Using 2nd rate Radio control equipment.

[Devon Flyer]

Posted by kc on 18/10/2011 11:45:53:

To me, using a module ( whatever the make ) to convert to 2.4 is using 2nd rate gear!

 

So, by the same logic, any transmitter that uses a module is '2nd rate gear'.

What difference does the transmitting frequency of the module make?

 

Are you seriously saying that something like a Futaba 9CAP or a Hitec Aurora 9 are 2nd rate transmitters?

[kc]

I am saying modifying a Tx seems 2nd rate to me. Changing modules has been the only source of radio problem crashes at my club in the past couple of years. Poor connections ( module was different make to Tx ) were thought to be the cause but difficult to prove. Eventually the man scrapped the set and went to Futaba 2.4

 

My point really is that using an already old 35 mhz and tarting it up with a new 2.4 Ghz module perhaps of a different make seems less likely to prove reliable than buying a new Tx. I would prefer a new Tx for reliability and if necessary forgo some of the 'bells and whistles' which are not really needed. I reckon the Spitfire pilot mentioned wishes he had used a Tx without a module!

[Phil 9]

it is always easy to be wise after the event.

As has been said the radio is an essential piece of equipment. But this is a hobby and any money spent on a hobby is none essential expenditure from a family budget. So you cant blame anyone for trying to get the best deal on any modelling equipment.

Having said that I am of the opinion now that the best equipment is worth spending the extra on and cheaper equipment can be a false economy. But it also depends on the type of models you fly.

[Martyn Perks]

I think yhose Fr sky modules are excellent. I have the module in my 9ZHP tx which is regularly serviced and seven of the Rx. four of which are in helicopters. Not a moments trouble in two years of regular flying. Best part is that if you do crash the Rx is cheap enough to chuck in the bin! Also i never put my tx on the grass or abuse it like so many I see at our field. Some transmitters seem to lead a hard life!

[Paul Marsh]

The new Futaba T6J has the antenna inside the TX. It's a sort of budget set, with 15 model memories, and the Rx's are a good price at £35 each, for a 6ch twin antenna unit.

Touch wood, so far been excellent. It uses the SFHSS system, not FASST. Probably cheaper to make the SFHSS, due to the lower-cost IC Chipset, which makes FASST expensive, even for a basic indoor rx.

[Devon Flyer]

Posted by Paul Marsh on 18/10/2011 19:02:02:. Probably cheaper to make the SFHSS, due to the lower-cost IC Chipset, which makes FASST expensive, even for a basic indoor rx.

 

I doubt whether there is that much difference in the cost of the chipsets; more likely due to Futaba's product placement and marketing efforts creating an artificially high price.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Devon Flyer - if you take read through this thread (a bit long I know but you can "scan" quite a lot of it ) you'll find an explaination, backed up by Ripmax as to why FASST costs more than FHSS.

 

Cheers

 

BEB

[Devon Flyer]

I'd still like to see the actual figures of the difference between the costs of the two systems.

That's the difference in cost to Futaba in making them, not what they charge us for them.

Bet it's nowhere near as big as they reckon.

[Erfolg]

Devon

 

I suspect you are correct. I have no bells and whistles with my 4 Futaba 618 Rx's. All they do is the same as my Futaba 35 Rx.

 

It is pertinent to me that my equipment failures to date have all been with my Brand Name Equipment.

 

I have had my Futaba Gold Tx fail, My Sanwa Clubman (I think that it was called) Tx fail. Three of my Futaba Rx's become suspect or failed.

 

The other side of the coin is my rubbish Waltron (27) set still continues to work, used on a car in the garden now.

 

I have had other equipment failures, a Weston UK Rx lost range. I am unaware that I have had any issues with my Fasst Frsky, Corona Rx's at all.

 

I do not think I would condemn my Brand names, as they were good, but at a price. Non seem more reliable than the cheaper stuff I use.

 

Paying a high price is just foolishness without a basis for believing the cost is valid. I despair if the link to performance is just cost. The testimonials of users for some of the low cost equipment should make the doubters sit up and take notice, rather than make sweeping assumptions.

[kc]

I reckon the worry is that people spend so much on fancy transmitters that they wont scrap them when they show the first sign of unreliability but continue to use them because they have so much money invested. With a basic Tx one is much more ikely to scrap it & buy another inexpensive but good make Tx. Nobody really needs all these fancy ' bells and whistles' anyway.

