Futaba 2.4GHz with caution

[260 Flyer]

So what about the BMFA’s insistence that we affix a black ribbon to the antenna., how will this effect the tuning, especially if the ribbon gets damp?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[260 Flyer]

Thanks Eric.

"I cannot see any point in having a ribbon of any colour on the antenna, I would have thought that the tiny little stub of a thing just might give other fliers a clue??!"

Or it could be an absent minded 35 MHz flyer!

[Chris Dowsett]

It a good point Rob/Eric.

It is an issue to which the BMFA will find a workable solution eventually.

It is common practice to use a ribbon but there is no point in a ribbon unless it is visible and it also helps sense the wind.   Some of us have both a stub and a telescopic aerial on the TX which could  make things amusing if not confusing. How many ribbons?

 If I were flying in a competition I would probably take two.  One 35MHz and one for 2.4GHz and ask the contest director for guidance. I would expect to leave my TX in to be in the pound with the 2 ribbons attached.

We have to accept flying in the rain.  It  inevitably catches us all out sooner or later.  We also have to accept touching aerials - stub or telescopic.  I have no doubt Futaba are aware of this.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Chris Dowsett]

I could find easier ways to cook a doughnut, Eric

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Chris Dowsett]

There is an easterly forecast later this week and I have been thinking of  Frank's question (see)

What are the differences between the R607 and R617 FS receivers please?

Since I have both receivers installed in models thought I would do a low power range check with models side by side.  I get 64 paces with the R607FS and 53 paces with R617FS.  Both models on dry sandy beach.

Shows an advantage of a low power button - it is possible to do range checks unaided.

[YakMad]

Chris,

          That's interesting results between the two receivers, I would have thought the 617 would have had a better range than the 607 as the components are supposed to be of a higher quality, still the range is fine, are the receivers installed in two models as this could prove that installation is very important with 2.4. I have both types of RX's and no range problems with either although I would not be as accurrate as you pacing it out, I have a very long garden 80 plus feet and have always used it as a benchmark for my range checking. I would be curious to to see if the rx's are in two models and if they were swapped over would the range stay the same as per receiver or per model??  

[Jonathan Brooks]

Hi

 Just thought i would add my findings. Bought a FF7 2.4 a few weeks ago. I have got a modified WOT4 which has carbon weave bandage around the wing join. I got a bit worried that this may shield the receiver as i have read horror stories elsewhere.

 I can confirm that everything performed faultlessly at 50m range, with ranger test power mode selected. The WOT4 was wedged nose down with the carbon (2 layers of remember) directly in the path. I ensured there was nothing behind the plane to reflect a signal and as my trusted stick wobbler got to 50m approx the line of sight was completely obstructed by my Honda Civic. Cant say fairer than that.

The other big plus seems to be the reduction in servo buzz - is this due to a cleaner signal at the rx?

My biggest problem has been getting the aerials perpindicular to each other - down/up the length of the fus is fine, across is a pain as it seems to be where the wing attaches or over the servos or by the switch or not long enough to reach the rear bulk head etc. This leads me to think I am doing something wrong - is it only the final part (unshielded) of the antennae that needs to be 90 degrees from the other?

[Chris Dowsett]

Managed to get some flying in over the last 2 days.  Having got a legally acceptable low power range the idea is to see if this translates into a technically acceptable air range.  So far I have only managed 3 brief flights with the 207/Phase6 combination but 6 flights with the 217/Harmony combo proved excellent.

The ground range test were (see)

I get 64 paces with the R607FS and 53 paces with R617FS. 

The installation in the 617 model puts the aerial whiskers behind the lead, MH battery and servos whereas the 607 is installed between the battery and servos. YakMad wrote (see)

 I would be curious to to see if the rx's are in two models and if they were swapped over would the range stay the same as per receiver or per model??  

I am curious as well but I want to push the flight test envelope a bit more on the 607 first.  Anyway here is the 617/Harmony envelope:-

Hand launch.  Fly ridge to both ends. Figure of eights. Loops.  Walk the ridge.  Land via steps.

