Please help me. I'm seventy-five next month and I'm being left behind.

[dave parnham]

2 hours ago, MattyB said:

 

For the OP I don't disagree, but that does come at a cost - those TXs are ~£500, whilst a Hall effect gimbal TX16S is around £200, and with more functionality too, You pays your money etc.....

Didnt realise the cost but they look very straight forward to use, and having used a taranis x9d given to me as a present, well i soon went back to my Futaba gear.

[MattyB]

34 minutes ago, dave parnham said:

Didnt realise the cost but they look very straight forward to use, and having used a taranis x9d given to me as a present, well i soon went back to my Futaba gear.

 

As I pointed out before, your "straightforward to use" may be other people's "very tricky".

 

I came from Multiplex TXs to the open source firmwares, so the transition was very straightforward as it uses near identical logic. If I'd gone to Futaba or Spektrum I'd really struggle, as the logic is entirely different and altogether more restrictive. At the end of the day it's letting go of what used to work on your last TX and adoptoing a new way of thinking that is the hard bit, not the systems themselves.

Edited February 23, 2023 by MattyB

[MattyB]

7 hours ago, David Davis said:

6. The FrSky/Taranis  has been described as "more capable and flexible" in these pages. In what way is it more capable and flexible?

 

One final point... If you want to understand the levels of fleibility that the open source firmwares are capable of, take a look at some of the examples in this thread:

• Sticky throttle cut to enhance safety for electric models
• Advanced sticky throttle cut linked to flight modes, with throttle transferred to LH slider in a single flight mode used for hand launches

It should help as you will either...

1. Come away enthused and impressed at what can be done on TXs that are signifcantly cheaper than big brand mid range sets, or;
2. Leave with your head spinning, vowing "why would anyone ever want to bother with that"! 😉😄

Based on your first post and the model in your thumbnail I am betting it is more likely to be the latter, but go in with an open mind and see what you think...

 

EDIT - Please note I am not saying only OpenTX/EdgeTX can do stuff like this. Systems such as FrSky's in house ETHOS OS, the Jeti's and some high end TXs from the big brands can do some or (in Jeti's case) all of this. However you will often be spending £800+ for the privilege, and that's before you've factored in the higher costs of receviers and telemetry accessories.

Edited February 23, 2023 by MattyB

[Jake Bullit]

Watch this from 13:30 https://youtu.be/RAAazO5UdV0

[Andy Gates]

Slightly different tack from me.

 

I started off with Futaba non computerised radio (Medallion 3) many moons ago and slowly progressed up to a F9CP.

 

A little while back I went to an Open Source radio to give me better receiver options during my transition into 2.4GHz radio.

The Taranis radio did not quite sit right in my hands but the Jumper T16 Pro felt good to me and that is what I still use, and it does get heavy use.

Like others here I have had next to no issues with radio reception and use multiple manufacturers receivers - Spektrum, Lemon, Corona and FrSky. Futaba FAAST will NOT work. I also have 2 modules to plug into the back on my Tx which means I can wireless link into most students radios for buddy box flying.

Telemetry is great, I use it to monitor battery condition while I am teaching as different types of flying alters battery usage so I can give the student maximum SAFE air time.

With my gliders I use a vario equipped receiver to give height indication and the assent or descent rate, with my Pitts I have a voltage and current sensor as the ESC is 60A with an 80A burst capability but static the combination can pull 120A, so I have an alarm set at 60A and a verbal warning at 80A. The 2 sensors combined give me a power output reading too.

 

I have got used to the OpenTx system and its flexibility and abilities especially with complex setups - I have done 4 motor sequential start up for my Lancaster all on one switch.

 

As one of our clubs instructors I was trying to set up a gifted radio to a Bitsa trainer - gifted wings and tailplane - no fuselage, fin, rudder or UC.

The gifted radio is a Spektrum radio and is quite capable - but coming from OpenTx it was incredibly frustrating trying to set things as I want them to be rather than the way Spektrum wants you to do them. I suspect Futaba would have been the same.

It was mainly to do with the location of the trainer button / switch and the switching of the gyro which meant the 2 clashed. This is not an issue with OpenTx.

 

Finally cost is a real killer for me.

My 16 channel flexible radio cost me £140 - and can still be bought for similar money.

Spektrum / Futaba or other main brand radios of similar capacity are way in excess of £500.

 

My last comment is regarding upkeep of the Tx.