 

My way for reliabilty was to buy a basic TX such as Futaba Challenger's then 6 EX, change the nicads every few years, never change crystals if possible and then throw the Tx out at the first sign of a glitch. Similar with Rx nicads &switch harness changed regularly and new servos on elevator and the old one 'retired' to a less vital function like throttle.

[Erfolg]

The problem with your strategy is knowing you have had a glitch, or any event that was equipment related, or which part of the system.

 

I am not concerned to any great extent with glitches, as my models are small, light and flown away from the public. Not that I am convinced I have had them, more probably me, or that I have been less than thorough in some aspect in preparing the model

 

If my models were large etc., I would be expecting to use a system with built in redundancy. To obviate overall system failure and above all use an appropriate flying site, operating in a sensible manner.

 

Those concerned with glitches etc, should buy, or is that invest, in a bells and whistles system. One that records details of the signal, air speed etc. So that each flight can be examined, to determine overall performance of equipment and the modeller.

 

For my part I will continue with my two 6ex systems. Recognising that it is no better or worse than most Radios sets costing much more or a little less. In fact I will take some convincing the Fasst system is any better than any other 2.4 system

[PatMc]

There is a well known measure of electronic equipment known as the Bathtub curve.

 

The time between early failure & wear out failure on electronic equipment is very high which is why so many people can relate stories of still having 27MHz early 35MHz gear etc still in perfect working order.

 

There's probably no more chance of problems from a relatively recent 35MHz Tx converted to 2.4GHz by swapping the module than there is of problems with a brand new 2.4GHz Tx.

 

There are many reasons to use a well specified older Tx rather than a basic new one.

 

I'm using a Futaba FF8 with a FrSky module permanently on 2.4 & a MPX Cockpit SX on 35.

I use a number of the features of both depending on which model is being flown. This winter I will be converting the SX to be switchable between 2.4 & 35 using a FrSky hack & I don't anticipate any problems in using it.

[Paul Marsh]

Probably most problems with radio is the batteries.

I recently converted a Yak 54 from glow to petrol and from 35Mhz to 2.4.

I replaced the 4-cell rx battery with a brand new instant 5-cell pack, as 2.4 receivers are less tolerant on under-voltage than FM receivers. Also the battery was suspect-going flat after a few weeks.

[Terence Lynock]

If a model is so valuable and so dear to your heart then install all the electronics in a big old hack and fly it around for a week or two to proove its reliabilty, you can do this whilst building your new toy.

All the electronics in my Easyglider Pro were in another model for around ten hours flight time before moving them to the EG Pro.

[PatMc]

Posted by Paul Marsh on 19/10/2011 20:16:37:

... as 2.4 receivers are less tolerant on under-voltage than FM receivers.

As a generalisation that's not correct.

 

I don't know about other brands but most FrSky receivers will operate below 4v.

[Danny Fenton]

"I reckon the Spitfire pilot mentioned wishes he had used a Tx without a module!"

 

I don't actually....... however I have just heard my new 16 channel Jeti 2nd rate Tx is going to cost around 990 Euros. No matter how good the Tx if the aerial is not attached it will struggle to give sufficient range.

 

Danny

[Ian Skeldon 1]

I have found a really really strange phenomenon regarding radios down at several of the clubs I fly at.

 

Several members have experienced instances of unexplained loss of radio link and lost or damaged their model as a result. Now here is the interesting bit, these modelers then fall into one of two categories, the first deem this brand of radio to be unreliable and get rid of it ( I am in this category) .

 

The second category blame batteries, aerials, the way something was installed, the wind, etc, etc. They then carry on having crashes (iv'e managed to get some nice second hand engines as a result yipeee). Then in desperation they have started to send back radio sets for testing, have received new and sometimes an extra rx back within a week. The really weird bit is that they then go on to encourage people to buy this (now) well known brand of radio and extol the back up service. When pointing out that several of the club members have all had very similar incidents and all lost several hundreds of pounds in crash damage, there is a general denial and so the saga continues.

 

So question 1. What is it that I don't get?

Question 2. KC, What exactly is second rate gear and how has this been determined?

 

Ian

 

[Erfolg]

Your club is very different to the one I belong to.

 

There are relatively few true crashes, certainly not as you describe.

 

If a model a month has an incident, it is a lot.

 

Of these recently, two were flying the wrong model, as one event. Most are landing incidents. One or two flying too far away, resulting in a loss of control, probably as a consequence, of not clearly seeing the attitude, speed of the model.

 

There has been one manufacturer, which I would not associate with budget sets, which experienced Tx battery tray issues, now all club users of this set, know how to ensure it does not re-occur and a faulty on off switch, which has been fixed. I will not mention the make, as hysteria often surrounds minor issues, out of all proportion to the problem.

