What is happening in Futaba?

[Erfolg]

I do also agree that Futaba have lost the plot in many respects. However they do have some strengths.

I was going to say that value for money is not one of them. To some extent that does depend how you measure value for money.

What am on about? Pretty much the same aspect that Squitters mentions. That is to date the Fasst system has been rock solid for me.

Which begs the question are they not all rock solid?

Strangely there is one brand, that has been mentioned, where I have seen problem after problem with the RC equipment. Binding being lost, models strangely going in, even changes to the channel allocation. These problems have involved so many people and differing models, to have decided me that I will not touch the system with a barge pole.

On the other hand, I have used Frsky equipment with 3 different Futaba Txs and have built up a healthy respect for the manufacturer. It is emphasised when you compare the costs, features, flexibility and capability of their products that does bring to mind, Futaba are an expensive, adequate at best product, whose saving grace is the reliable radio link.

[ted hughes]

Posted by Erfolg on 15/07/2015 19:35:33:

... , Futaba are an expensive, adequate at best product, whose saving grace is the reliable radio link.

when you think about it, isn't reliability the one feature we would like to have above all other functions?

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by ted hughes on 15/07/2015 20:04:34:

Posted by Erfolg on 15/07/2015 19:35:33:

... , Futaba are an expensive, adequate at best product, whose saving grace is the reliable radio link.

when you think about it, isn't reliability the one feature we would like to have above all other functions?

But they aren't infallible either, we had a 6ex recently at the club which went into failsafe, turns out the range in full power mode is about the same as in range check mode. Fortunately the plane (Bixler) glided in with no damage and on another 6ex Tx performed fine. I don't think any make is 100% (but probably much more reliable than before), but we do seem to stick with what has given us good service. As regards the radio link I don't think there is a bad radio link out there, but you can always get a Friday transmitter, and maybe some manufacturers have more Fridays in the week than others

[Josip Vrandecic -Mes]

I'm the generation of Futaba systems, mentioned by Mr. John Privett ... Sign and agree with all of his viewpoints on the aforementioned ''Futaba syndrome''...Thanks alot John.

Jo

[Erfolg]

Frank

You are taking a section of my comment and presenting it out of context.

The point is that Futaba are no longer the only highly reliable producer.

I have kepy hammering the point, a solid link is number one priority, but Futaba are no longer alone in front of the pack in this area. Frsky are up there to.

In my opinion that does not mean that all are, but Futaba is just another reliable producer.

I still use Futaba, I have four sets, a 35 Gold Series, a 35 6ex, a 2.4 6ex and a 8fg. But I do not kid myself, they are behind the pack in many areas

[Frank Skilbeck]

Erflog

I wasn't trying to take it out of context, I've used Spektrum DSM2 and Multiplex M link extensively and not had any radio link issues with either. What I was trying to say is that a lot of the problems may not be specific to the actual radio transmission protocol, but the reliability of the hardware.

[Dave Bran]

Posted by Percy Verance on 15/07/2015 12:40:07:

No doubt Ripmax will do their utmost to market Futaba gear

Like they did when they got the Hirobo franchise??

[Erfolg]

Frank

You could well be correct that it is not transmission protocol. Is it the hardware? I would not have a clue.

I have noted that unfortunately one manufacturer does seem to have issues, not confined to a single individual. There are many other makers in use, although due to the low numbers that I see, I just know they seem to be OK. I no longer see all the exotic systems that I used to see, that competitive flyers seem to favour. Again, they seem to work well, yet again, the numbers seen were low.

I can really only speak about my own experiences, over a number of years, probably up to 10 years and have have found Frsky very reliable, what ever they produce, for what ever system.

I can again attests that the Futaba Fasst system to work well, knowing a number of users over the years. Although as we all keep saying, pretty expensive, and rather limited (that is non) with respect to the Rx. telemetry aspect.

I really am disappointed at the poor response of Futaba, both technically and financially. The company does not seem to see the accident down the road, if they go on as they are at present.

[MattyB]

Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 15/07/2015 21:35:57:

Erflog

I wasn't trying to take it out of context, I've used Spektrum DSM2 and Multiplex M link extensively and not had any radio link issues with either. What I was trying to say is that a lot of the problems may not be specific to the actual radio transmission protocol, but the reliability of the hardware.

