Futaba Receivers - any alternatives ?

[Peter Christy]

Posted by john stones 1 on 03/10/2018 16:23:51:

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

The same way that 27 Mhz and 459 MHz did. It was designated as a "Scientific, Industrial and Medical" band, to use old terminology, which meant that it was open to any equipment that complied with the published specification.

Although Ofcom in the UK were pretty quick to accept RC as a valid use of the band, in Europe the situation was much more problematic. Many countries refused to accept RC as a valid use initially, because 1) the rules were exceedingly badly draughted and 2) RC didn't appear on the list of "examples" of valid use.

Eventually, a senior commissioner investigated the problems, and told the relevant civil servants to re-draught it properly, but without making any changes to the specifications. EU civil servants being what they are, they immediately changed the specs, which explains the 2015 "update".

There is little or no technical reason for the EU version - the rest of the world works quite happily with the original specification. The whole point of spread spectrum is, after all, to be non-interfering! And if there was that much of a problem, why didn't they ban earlier, non-compliant equipment? Answer: because it never caused a problem in the first place.

I suspect a few bruised egos were the root cause.....

--

Pete

[Erfolg]

The sad part of this story it is similar to many others, where the specifications are seen as "non tariff barriers". Some are blatant protectionism(particularly food stuffs), others, perhaps are but a temporary hindrance to non EU competitors.

At the end of the day both Futaba (what ever protocol version) and Frsky stuff works very, very well. Come to think of it, so does the competitors, however biased we may be. Certainly far better discrimination and reliability than my old Waltron, where every flight was an adventure into the unpredictable.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Rich too]

Posted by J D 8 on 02/10/2018 18:51:07:

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.

+1

In larger models with all that investment, how much are you really saving by buying cheap brands? Not a lot in the grand scheme....

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Rich too on 03/10/2018 17:44:56:

Posted by J D 8 on 02/10/2018 18:51:07:

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.

+1

In larger models with all that investment, how much are you really saving by buying cheap brands? Not a lot in the grand scheme....

Begs the question "If you aren't confident you can make the flight safely" why are you doing it ?

The cost of the model is irrelevant.

[Erfolg]

We really should not confuse cost with quality. It is very tempting to, cost can be very reassuring. You can say, but it was not a cheap knock off.

Many television programmes and for (it seems like centuries) "Which" have exposed that supposed quality and reliability is often not price based.

Possibly the best arbiters of reliability is us, the users. Then again it, how many are willing to admit that the expensive widget, was actually not that good. At the same time there are those who are only to willing to believe that the low cost item is no good.

IMO the majority of the kit sold with a brand name, now, is remarkably good, in all aspects. You may not like the stying, and so on. At the end of the day, present day RC equipment is extremely good. Often we all pay for the bells and whistles, which is OK by me.

[Peter Christy]

Posted by Percy Verance on 03/10/2018 17:28:50:

459mhz seemed to turn into a bit of a disaster for the big players - Cotswold Controls and Reftec - at the time.

Nothing wrong with 459 MHz! I'm still using my original prototype transmitter and receiver in a helicopter over 30 years on from when I designed it!

The Reftec suffered from two big problems, 1) poor design and 2) poor quality control! The plastic cased receiver used 27 MHz as a first IF, resulting in the sets going bananas every time they got near a 27 MHz transmitter! And the soldering was atrocious! It wasn't uncommon for components to fall out of the boards in flight!

On the other hand, the Cotswold system was superb, a real "Rolls-Royce" product. Its only real problem was that by the time it entered the market, 35 MHz was on the horizon at a fraction of the cost. I believe it eventually dropped out of production because the designer emigrated to America.

I still occasionally get sent World Engines sets for service, and usually any problems are down to failed cells in the battery packs! All they need is a new set of batteries, and maybe a clean up of the pots, and that's it!

Again, they couldn't be made for a cost competitive with 35 MHz - the crystals alone cost many times 27 or 35 MHz equivalents, and the transmitters could be a pig to align initially. But once up and running, they were a very effective alternative to the then available bands. Certainly I've never had a frequency clash on 459 MHz.....!