While Futaba / Spektrum / main brand radios can be repaired by the user to a limited degree, the Jumper / Radiomaster / Radioking Tx are designed to be fixed and modified by the end user to suit his or her preferences adding any bell and whistle they want. You want light up rings around your sticks and CNC gimbal surrounds - its do able. I broke a trim button - I have swapped one over for now and I have parts coming to replace - 2 sets of 6 buttons for £10.

 

Whatever you do there is plenty of help available, good luck and have fun

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

You won't hear a bad word about the new kids on the block from me, but why do you care about being left behind, are you in need of upgrading function wise, does your current set have all you need ?

Getting the best from the new TXs requires you commiting to retraining yourself, to some it comes easy, others the early days can be tough and not everyone manages the change in thinking.

Mind you I would buy one of these if I'd the money. 😉

 

https://www.frsky-rc.com/product/tandem-x20s/

[Peter Jenkins]

David

 

There is a lot of good information above but my question is why do you want to change?  As far as I can see, you tend to fly trainers, vintage style models and a competition setup using rudder, elevator, motor.  So, why do you want extra bells and whistles?  I could understand if in your posts you had twin engine, flapped aircraft but even those are catered for by 6 or 7 channel radios that you already have.

 

I fly competition aerobatic aircraft and I can see where some of the more innovative functions that are available on open tx would be quite useful were they not available on my JR XG11 Tx.  That Tx I've had since 2011 and it has benefitted from about 5 software upgrades that were published on the JR website before the old JR company went into liquidation.  So, apart from rates and expo (pretty common), I find throttle cut very useful, as well as stick position switches (of which there are 6), the ability to use crow braking, mixing (6 available), servo speed adjustable (great for flap and u/c), standard set up for 4 aileron wings (great for biplanes as well), a number of common mixes (ail to rudder, rudder to ail/elev, ail to flap and elev to flap - all of these are provided for by my JR XG11.  

 

For me, by far the most useful are the stick position switches that I can use for increasing rudder throw for stall turns by linking application of almost full rudder to additional rudder movement, and all 4 snap conditions (left, right, up and down) controlled by moving the aileron and elevator stick into the corners and then setting the desired control throws and directions for upright and inverted snaps/flick rolls.

 

For scale models I can see that there might be some requirements that might not be so easily achievable using a conventional radio compared with an open source radio system.  

 

Unless you want to do devilishly complicated things then I cannot see that you will be missing out on anything.  If you can do everything that you want with your current radio and models why change?

 

If your current 2.4 GHz radio doesn't have much in the way of telemetry there are 3rd party suppliers (Unisys being one) that provide plug in telemetry that can be made to talk all the commercial radio brand speak so that you can see the data displayed on the Tx screen.

[David Ovenden]

David, I can't really give you the solution to you dilemma. However, like others have said, how much do you need a new tx. I'm still using a JR 10X tx with 2.4g module to fly scale models with flapsand retracts. 

I do also have a JR XG14 set, but honesy don't use anything like all its features even on twin engine scale electric models with flaps.

I'm not suggesting you use JR radio. Just have a good think about what you are likely to want or use. My XG14 has telemetry, and luke Peter, I have a Unisens voice alert add on. But I almost never use it! Maybe you should stick with Spektrum as you are familiar with the way their radio works and understand their programming systems?

My experience has been that good pilots can fly well with almost any transmitter. But expensive/ sophisticated equipment doesn't (on its own) make you fly any better! Or perhaps it's just me?

[leccyflyer]

To paraphrase what the guys above have said, you need to look at whether you actually need a new transmitter. If your DX6 and DX9 are working, for the types of model that you are flying, they seem to be doing a perfectly good job.

 

For me personally the red and black appearance of the Radiomaster 16 isn't of any importance at all, since I don't look at the transmitter whilst flying. I got one last year, largely to replace my Futaba FF9 and Frsky module system for my gliders and to act as a back-up for my DX9, so the key thing was the multi-protocol capabilities. It's still in it's box a year later, having been switch on just once - the other transmitters are doing their job. In my mind I'll get to grips with it this year. In reality I won't be at all surprised if it's been switched on one more time over the season, then put back in it's box.

[Peter Miller]

I am still using one of the very early Spektrum DX7s from about 12 plus years ago. I even bought a second hand spare but have never needed it.

The only thing that it doesn't have that I would like is a kill switch for safety.

 

I am often reminded of what it was that either Wolfgang Matt or Hanno Prettner said when asked "What do you think is essential on a transmitter?"