On the very cheapest sets hardware failures are definitely a factor, but above the £100 mark the most common failure point is the operator! Not knowing how to power a digital RX or install the aerials was a huge issue in the early days of 2.4 (especially as many early RXs had high brownout voltages), but I still see people today who simply lump in their RX, power it with an old 4.8V AA pack and then are surprised when they lose control a few mins into the flight. Often these are newcomers, but they also include experienced modellers who were brought up on AM and FM sets and continue to follow "tried and trusted" installation procedures despite the changes in tech.

Personally I would happily use ANY FHSS based protocol , as I consider them interchangeable from a reliability perspective nowadays. Choose your kit on whatever criteria you want (value, features, brand loyalty etc), but RF protocol should only be a factor if you really must have the very lowest latency i.e 3D heli or fixed wing pilots.

Edited By MattyB on 16/07/2015 09:12:56

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

Matty

I did not think I was commenting on protocols. The personal point I have been making is that from experience that the Fasst system works well for me. Not suggesting it is better than all others. Simply stating that one strength of Futaba, is an apparently rock sold performance.

I am suggesting also unlike the early days, such as with my 27 Waltron, which had poor discrimination from adjacent channels, and it was experienced that Futaba performed more reliably, most current 2.4 systems work very reliably.

Having said that, for what ever reason there is still one very popular systems that seems to have a lot in common with my Waltron.

I do know that Futaba Rx aerial installation is quite straight forward, to date I am not aware that the Rx is particularly fussy about Rx voltage. But then again I use 3s Lipos min and ESC with BEC, so probably always sees whatever the minimum that the BEC puts out. Although I am not sure why others should have issues with their brand.

I am increasingly attracted to Frsky, using their rxs for some time That is because of all the reasons we have discussed,

Wrapping up, the Futaba does all it says on the label at a price and is lacking many features of other systems, in an age where most set reliability seems excellent.

Edited By Erfolg on 20/07/2015 22:20:22

[Bob Stringfellow]

Anybody tried the T6K

[Cabbage Man]

As you all jump ship, any chance you can offer up your redundant Fasst receivers ?

Ive used futaba for 12 years and wouldnt change. My 8fg does everything I could possibly want ( and more ) and I cant recall a single failed bind or loss of signal.

I often wonder if some folks just must have the latest whizz bang set just to give themselves something to do. My old 6exa sets still run perfectly and are used in 1/4 scale models, F3A pattern ship and a mass of mid range sports models.

[Bucksboy]

I started with Futaba and did jump ship to Hitec when I could see that they were being left behind, (not because it was the latest whizz bang set) but I did this 5 years ago! Futaba have finally started to catch up but its far too late. I'm now well established with Hitec so won't go back. You can replace the word Hitec with several other brand names, Futaba have taken too long and allowed others to take the market.

[Daren Graham - Cambria Funfighters]

Very interesting thread, to hear all the opinions. I've always used Futaba. I binned FAAST as it was stupidly expensive and I dont trust the copies for one reason only. That is as a regular flier of either public displays or models that would be lethal if out of control I can't take the chance. I now use FHSS. You can get genuine 6ch receivers from Hobby stores for about £30. And 8ch units on ebay for £37 never once have I had a reliability issue with it. Unlike one other system that has cost me six brand new models over time.

[Cabbage Man]

Define stupidly expensive? £30 for a FRSKY receiver ? £40 for a futaba 6 channel?

£100 , yes that would be a issue, but surely not these current prices.

I struggle to justify the mass of functions and mixes that you can now have at your disposal these days. Telemetry is now the new kid on the block and frankly after one flying session I was truly fed up listening to the constant nagging voice from a mates tx telling him what to do and when, that I was glad I didnt have it.

People forget that Futaba were the first to patent and perfect 2.4 , way before the others got going. I suspect that in real terms, the revenue from selling the patent far exceeds any profits from manufacturing the goods.

[Andy Meade]

Telemetry might be new to some manufacturers, but I've been using it (via FRSky modules in various Futaba TX's) for the past 4 years, and wouldn't be without it. I don't (in fact, can't) have all the nagging going on from my modules, but there's no way I'd fly a 40lb aircraft without knowing the battery state and or knowing that the aircraft is within a comfortable signal range. Horses for courses!

[Daren Graham - Cambria Funfighters]

Posted by Electric God on 15/12/2015 10:27:12:

Define stupidly expensive? £30 for a FRSKY receiver ? £40 for a futaba 6 channel?

£100 , yes that would be a issue, but surely not these current prices.