 It's fairly typical on the beach site for this aeroplane (a discontinued Hacker ARTF).  It is very floppy and the controls are sluggish. No flaps or airbrakes.   The windspeed is high and there is little lift.

I might be over cautious but it's only when you start thinking about how and where you fly that you realise what pushing the envelope actually means.   There were no problems despite banks of earth, wire mesh, palm trees, salt water (cf telescopic aerials), lamp posts, cars,  etc.  The flight test has done all that and also loads of aerial orientations too.  A PASS so far.

The Phase6 is a very responsive so it should wickle out any control latching.  Cannot wait to try it .  Just need more wind.

Jonathan's got me thinking about servo buzz.  I have Hitec digital thin wing servos in my 35MHz ship with all carbon wings.  The wings amplify the buzz.  It is deafening!  Maybe...

[YakMad]

Chris,

        What do you mean by "aerial whiskers behind the lead"? are they getting shielded by a cable?

There is some discussion about servo buuz being less on 2.4 as the signal is cleaner, I have certainly noticed my servos buzz le far less if any, I also notice there is very little if any movement of the servos at switch on. This weekend as the weather is looking rubbish AGAIN! I intend to move my Great Planes Skybolt on to a 617 RX, this has JR 591's on the wings and which are a servo which tends to buzz, I will post my finding next week.

[Jonathan Brooks]

I think Futaba also need to stop skimming the market on price.

 There is little to the rx's and they cost way too much. Spektrum have shown the way with the B.O.G.O.F deal.

 I just think that with all the uncertainty it is time to drop the price and also to introduce a 4 channel rx. I dont want a £60 rx in my £15 foamy.

Fot those who have bitten the bullet and switched across, i would now like to be able to afford to 2.4ghz my fleet, but bought another 35mhz rx this week as does the job admirably for £15.

 I've got a mix of digitals and standards in a modded wot4, all are very quiet and move little on start up. It did highlight one JR591 that centered okay on my FF6 but on 2.4 ends up hunting a little around the centre - just highlighted a worn servo i think.

[Chris Dowsett]

YakMad,

Harmony/617 model puts the aerial whiskers behind the entire fuselage installation of lead (noseweight), MH battery and servos.  Both whiskers end up in the tallest part of the fuselage, one biassed toward the top the other to the bottom. They both "peep around" the lead, etc.

Jonathan,

The active part of the Futaba whisker is unscreened.  I would place them as far apart as possible (and at 90deg) so a bit of one or other can "see" your TX  whatever the model orientation.

Be interesting to know what servo's you have and what R/C you were using initially.

The first range test we did was to compare ppm 35MHz aerial retracted  with ppm 2.4GHz on low power.  The 35MHz gear went on working for more than double the distance.  Could not conclude anything because with the 35MHz gear, whilst there was control,  the servo's were jittering all over the place.  I would never fly a model like that!  Certainly the signal getting to the servos could be described as dirty.  I think your use of  "clean" to describe 2.4GHz is spot on.

With IPD, PCM and 2.4GHZ the signal into the RX is cleaned up before it gets near the servos.  Noisy jittering is replaced by delays in response.  When you do a range test keep your eye on the control movements and look for any delays in response.  It is much easier with the lower power function. 

[Chris Dowsett]

Jonathan Brooks wrote (see)

I think Futaba also need to stop skimming the market on price.

You are so right.  What are we actually paying for?  I hope it is development.

There are a lot of useful functions that need adding.  On my wish list is telemetry.   Getting better feedback from a model is long overdue.  I use a speaking voltmeter and altimeter which, for me, is a step in the right direction.  It is also a lot of extra expense. 

[Jonathan Brooks]

Thanks for that

 I was using a 6EXA, I swapped between a Futaba 138f dual conversion and a Weston Models Tango 6ch single conversion - i could not discern any difference in performance.

The servos were S3152 digitals on ailerons, two super tec 9102 (9012? any way 40g 2.5kg at 4.8v they are not the digital ones just shallow to fit in the tail end) on split elevator, a hitec 645mg for rudder and JR 591 on throttle. Yes i know my plane is a radio slut!

Sliding over to 2.4 certainly calmed that lot down but as mentioned highlighted wear in the 591.

