Futaba Receivers - any alternatives ?

[Andrew Moore 7]

I use the Futaba T6K V2 transmitter (a current model) - are there any alternative receivers i can use as they are quite pricey (£43+) although good ?

I've heard FRSKY receivers can be used although not sure if the work with my TX as its not a FAAST but uses T-FHSS & S-FHSS

Any ideas

[Denis Watkins]

Checkout Robotbirds Andrew

Frsky and futaba

**LINK**

[Andrew Moore 7]

Do you mean these ?

https://www.robotbirds.co.uk/default/frsky-v8fr-hitec-receiver-minima.html

Are they reliable ? About half the price of the Futaba (non telemetry though, no issue)

[Denis Watkins]

The dealer is reputable and have tried more than one make, as have clubmates, with no issues.

As always, installation, ventilated and soft mount, aerial position as instructions, bound with failsafe

Range tested with the correct power pack, hope I havent missed anything

[Richard Wills 2]

FrSky Delta 8 is the one for FHSS compatibility.

[Andrew Moore 7]

Thanks guys - wasn't aware of this

[J D 8]

Corona have a range.

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by J D 8 on 01/10/2018 22:55:03:

Corona have a range.

+1 for Corona. The R6SF is compatible with S-FHSS and works very well.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[MattyB]

Posted by Tom Sharp 2 on 02/10/2018 11:46:19:

Buying Futaba and then using cheap brand receivers, that's like buying a Rolls Royce and fitting Ford Escort seats.

Complete nonsense. The FrSky multi-protocol RXs are hugely well proven in the field; if the buyer follows the instructions for installation and binding and range check as normal there will be no issues. Remember this is digital equipment; it's the software that defines the performance more than anything, so if it passes the first range check there is no reason to think it would not be as reliable as an OEM RX for the lifetime of the equipment.

Edited By MattyB on 02/10/2018 11:55:56

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

That assumes, of course, that the radio manufacturer doesn't make some transmitter firmware changes which are compatible with their receiver software but not necessarily with the "compatibles".

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[J D 8]

I do use Futaba RX's in my larger IC aircraft, but have also found that Corona R6SF @ R8SF have been very reliable in both electric and IC types.

[Erfolg]

Martin

You have raised an issue that has troubled me for some time, particularly with respect to Futaba.

The EU is now well recognized as a protectionist market, that masquerades as free market. Where outsiders have multiple hoops to jump through, legislation slanted to facilitate there own in EU producers. Where some standards are about making it near to impossible for some to export to the EU, masquerading as maintaining standards or even health related legislation.

It seems that changes to firmware often as a consequence of changes by the EU regulators, are used by some manufacturers as a means to undermine and limit competition. In a truly free market, competition would be encouraged, and practices which limit competition would not be permitted.

I did understand that some of my older Fasst receivers would not work reliably with the later upgrades, to the Tx if installed.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Erfolg on 02/10/2018 19:50:48:

Martin

You have raised an issue that has troubled me for some time, particularly with respect to Futaba.

The EU is now well recognized as a protectionist market, that masquerades as free market. Where outsiders have multiple hoops to jump through, legislation slanted to facilitate there own in EU producers. Where some standards are about making it near to impossible for some to export to the EU, masquerading as maintaining standards or even health related legislation.

It seems that changes to firmware often as a consequence of changes by the EU regulators, are used by some manufacturers as a means to undermine and limit competition. In a truly free market, competition would be encouraged, and practices which limit competition would not be permitted.

I did understand that some of my older Fasst receivers would not work reliably with the later upgrades, to the Tx if installed.

Party political broadcast, on behalf of ?

[cymaz]

I have used FrSky FASSTreceivers for years. I’ve found them reliable. You can purchase aerial extensions which makes the installation easier. I cannot see why the FHSS ones will be any different.

Edited By cymaz on 02/10/2018 20:02:24

[Erfolg]

I use some Frsky Fasst Rx also cymaz, every bit as good as the Futaba units, at a fraction of the price. I have just resisted the temptation to undertake the firmware upgrades. I have been lead to believe that some who have had issues with both the Futaba and Frsky Rxs.

John, not meant to be political, beyond stating how the EU operates.

[Andrew Moore 7]

Thanks for all the comment and help.

I'm strictly a Futaba man but would like to try alternative RX's for some of my smaller, less loved, models as the price difference is huge and I've only heard good stuff about the FRSky receivers.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Not a Futaba user Andrew, but I have frsky rxs in my larger loved stuff, I sleep just fine.

[PatMc]

Posted by Erfolg on 02/10/2018 20:25:29:

John, not meant to be political, beyond stating how the EU operates.

No, you're stating how you think the EU works.

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by PatMc on 02/10/2018 23:06:35:

Posted by Erfolg on 02/10/2018 20:25:29:

John, not meant to be political, beyond stating how the EU operates.

No, you're stating how you think the EU works.

Completely agree, the Frsky FASST debacle had nothing to do with EU standards but a manufacturer not paying attention to changes in standards. Bit like saying that EU emission standards on cars stifle competition.

[Erfolg]

Are you really sure that the transmitting changes were due to the manufacturer getting their original product specification wrong. If so would not the CE approval process picked up the fact? I understood that the EU changed the regulations, which then required the manufacturers to change their transmission protocol if possible or withdraw the product.

If on the other hand you are referring to Fasst as opposed to the other Futaba current systems. Yep, that is all a self inflicted debacle.

[MattyB]

Futaba were forced to change FASST because it did not comply with the EU regs that were updated in Jan 2015. They released a very late firmware update in Dec 2014 in order that they could continue to sell FASST TXs like the 14SG and 18MZ, though some (like the 8FG) had to be pulled, presumably because they had not been designed to be user updateable. At that point many of the reverse engineered FASST compatibles from FrSky, Corona etc would not work with an updated FASST TX, but FrSky released updated firmware for their FASST compatibles in January that addressed this problem. There is lots of detail in this thread I started on RCGroups if you want to read more about it.

PS - FrSky actually made more of a mess of updating their own protocol to be compliant (it which was revised twice because the first ETSI EN 300 328 v1.8.1 compatible version demonstrated reduced range) that they did with the FASST compatibles, which had their software updated in a few weeks. Spektrum orphaned DSM2 completely; they did not seek to modify the protocol (they already had the compliant DSMX in the marketplace), DSM2 RXs cannot be updated to DSMX and they no longer sell DSM2 RXs or TXs in the EU. Why am I telling you this? Because it shows that blindly stating "use the OEM RXs and you'll never have a problem" can't be true; there are no guarantees for the future of your gear in the situation that regulations change.

Edited By MattyB on 03/10/2018 14:36:23

[Erfolg]

Matty

Is not the point that Fasst was compliant until the EU changed its regulations.

Yes, I did follow the various threads and the ins and outs.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Bit off topic, how did the use of 2.4 come about for modellers ?