I struggle to justify the mass of functions and mixes that you can now have at your disposal these days. Telemetry is now the new kid on the block and frankly after one flying session I was truly fed up listening to the constant nagging voice from a mates tx telling him what to do and when, that I was glad I didnt have it.

People forget that Futaba were the first to patent and perfect 2.4 , way before the others got going. I suspect that in real terms, the revenue from selling the patent far exceeds any profits from manufacturing the goods.

When I dropped FAAST, the cheapest basic receiver was £50. Ripmax was producing a Futaba rx (genuine) for use in some of their electric ready to fly models that was full range for a little over £20 and it was FAAST. I define that as stupidly expensive. I will continue to use Futaba mainly because I'm already set up with it and it's dead reliable, yes FHSS costs a little more but that's fine for mypeace of mind to a limited degree. I have never used telemetry as I haven't found a need.

[flight1]

Posted by Daren Graham - Cambria Funfighters on 15/12/2015 11:48:34:

Posted by Electric God on 15/12/2015 10:27:12:

Define stupidly expensive? £30 for a FRSKY receiver ? £40 for a futaba 6 channel?

£100 , yes that would be a issue, but surely not these current prices.

 

You will find that a full range frsky Rx is £20 and futaba's £40 so thats half price a big deal to lots of people and I and just not in to this 'only a pound' syndrome or it's only a couple of quid'

As for reliability there is no difference. and as for telemetry the first day I used it (5/6 years ago) . I had a cell fail on a new battery pack the alarm sounded just after first circuit(load tested before flight), i landed and new plane was saved so I am a complete convert now and as for the noise i have a switch to turn non emergency sound of so i don't annoy my fellow flyers.

Most like to have all the lastest tech fuctions in the radio and it is a big factor in buying a new Tx, weather you choose to use it or not, but its there to try.

 

Edited By flight1 on 15/12/2015 12:43:52

[Daren Graham - Cambria Funfighters]

I'm not knocking telemetry at all, I just dont need it at present and have a perfectly good radio. The idea of the battery voltage warning is superb, but I'm quite happy that befor I use a battery that it has been checked and properly tested by me before use. I do this before each flight in public and before any days flying and at random intervals throughout the day just to be sure.

[Geoff S]

Posted by Electric God on 15/12/2015 10:27:12:

People forget that Futaba were the first to patent and perfect 2.4 , way before the others got going. I suspect that in real terms, the revenue from selling the patent far exceeds any profits from manufacturing the goods.

 

Did Futaba patent the use of 2.4gHz as a carrier frequency? I doubt if there's anything to patent in that. In any case it's not the carrier frequency that's important but the channel hopping protocols that allow safe use by multiple users and each manufacturer uses its own which may be patented. I doubt if Futaba's protocol is patented because Frsky sell both transmitter modules and Futaba compatible receivers and AFAIK haven't been sued for copyright breech.

I'm not sure how much FrSky 6 channel receivers cost but the last X8R (8 channel, telemetry enabled) receiver cost about £25 and 4 channels ones are less than £20.

Geoff

Edited By Geoff Sleath on 15/12/2015 13:08:20

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Futaba most certainly did not patent 2.4GHz technology! It is generic technology not limited to R/C in any way - in fact we are very very much minority users in the band.

TBH I don't even think Futaba can lay claim to being the innovators of employing 2.4GHz in commercial R/C systems - in my view that acloade belongs to Spektrum.

BEB (not a Spektrum user and a very "ex" Futaba user!)

[gangster]

I don't know where the idea that Futaba had anything to do with the 2.4 technology that we use and hold a patent on it comes from

As already stated the 2.4 band is pretty widespread in its use and indeed the spread spectrum technology we use was pioneered in 1941 and was pioneered by Hedy Lamaar (check spelling) a very talented scientist and indeed a very beautiful and talented Hollywood actress

Futaba were beaten to the model control market on 2.4 by Spektrum and indeed have not really known which part of their anatomy they are on and far from selling patents on their systems cannot make up theirs minds what protocol to use themselves. Are we on Mark 4 or even 5 by now

[kc]

Somewhere it says about Futaba using spread spectrum on RC for cranes etc and I think that was before Spektrum sold RC for model use. So cranes would be commercial RC but not actually for models!

You can read about Hedy Lamarr and spread spectrum here

Although she and her husband patented it, frequency hopping had been used before - in WW One. 

Edited By kc on 15/12/2015 17:40:10

[Paul Marsh]

Hedy Lamarr discovered Spread Spektrum technology - to prevent torpedoes being jammed, although others developed it to what it is now.