I think the low power function is a +ve aid for safety, as you mentioned it lets you benchmark installations and set ups.

[Frank Latham]

Futaba receiver pricing.

They are TOO expensive. 

Futaba marketing ought to remembe the classic story of the early days of HiFi when the maker of THE  loudspeakers to have,  AR, kept their proces very low indeed. Asked why that was so the boss replied that he did not want to create a price umbrella for every other maker to crawl under.

Bill Lyons of Jaguar did the same thing with pricing his cars in the 60s and 70s. The E type waqs half the price of the Merc and just as good. Jag had a 2 year order list that only vanished when greedy BMC took over and shoved the prices.

If anyone balks at Futaba pricing as we seem to be doing then we may well buy another make. And If we do there will be no turing back because with 2.4 systems once you buy brand X you are locked in.

Watch out Futaba, the bell is ringing. You had better make your entry level set really, really cheap or you'll lose a big continuing market share which could so easily be yours. 

[Frank Latham]

Sorry about the spell errors in the moan I made about Futaba pricing.

I frequent several model shops and have made a point of moaning and of asking them to pass on m y moans to Futaba. I moan every time I go in!

ciao 

[Tim Mackey]

There is of course a point at which a thing is so inexpensive, it is perceived as being unlikely to be any good!

[Chris Dowsett]

As I said  (see)

 What are we actually paying for? 

[Jonathan Brooks]

It also a war for market dominance. Spektrum have taken a steal and will ram it home with cheaper rx's.

Futaba will be very happy charging £60 until the point that HiTec, JR (Iknow its Spektrum), Sanwa deliver their own brand 2.4ghz. and under cut them for market share.

Spektrum have done a good job by supporting early adopters and Futaba should do the same.

WHAT i want to know is will after market receivers flood the market like they have for 35mhz or is FAAST and spread spectrum patented so hard and licensed that the cost will vary little?

I would be happy to use a GWS or West or Hitec 2.4ghz rx with my FF7 - no problem - as long as it is cheaper.

 There is no reason why a 2.4 ghz rx cannot be bought for the same price as a middle of the road 35mhz rx and crystal and still have good margins for retailers. At the moment I will continue to buy the odd £6 crystal but if i can get a £25-30 2.4 rx i'll have 5 please.

As a marketer myself, someone somewhere is not doing their maths properly.

[YakMad]

The issue of flooding the market with cheap FASST RX's won't happen as each manufacturer has their own systems just like PCM and even if they will work with the bigger brands I would be worried that the software in the RX's may not be completely compatible, as with PCM it would probably mean that you will have to stick to the same make of RX as the TX. Futaba or JR have never really produced a really cheap rx (not full range).

By the way Sanwa 2.4 is being marketed in the States as Airtronics, its sounds like a similar frequency hopping system as Futaba.

 

[Chris Dowsett]

John Cole wrote (see)

The TM-7 exchange programme in UK has been announced by Ripmax.  I guess the 6EX programme will follow shortly: http://www.ripmax.com/notification_futaba.asp

which reminds me that I am supposed to flying with caution.  I should be exchanging my TX module (TM7) for a replacement.  I have to confess the exchange  will have to wait because the weather forecast is too good to miss flying.

We have had a good number of  2.4GHz cautions over the past weeks and many are worth following up.  For example  Frank's note of caution to Futaba about prices (see)

...classic story of the early days of HiFi when the maker of THE  loudspeakers to have,  AR, kept their prices very low indeed. Asked why that was so the boss replied that he did not want to create a price umbrella for every other maker to crawl under.

Bill Lyons of Jaguar did the same thing with pricing his cars in the 60s and 70s. The E type...

I was reading about the new Jaguar XF designed around Bowers & Wilkins loudspeakers. To quote "The XF makes most similar-sized German and Japanese cars appear over-conservative, contrived or inelegant".

[Chris Dowsett]

Just had some news from Top Gun, USA.

Seems nearly 50% of fliers had 2.4GHz for whom no TX pound was required .  No Glitches reported.  Here is an interesting link

http://www.rcscalebuilder.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11162&PN=0&TPN=2

[Tim Mackey]

except you have to be a member to read it