--

Pete

[Rich too]

Posted by john stones 1 on 03/10/2018 17:51:04:

Posted by Rich too on 03/10/2018 17:44:56:

Posted by J D 8 on 02/10/2018 18:51:07:

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.

+1

In larger models with all that investment, how much are you really saving by buying cheap brands? Not a lot in the grand scheme....

Begs the question "If you aren't confident you can make the flight safely" why are you doing it ?

The cost of the model is irrelevant.

Where did I say I wasn't confident?

I use (very reliable and cheap) HK servos in some models, but I use Hitec or other well known "brands" in others.

I bought a DA70 because I wanted to own one, but its probably no more reliable than my DLE's.

Your comment was simplistic and not the point at all.

 

 

Edited By Rich too on 04/10/2018 12:06:36

[The Wright Stuff]

Begs the question "If you aren't confident you can make the flight safely" why are you doing it ?

The cost of the model is irrelevant.

Where did I say I wasn't confident?

I use (very reliable and cheap) HK servos in some models, but I use Hitec or other well known "brands" in others.

I bought a DA70 because I wanted to own one, but its probably no more reliable than my DLE's.

Your comment was simplistic and not the point at all.

Exactly. The cost of the model could indirectly be relevant to the safety aspect, anyway, since more expensive models are likely larger (so will do more damage in an accident) and flown further away (so test the range of the receiver more comprehensively).

But the main point is that 'confident' and 'safely' are not black and white. You can never be 100% confident that the flight can be completed safely. What is enough, then? 99%? 99.9%? I would suggest this number should get asymtotically closer to 100% as the model gets bigger...

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Please yourself, but the implication is there, how much are you saving by buying cheap brands, how much have you invested in the model. Cost has nothing to do with it,nor the cost/size of model. You are confident you can undertake the flight safely, or you're not, put the word reasonably in there if you like.

And yes nothing is guaranteed in this life, that's another story.

The description cheap gives a simplistic misleading impression.

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by john stones 1 on 04/10/2018 15:41:22:

Please yourself, but the implication is there, how much are you saving by buying cheap brands, how much have you invested in the model. Cost has nothing to do with it,nor the cost/size of model. You are confident you can undertake the flight safely, or you're not, put the word reasonably in there if you like.

And yes nothing is guaranteed in this life, that's another story.

No, it's the very same story. If you 100% knew that an alternative brand was inferior then the extra cost is easier to justify. The OP is asking if there are alternatives, and yes there are.

We're not talking penny pinching. The cost of Corona versus Futaba is up to £30 per model. Some of my Hobbyking foamies cost less than that. If I lose the model because of the receiver (a small probability) then I have lost the same amount of money as I saved by buying the cheaper receiver. The probability that the Corona receiver is cheaper than the Futaba one is 100%.

'Guaranteed' or 'confident' are subjective terms. Expectation is a quantifiable term.

Edited By The Wright Stuff on 04/10/2018 16:06:30

[Lima Hotel Foxtrot]

Posted by Andrew Moore 7 on 01/10/2018 21:12:42:

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

Addlestone Model Centre has the Futaba R3106GF rx's for £28.99. 8ch, T-FHSS. Jobs a good 'un.

[extra slim]

It is an interesting debate indeed and sort of centres on the popular belief by many that price is proportional to quality, and quality is proportional to reliability.

From my own experiences down at the field, for many, the use of a branded rx is for the pilots peace of mind in the event of a mishap/crash.. then they can reassure themselves (possibly defend) that they tried to mitigate the risk by using the best recommended equipment for the job, to protect their investment of time and money, and to minimise any safety failures. I know most people would kick themselves if a rx failure resulted in the destruction of a pride and joy, and the rx was a cheaper version. It kind of would feel more acceptable if it was a branded one if you get what I mean, as it eliminates the "what could I have done differently" question.

This transpires into people mostly using branded gear in their pride and joys, and aircraft which have a perceived higher danger impact in the event of a mishap, whilst at the same time, proportionally using a ‘cheaper alternative’ in a less expensive and less perceived danger aircraft..e.g. foamy. I haven’t seen many reflect consciously on the effectiveness of the equipment, but more of a absolution of proportional blame in the event of failures.

