios to me are cheap, and they have screens and are fully programmable, they are £60 for the TX and an 8 channel receiver, which is £20 more than the 6 channel, but for £60, even if you don't want to programme it, you have a comfortable 8ch radio.

 

And the 6ch does have manual trims, as I have posted before.

 

I think maybe the main question is:-

 

" why would a cheap TX with no screen be less reliable than £500 quids spent on a fairground fitted with an aerial ?"

and there is no reason at all, many of the parts are the same,the quality of some of the new big name radios leaves a lot to be desired when you open them and look closely, there seem to be continuous reports of problems with some makes, big car names have had problems. I don't see any reason why budget systems should be less reliable.

Seems the pilot is the weak link

[Ralph Yeates]

Still wont stop me buying an 14MZ if I can get " Wife approval" that is the hard bit

[Steve W-O]

 

Posted by Ralph Yeates on 08/04/2011 12:10:26:
Still wont stop me buying an 14MZ if I can get " Wife approval" that is the hard bit

 

 

 

I don't think you would get approval from the authorities for 14MHz, never mind the management

 

I have an idea you may have meant 2.4GHz, in which case you have a wide choice, with sets ranging from £60 to over £600 for doing the same thing.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I think he means a Futaba 14MZ top of the range all singing all dancing transmitter - I flew with one once and found it unpleasantly bulky!

Edited By Martin Harris on 08/04/2011 12:28:29

[Steve W-O]

Posted by Martin Harris on 08/04/2011 12:18:31:
I think he means a Futaba 14MZ top of the range all singing all dancing transmitter - I flew with one once and found it unpleasantly heavy!

 

 

My apologies!

 

I find comfort when holding a TX makes a very big difference to flying

[Ralph Yeates]

Cant beat a bit of " Bling " at the flying field