john stones 1 - Moderator Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Not aimed anywhere folks just a general question Are they a thing of the past in the 2.4 era ? There are that many brands and types of rx's these days, do the likes of frsky orange etc come with failsafe function on full range gear ? Its a given they still need to be set up, but is it one less thing to worry about now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cymaz Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 I think it's called free flight now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Cotsford Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Failsafes don't do squat if your battery pack or switch fail regardless of whether it's failing to power a 35MHz or 2.4Ghz system. As far as I'm aware ALL FrSky receivers have a failsafe but I have no idea about Orange etc.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Sitting under the grey base of a cloud when it's a really thermally day doesn't stop a flyaway either, failsafe or not, once it's disappeared inside...... Orange DSM2/DSMX have a minimum of throttle cut on all their Rx's - I don't know if any have a pre-set option for the other surfaces - my DSM2 don't. Lemon Rx's have failsafe on all channels. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masher Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Also failsafe only comes in if you lose radio range or you turn the Tx off! I've seen someone lose their model because they made mistakes and before they could get a grip, the model was out of sight. Radios are so good these days that radio range can be a lot further than you can see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich too Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 not if you bungee launch your glider and forget to turn the receiver on Rich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CARPERFECT Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 I had a fly away with a Futaba FTR reciever. They do not come with a failsafe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Plains Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Masher is right. I use the Hitec Minima receivers and they have excellent range. I have almost lost sight of my 1.5mtr span Bixler and only just managed to see which way it responded to aileron commands to confirm it's direction. It took more than 2 mins to be back overhead at top speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The real Ron Truth Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 My diesel powered tomboy went awol when i forgot to turn the rx on, Not the fault of futaba this time! Found it 2 miles away untouched after 2 hours searching ONLY to snap the tail off carrying it into the garage! The FAAST rx copies do come with programmable failsafe on any channel, so in theory you can program a model to descend, i say in theory as if its in a thermal you doomed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangster Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I suppose the next debate is how should you set up your failsafe I have used failsafe on both 35 and 2.4 and have always set for engine tickover or cut and neutral controls Maybe that is a recipe for creating a perfect flyaway. What bothers me about this thread, and I really do not wish to be at all critical of the op, the point I am about to make is about radio control generally. Failsafe is not an complete panacea for all problems, in reality all makes of radio,regardless of some comments you read here and on other forums have been generally totally reliable for the last 30 years. How many crashes are radio related ?, my guess is no more than 10%, and of that 10% maybe 90% of those are due to bad installation, poor battery care and lack of maintenance. Failsafe will only work on loss of rf path. How many "interference" related crashes are really interference? maybe a fraction of a % with the exception of switch ons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Green Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Posted by Bob Cotsford on 16/04/2014 11:37:01: As far as I'm aware ALL FrSky receivers have a failsafe but I have no idea about Orange etc.. All except the VD5M Bob My lad had his EasyCub go awol, it was an open-circuit Deans connector (as discussed in a previous thread) but unaided, it made his best landing ever! Cheers Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Privett Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Posted by gangster on 03/01/2015 11:51:01: I suppose the next debate is how should you set up your failsafe I have used failsafe on both 35 and 2.4 and have always set for engine tickover or cut and neutral controls Maybe that is a recipe for creating a perfect flyaway. The real intention of "fail-safe" is not to 'save' the model, but to bring it down in the vicinity of the flying site and so prevent it from flying away and causing a problem somewhere else. So certainly, throttle to idle or cut as a minimum. There's guidance from Manny Williamson on the BMFA website here. Talking about additional functions he says; "The majority of R/C systems support a failsafe capability on the throttle channel only; however some of the higher specification sets have the option to determine the position of multiple control functions on loss or corruption of the signal. Where this option is utilised there are a number of options and the final decision rests with the pilot, such operations as crossed controls, deployment of flaps or full up elevator can all be programmed depending on the perceived requirements and circumstances." And whilst specifically talking about gliders the next bit is also relevant to other models; "Where airbrakes are fitted it can be very worthwhile to set the airbrakes to deploy on activation of the failsafe as this potentially reduces the energy of the model and again prevents “fly aways”. Some pilots programme crossed controls in order to bring the aircraft down as quickly as possible (for example full opposite rudder and ailerons combined with full up elevator in order to promote a full spin) but this is entirely down to the personal preference of the pilot." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piers Bowlan Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 For when your model gets caught in a 'boomer' thermal or simply it is lost OOS downwind, perhaps one of these could help you? Modern technology to the rescue if your wallet can manage it. At least it will bring the model back to the overhead, even if it is above cloud! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Posted by gangster on 03/01/2015 11:51:01: I suppose the next debate is how should you set up your failsafe I have used failsafe on both 35 and 2.4 and have always set for engine tickover or cut and neutral controls Maybe that is a recipe for creating a perfect flyaway. What bothers me about this thread, and I really do not wish to be at all critical of the op, the point I am about to make is about radio control generally. Failsafe is not an complete panacea for all problems, in reality all makes of radio,regardless of some comments you read here and on other forums have been generally totally reliable for the last 30 years. How many crashes are radio related ?, my guess is no more than 10%, and of that 10% maybe 90% of those are due to bad installation, poor battery care and lack of maintenance. Failsafe will only work on loss of rf path. How many "interference" related crashes are really interference? maybe a fraction of a % with the exception of switch ons I totally agree! The number of incidents that are genuinely due to "radio failure" or "interference" these days are, in my opinion, a tiny, tiny fraction of the whole population. Yet we still see lots of pilots grimly saying "I had nothing - radio failure" when its blindingly obvious that what happened was a good old fashioned stall! Or claiming "signal loss" when the problem was their own faulty installation etc. Does it matter you might ask? If it makes them feel better blaming the radio. Well actually, yes I think it does matter for two reasons: 1. It unnecessarily undermines their confidence in their radio gear and far too often results in them undergoing additional expenditure because they erroneously believe there is "something wrong" with their radio. 