It is not just the rx debate that this type of argument applies, I see many people buy expensive servos, “these are 12kg mate, metal gear, digital”… oh right, but why have you used a cheap clevis, which is connected to a poor horn, mounted onto a flimsy bit of balsa on the tail plane, oh and it’s on a petrol, so why haven’t you used Loctite on the servo arm screw or any of the horn bolts???. One well known supplier used to sell a horn set for larger models for a pretty price, they were cast aluminium cones with a threaded end!!.. yikes.. but they were 50 quid a set and Johnny 3D is using them so they must be good!!.. months later, these were changed to a cone with a steel bolt running through instead… but understanding is the key.. not price.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 04/10/2018 16:03:50:

Posted by john stones 1 on 04/10/2018 15:41:22:

Please yourself, but the implication is there, how much are you saving by buying cheap brands, how much have you invested in the model. Cost has nothing to do with it,nor the cost/size of model. You are confident you can undertake the flight safely, or you're not, put the word reasonably in there if you like.

And yes nothing is guaranteed in this life, that's another story.

No, it's the very same story. If you 100% knew that an alternative brand was inferior then the extra cost is easier to justify. The OP is asking if there are alternatives, and yes there are.

We're not talking penny pinching. The cost of Corona versus Futaba is up to £30 per model. Some of my Hobbyking foamies cost less than that. If I lose the model because of the receiver (a small probability) then I have lost the same amount of money as I saved by buying the cheaper receiver. The probability that the Corona receiver is cheaper than the Futaba one is 100%.

'Guaranteed' or 'confident' are subjective terms. Expectation is a quantifiable term.

Edited By The Wright Stuff on 04/10/2018 16:06:30

You've lost me ?

I agree there are alternatives, I use them, I've posted here I use them.

I get fed up of the word cheap every time this topic comes up. Are they SAFE, if you don't have confidence/expectation or any other term you fancy chucking at me, you should not be using them, to say I put them in cheap stuff but not my pride n joy, is daft, It implies you don't trust them. Do you think they're fit for purpose or not.

All my rx's are now Frsky, I no longer buy the overpriced ones.

[The Wright Stuff]

I don't think I can spell it out any simpler John. Not everyone is made of money. The cost saving is worth a slightly higher probability of failure to some people, for some models. It's their choice.

You haven't understood the concept of expectation at all. It's probability multiplied by outcome. Look it up!

Do I think they are fit for purpose? That's my point, the purpose can be different for different models, so it's perfectly possible to be fit for purpose in one model, but not another. That's true of all hardware, surely?

Edited By The Wright Stuff on 04/10/2018 16:42:23

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 04/10/2018 16:38:05:

I don't think I can spell it out any simpler John. Not everyone is made of money. The cost saving is worth a slightly higher probability of failure to some people, for some models. It's their choice.

You haven't understood the concept of expectation at all. It's probability multiplied by outcome. Look it up!

Edited By The Wright Stuff on 04/10/2018 16:38:22

Maybe you should read what I said TWS, to preach to me about being made of money is laughable.

I'm with you all the way on needing to watch the pennies, think you have your wires crossed.

[The Wright Stuff]

Not accusing you of being made of money, John. That wasn't my point. All I am saying is that I don't agree with your assertion that any given receiver is either safe or is not. There is much to be said for picking and choosing where to apply the money saving. Sometimes that will be a cheaper receiver. Sometimes it will not. Perhaps a better description is a cost versus benefit analysis...

Edited By The Wright Stuff on 04/10/2018 16:52:22

[Julian Thacker]

In a probably vain attempt to get this thread back on topic if you want a Futaba rx at 'reasonable' price - around £27 - the R3106GF would meet the requirement. This is advertised as a full range HV rx. Although T-FHSS, it does not support telemetry and only has a single antenna. I bought one when they were released at the beginning of this year and have been using it in my EF Extra EXP which is my most flown model - maybe 10 flights a week. So far the rx has performed faultlessly. I was concerned about the single antenna but have it mounted vertically in a plastic tube near the canopy roof so well away from blocking battery, carbon wing joiner, etc. I range tested very carefully in all orientations and at considerable distance - about 100 yards - which is further than I normally go. I am not sure what the Futaba range test mode is in terms of reduced signal strength though.