 

We do not commonly see the classic radio failures that were common, with either 35 or 2.4. There is a wide range of brands and models at both Tx and Rx. The range of servos is far wider still.

 

It could be that being an electric only club, that equipment on board the model, has an easier time from vibration.

[kc]

Well I would define second rate gear as one with reliability less than the best proven makes or gear without a known provenance ( i.e secondhand bought from a source not personally known to you, it may have been crashed, got wet etc. ) or gear that has been modified by anyone but a highly skilled & trained RC engineer. RC sets with old 'nicads' or old sets stored in damp conditions & therefore liable to black wire corrosion are obvioulsy second rate.

There could be other definitions, but those are mine.

[Devon Flyer]

Posted by kc on 20/10/2011 11:04:41:

Well I would define second rate gear as one with reliability less than the best proven makes ................................

There could be other definitions, but those are mine.

 

Then by your definition, my 100% rock solid Corona moduled FF9 and DIY moduled 6EX, which have had thousands of flights over the past 2-3 years between them - with absolutely NO problems, must be first rate kit.

 

Having witnessed at least 4 incidents where signal loss on a 'well known brand' was to blame, how would you define 'best proven makes' that have less reliability than my Corona gear?

[Erfolg]

Devon

 

I agree. It just seems modern equipment is very good, whoever makes it.

 

The difference in purchase price possibly has more to do with mark ups and paying for the label, than straight forward quality issues.

[Ian Skeldon 1]

Hi,

 

Erfolg, I have seen a fair few crashes over the last three years where nothing but loss of connection between the transmitter and the receiver have caused the crash. I fly at 4 clubs in total and as an instructor tend to spot the tip stalls and haven't included them in my conclusion that at least one brand of modern 1st rate radio equipment seems to be the common factor in these crashes. The equipment has usually not been old at all and in two instance was virtually brand new. Aircraft have been from gliders on the slope to foamies and the usual club hacks right through to large petrol and one jet powered aircraft..

 

KC, I would agree that caution should be used when buying second hand but would never consider it as something to avoid at all costs. Some well funded individuals can afford to update and upgrade their equipment at will and thus provide good quality second hand equipment to anyone wanting such items.

However all of the observations made over the last three years or so, involved one brand of radio and most were within 12 months of purchase and installed in accordance with the manufacturers instructions. Despite this the particular brand seems to sell well. Which proves the old theory that if you sell it cheap enough people will buy it just because it's cheap. Example was flights on a commercial aircraft with a terrible reputation, prices were really cut and seats sold out, I guess crashing to your death isn't too bad if it was a bargain !

[Devon Flyer]

I wonder if that certain "brand of modern 1st rate radio equipment" is the same one that I've witnessed giving problems?

Edited By Devon Flyer on 20/10/2011 22:33:00

[Wiltshire Flyer]

well i used what some may call a "second rate" system in my JP-480-SI (powered Zaggi) and it worked fine, it was a Ripmax Saturn 6 ch 2.4ghz.

 

Had i had the money sure i would have gotten a Futaba or Spektrum etc, but the fact is just did not have the money so i opted for the Saturn.

 

I am sure nobody wants to risk a "second rate" system in any model, but sometimes needs must when the devil drives!

 

 

[kc]

By second rate I am sure we all mean unreliable equipment.

Frankly in the last 10 years there has developed a snobbish attitude to Tx amongst some people. They seem to consider them male jewellery! But in fact they are just tools to do a job. Looks does not matter, just the ability to do the job. The brand does not matter except for reliability. Its the same with shoes, brand does not matter just the comfort. Obviously sometimes you get more features if you pay more. But for aircraft reliabilty is everything.

 

So when I refer to second rate I am not referring to cheaper brands as such. If the cheaper brands are as reliable as the best then that's what matters. So we need to hear reports about the lesser known brands. Good or bad reports, we need facts.

 

As for secondhand RC gear, I still stick by my advice ..........only buy radio gear if you can be certain it is in perfect order i.e you know the seller and you ask around the club to see if anyone has knowledge of him crashing with that gear. Only buy if all the club reckons it's known to be reliable. As almost all flying is done in a club this is fairly easy to do. You could always ask the seller to put it in his best plane and demonstrate it! If nobody has seen it flying, dont buy! To some extent this also avoids buying stolen gear.

If you have been a club member some time you will often have seen newcomers who buy from unknown sources and turn up with useless RC gear. More expensive in the end.