 

His reply was "Two sticks!"

 

I do also use a Hitec Aurora 9 which is nice bit I only use one or two of the features and I hate touch screens but then I started with a Macgregor 4 channel set. Two Sticks, four trim levers and an on-off switch.  Before that it was a handle with two lines.

[MattyB]

23 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

To paraphrase what the guys above have said, you need to look at whether you actually need a new transmitter. If your DX6 and DX9 are working, for the types of model that you are flying, they seem to be doing a perfectly good job.

Reading between the lines it seems most likely the failures he has had on the DX9 are the driver for change. If he likes the interface but has lost confidence in it then I can see the dilemma - he has to decide between a new relatively high cost TX from a manufacturer who he has had reliability issues with, or a cheaper more function rich TX that requires a new approach in terms of configuration. Hopefully he will pop back in at some point to confirm these points and tell us which way he went  it the end.

[MattyB]

1 hour ago, Peter Miller said:

I am often reminded of what it was that either Wolfgang Matt or Hanno Prettner said when asked "What do you think is essential on a transmitter?"

 

His reply was "Two sticks!"

 

Not really a fair comparison though is it! Neither of those guys began flying in an era where computer TXs existed, so they had to hone their skills without them. They are also probably two of the most gifted model pilots ever. If they started today do you really believe they would eschew features like rates, servo reversing, mixing and logical switches (see @Peter Jenkins post above)? I somehow doubt it...

 

PS...

 

1 hour ago, Peter Miller said:

I am still using one of the very early Spektrum DX7s from about 12 plus years ago. I even bought a second hand spare but have never needed it.

The only thing that it doesn't have that I would like is a kill switch for safety.

 

It may not have a specific function marked "Throttle cut", but it can defintiely be done on a DX7 - see this video...

 

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by MattyB

[Peter Miller]

That looks realy interesting.  I am using that switch for Rudder high/low rates but I can live without that. 

[Peter Jenkins]

On a personal note, I was persuaded to try a transmitter tray and use thumb and finger after I had been flying in F3A aerobatic competitions for a year.  I used to fly with thumbs only using a neck strap and was having difficulty flying long inverted sections accurately.

The bad news was that it took me 3 months to get back to the level of flying I had been at.  The good news was that there were a great many advantages including:

▪︎  being able to take my hands completely off the transmitter and give them a shake  to ease tension.

▪︎  being able to brace my right hand and vastly improve my inverted flying.

▪︎  when holding the Tx and getting tense I tended unconsciously to twist the Tx towards me thus restricting the movement of my thumbs

▪︎  bekng able more easily to use the switches I need - Flight mode switch to select and de-select Spin mode and at the end of the flight to select Land mode and switch out the knife edge and downline throttle/elevator mix and select Idle for my electric motor (for IC the idle switch decreases the idle speed).

▪︎  I use coloured plastic covers to identify the function i.e. Flight Mode, Mix, Idle up and motor kill switch.  Every one of my models uses the same switches.  

 

As I say, this is my approach and everyone will have their own way of setting up Txs.  I still fly thumbs if using someone else's Tx skmetimes without a neck strap to ease passing the Tx to and fro.  If someone else wants to fly my aircraft I put them on a buddy lead and keep control of the switches.

 

Finally, I went from a neck strap holding the tray to a shoulder harness as I was suffering neck pain and my osteopath said that would overcome my neck pain.  It did.

[Nik Harrison]

On 23/02/2023 at 10:28, David Davis said:

I am toying with the idea of buying a Radiomaster transmitter because I like the red and black appearence, the technical specs are way over my head, but I'm put off by the "steep learning curve" which I'll need to overcome in order to get the transmitter working correctly so I have the following questions for those more knowledgable than me.

You have initiated an interesting thread, but I come back to your original comment.  If your choice of radio system is the colour of the Tx why are you even bothered about its functionality.  You seem to have radio gear that is already full filling your requirements.

[Peter Miller]

1 hour ago, MattyB said:

 

Not really a fair comparison though is it! Neither of those guys began flying in an era where computer TXs existed, so they had to hone their skills without them. They are also probably two of the most gifted model pilots ever. If they started today do you really believe they would eschew features like rates, servo reversing, mixing and logical switches (see @Peter Jenkins post above)? I somehow doubt it...

 

PS...

 

NOTE!!! I said "What is essential on a transmitter"   They might like all the whistles and bells but we lived without them for years and learned to find our way round any problems.