All in all I am perfectly happy with my first x-FHSS rx but as I have several spare FASST and FASSTEST rxs I won't need to buy one yet awhile.

Julian

[Andrew Moore 7]

Thanks for the debate guys.

We had a club meeting last night and most people agreed that the recent FRSky receivers, whilst being much less expensive than the equivalent Futabas, are good quality and have not let them down.

Going to try one anyway and will give it a really good range check

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Fair enough TWS, I stand by the comment, the only consideration before committing to flight, is am I confident my gears up to it, cost of the model is irrelevant to complying with the law of the land.

And tell me where I said choosing where to make savings is wrong ? I am with you entirely re the cheaper gear, if we believe it safe, I don't believe either of us would use one we thought otherwise.

Last post from me, I've helped ruin someones thread.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Andrew Moore 7 on 04/10/2018 17:30:56:

Thanks for the debate guys.

We had a club meeting last night and most people agreed that the recent FRSky receivers, whilst being much less expensive than the equivalent Futabas, are good quality and have not let them down.

Going to try one anyway and will give it a really good range check

[Peter Beeney]

Andrew Moore 7 @ 04/10/2018 17:30:56

Re range check; - take a quick ganders down this thread…

PB

[Erfolg]

I cannot but notice that there seems to be perception if anything is going to fail it is the Rx.

Like others I have had my Tx fail, that was a Sanwa and a Futaba Gold (what ever the ref is). They all failed on switch on, or maybe when switched of.

I have had one expensive servo fail in flight, the gear train, just lost a tooth. I know because i managed to get that one down. Perhaps the biggest shock was an intermittent, or possibly best described as part way through a flight, interference. Eventually tied down to a couple of digital servos, tripping the esc motor out, then quickly partially overloading the capability of the BEC.

Unfortunately problems arise under the unexpected, mystical event, hard to pin down. As a unit, I have no trouble with either Futaba or Frsky, probably not even Corona Rxs. Then again, even digital servos, if your supply is up to the demand, when even just holding position (due to the aerodynamic loads, never being totally zero, at even a neutral position).

[Rich too]

Posted by john stones 1 on 04/10/2018 15:41:22:

Please yourself, but the implication is there, how much are you saving by buying cheap brands, how much have you invested in the model. Cost has nothing to do with it,nor the cost/size of model. You are confident you can undertake the flight safely, or you're not, put the word reasonably in there if you like.

And yes nothing is guaranteed in this life, that's another story.

The description cheap gives a simplistic misleading impression.

Are you deliberately taking this out of context? Cheap in comparison to branded alternatives. The OP was about the cost of Futaba RX's.

You obviously never put a model in the air since you can't guarantee a safe flight - no equipment is 100% reliable.

The LMA recommend specific RC layout/systems for larger aircraft, why doesn't that apply to smaller aircraft?

LMA "As a result of these discussions we feel we are in a position to recommend the following scenarios which present the “minimum risk”:

1. The traditional system of 2 batteries, 2 Rx’s, and “crossed” controls.
2. A Powerbox (or any other similar manufacturers system) which provides for the fitting of 2 Rx’s and 2 batteries – these Rx’s can be Futaba, JR, Spectrum, or any other proven product. In this system it is expected that all controls surfaces would still be operative in the event of most recognised failures.
3. The Weatronics (or any other similar manufacturers system) which has dual receiver systems on either 35Mhz or 2.4 Ghz. This system would emulate the operation in No 2 above."

[Rich too]

Posted by john stones 1 on 04/10/2018 17:34:37:

Fair enough TWS, I stand by the comment, the only consideration before committing to flight, is am I confident my gears up to it, cost of the model is irrelevant to complying with the law of the land.

And tell me where I said choosing where to make savings is wrong ? I am with you entirely re the cheaper gear, if we believe it safe, I don't believe either of us would use one we thought otherwise.

Last post from me, I've helped ruin someones thread.

No TWS, John was saying that I was wrong to use cheap RX's in cheap models and expensive RX's in more expensive models. He said that if I didn't trust the cheap RX's in large models I should not use them in small models.

Very odd logic imho.