2. More importantly we can't fix a problem until we truly understand what the problem is. By blaming the radio gear we avoid looking at our flying habits that led to the stall, or our dodgy installation practices that led to the malfunction. And that just means the "incidents" keep on coming! BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangster Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 1. It unnecessarily undermines their confidence in their radio gear and far too often results in them undergoing additional expenditure because they erroneously believe there is "something wrong" with their radio. Quite so but worse than that it also undermines the confidence of others, particularly newcomers,if they are using the same brand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piers Bowlan Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 This thread is about Fly Aways. If a model is out of sight due to pilot error - allowing the model to get too far downwind perhaps, with a subsequent loss of orientation and control, then a correctly set up failsafe can be of benefit. If the model does get out of range, particularly if a park flyer Rx is installed then the FS cutting the throttle to initiate a decent and an arrival in open countryside is clearly better than an extended uncontrolled flight and power dive into a neighbouring high street. I think that most people are aware that modern radio is very reliable and most crashes are either caused by pilot error, battery failure (for whatever reason) or poor installation. But this is not a reason to discourage people from setting the failsafe (which your post sounds like) indeed the BMFA insist on it! The setting of the failsafe prior to flight may also mean that the model and it's equipment may be recovered, rather than landing in the next county, even if the airframe is totaled in the subsequent 'arrival'. Edited By Piers Bowlan on 03/01/2015 14:22:52 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted January 3, 2015 Author Share Posted January 3, 2015 The OP was written at a time when the merits of 35mhz v 2.4 MHz where being debated. Of course you must maintain your equipment and set the failsafe and yes it is not an absolute guarantee. It is a useful addition though if used alongside good maintenance and installation and usage. I still use 35 MHz alongside 2.4 MHz but have never had a loss of signal. As to undermining others confidence in a brand, I think we soon spot the true reason for failures and alongside others using the brand safely don't believe it do's too much damage to the brand. Perhaps I should have said " What you going blame your fly aways on now you no longer use 35 MHz". John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangster Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 But this is not a reason to discourage people from setting the failsafe (which your post sounds like) Piers I have just re-read the entire thread and cannot see a single post that discourages the use of fail safe, a few including mine do though warn against the complacency that it is a complete umbrella and will remove all danger. It is as you say important to encourage its use if you have the facility and indeed in the case of an investigation for an insurance claim or worse it is possible that it would be taken into consideration. Now how are we going to get people to do range checks regularly, I have seen sone cruel things done to 2.4 rx aerials that will untimately restrict range regardless of how much the radio costs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hopkin Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Perhaps it would be better named "fail less dramatically" as it certainly isn't a panacea for all eventualities!!! But certainly well worth setting up though most advanced radios have a stab at it for you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I certainly never intended in any way to discourage people from setting their failsafe - indeed as you say Piers it is a requirement to set it if the radio gear offers the facility. I'm not sure though how you read into the posts that anyone was suggesting otherwise? BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piers Bowlan Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 One or two of the comments seemed to suggest to me a lack in confidence and negativity regarding the usefulness of failsafe in helping in a fly away situation. Indeed the OP asked, 'Are they a thing of the past in the 2.4 era?' A fair question perhaps with the availability of the little fixed wing autopilot/RTH gizmo I highlighted. I am sure you didn't BEB, no offence was intended by me. A case of me posting in haste and repenting at leisure. I will now quietly creep away and fall on my sword to regain family honour! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Oh - I'm sure that won't be necessary Piers! I was worried that I'd upset you by sounding like I was dumping F/S's which is certainly not the case! Anyway, all sorted out! Happy New Year! BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangster Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Well at least it has raised the issue of the importance of failsafe, and good maintenance too. Just a thought went through my mind, how far would a model go on a fly away if it had no failsafe and AS3X stabilisation. I assume an electric model would head off for miles until the battery voltage dropped a bit and the motor stopped whence it would begin a nice stable descent. Ideally there should be belt and braces whereby the esc would go into failsafe as soon as the signal was lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 If you assume an average speed for model of around 30mph, just to develop some figures, and say it flew for 8 mins - the answer is 4 miles! BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Cooper Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I have always been slightly suspicious (and sceptical) of the "reduced power" range tests. . Indeed, I had one receiver which passed the proscribed 30 yards range check but its range on full power did not exceed 150 yards. . . So now I check them out with a "proper" range check at full power.. These checks can involve a lot of walking - the last time was over a mile on the ground with Spektrum radio (and then ran out of space to go any further) -- but I used my car to do the distance, and kept in touch with my helper via walkie talkies. However, a model can (and will) still fly away if failsafes are not set to spin the model into the ground on the loss of the signal. And they could still fly (glide) away if a battery fails whilst airborne. . . . I have seen it happen. B.C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.