[Nigel R]

2 hours ago, MattyB said:

If they started today do you really believe they would eschew features like rates, servo reversing, mixing and logical switches (see @Peter Jenkins post above)? I somehow doubt it...

 

They both had airplanes with pumped engines with tuned pipes, flaps, airbrakes, variable pitch props and retracts, and I seem to remember reading that Prettner (at least) had modified his radio to have something close to flight modes (various buttons added to give different travel adjusts for different maneuvers), I reckon they'd have been claiming to use all sorts of stuff.

 

Although part of me can't help but wonder how much of all that was misdirection... Prettner turned up one year with a 4 channel sport model (ok, with retracts) and won the title.

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

Quote "  I use coloured plastic covers to identify the function i.e. Flight Mode, Mix, Idle up and motor kill switch.  Every one of my models uses the same switches. "

 

Interesting when you only fly Planes or Helicopters,

I put a checklist on my fuselage supports to remind me.

 

 

[Learner]

Some learn to fly others need assistance from a computer. 

Unfortunately cars are going the same way auto braking, lane assist etc 

[Peter Miller]

 My First Radio was ECC Telecommander. Two  45 Volt hearing aid batteries, 1 1.5 volt grid bias battery and four pen-cells for the escapement.  Tune the sensitivity with the Milliameter then tune the the voltage drop with the milliameter.  Then start the engine.  The relay chattered and all the turns came off the the escapement rubber band. Start from square one. Never did get a flight out of that. Oh yes, the radio set cost £10 in 1954,a weeks pay for a skilled man.  I had an inheritance from a grandfather!!!

 

My first Successful radio was RCS Guidance System.. One switch and one button. Press once for right, press twice for left.

 

You don't know that you have lived!!!!

[Peter Jenkins]

I temember that sequence when I builty MacGregor carrier wave only valve transmitter and vslve receiver.  Utter failure!  Like you Peter I ended up buying sn RCS single channel radio and Elmic Compsct that gsve 1 press left, 2 presses right and 3 presses kick up elevator.  That worked till I pranged the glider it was in!

[Peter Jenkins]

40 minutes ago, Learner said:

Some learn to fly others need assistance from a computer. 

Unfortunately cars are going the same way auto braking, lane assist etc 

Learner

 

An interesting point but have you learned enough about flying, not just getting airborne and landing in one piece, you will learn that the functions provided by today's radios mostly to do with the computer part, are there to enable not just beginners to learn to fly but also experts to fly to astonishingly high standards.  You may not realise this but virtually 5th generation fighter aircraft can be flown by a human being without its flight control computer.  You also entrust yourself to commercial airliners where again the use of computers enables the flight crew to fly the aircraft from A to B safely and on time.  I suppose you'd prefer the aircraft you fly in to be completely manually controlled.  By the way, no jet engine for the past 40 years has been built that didn't rely on an electronic brain between the throttle lever in the cockpit and the actual control of the fuel flow into the engine.

[PatMc]

42 minutes ago, Learner said:

Some learn to fly others need assistance from a computer. 

 

Most learn to fly then choose to utilise some of the features offered by modern radio transmitters to enhance the experience - it's known as "common sense". 

[Learner]

7 minutes ago, Peter Jenkins said:

Learner

 

An interesting point but have you learned enough about flying, not just getting airborne and landing in one piece, you will learn that the functions provided by today's radios mostly to do with the computer part, are there to enable not just beginners to learn to fly but also experts to fly to astonishingly high standards.  You may not realise this but virtually 5th generation fighter aircraft can be flown by a human being without its flight control computer.  You also entrust yourself to commercial airliners where again the use of computers enables the flight crew to fly the aircraft from A to B safely and on time.  I suppose you'd prefer the aircraft you fly in to be completely manually controlled.  By the way, no jet engine for the past 40 years has been built that didn't rely on an electronic brain between the throttle lever in the cockpit and the actual control of the fuel flow into the engine.

I do have a computer radio because theres not much available without.

I use very few features apart from throttle cut. No rates or mixing and I would rather have a HGV behind me on the motorway with a driver on board than without. 

My car also has no distracting touchscreen to turn the heater on etc.

No apps on my phone.

Hoping to take one of the certificates this year with a bit more practice.

 

 

[Learner]

35 minutes ago, PatMc said:

Most learn to fly then choose to utilise some of the features offered by modern radio transmitters to enhance the experience - it's known as "common sense". 

Mum said I had no common sense, be happy to meet up and have a fly off to see how good you are with your enhancements