Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / March 2004

I agree with a six channel, and definitely a six channel computer radio.
There are so many adjustments that can make your life easier if you can do
it in the transmitter instead of doing mechanically in the plane.  Six
channels because you'll find many planes using two channels for seperate
servos for the ailerons.  This makes setting them up easier, and also allows
you to use them as flap/aileron combined. (flaperons)  Most likely your
second or third plane will require this.

Most of the RC world is split into two fairly even camps between JR and
Futaba radios, with Hitec a distant 3rd.  If It were me. I'd take a hard
look at the new JR 6102. ( Guess which camp I'm in?)

Good Luck and enjoy your new hobby!
                                                               PCPhill

The Futaba 6XA, 6EX, and Hitec Flash 5 are all good beginner computer radios.
For those who like JR, go with it, but they're not my favorite.
Dr.1 Driver
"There's a Hun in the sun!"

Michael,

First of all, a six channel doesn't make additional servos and stuff any
cheaper.  The one exception to this is when you buy additional servos and
receivers with the radio AND the hobby shop cuts you a deal on it.  But for
later purchases of servos and stuff, it doesn't really help.  What it really
comes down to is a matter of economics along with a couple of questions.

First of all can you afford it?  If not then buy the four.  Don't stretch
your finances.  Plenty of time for that later in life. :)

Do you see yourself needing that fifth or six channel in the foreseeable
future?  I know a lot of guys who have been flying for many years and they
very seldom if ever use more than four channels.  Fifth for retracts and
that's usually it.

But what often happens is the six channel will have more features than the
four.  Things like dual rates, exponential, computer radio with all those
goodies, etc.  You have to consider your need for those options too.  So
compare what the six offers over the four aside from the extra two channels.
Decide if you're going to make use of those features in the foreseeable
future, year or two.

A big difference between a computer radio and the old fashioned the four
would be is model set up.  The computer does make model set up much easier.
Just drop in the radio and configure on the Tx.  However, there is advantage
to knowing how to do it the old fashioned way as well.

But since it's taken you how many years to get to this point?  Several?  It
may be several more before you really need the advantages a computer radio
might provide.  And in today's technology advances, the radios you get in
two or more years may in no way resemble what's on the shelves today.  Nor
cost as much!  It's a crap shoot and all you can really do is compare the
two and decide which one you think you will make the most use of.

Good luck,
Chuck

One thing I might add in buying a radio, especially if you use the
tried-and-true method of joining a club and getting an instructor, is that
you buy the same brand as your instructor uses.  That way, you can learn to
fly using a buddy cord.  It makes learning to fly a lot easier.  Each
manufacturer uses a proprietary buddy cord system.  The exception is that
you can use the Hitec buddy cord between Hitec and Futaba transmitters.
Futaba is in the process of changing their buddy cords from their old
DIN-style plug to a square one.

Morris

Don't overlook the airtronics RD6000! I have several Futabas including the
8U and the 9C, but I LOVE the Airtronics. It's VERY SIMPLE to program and
really has a feel of quality. Later, you can use any brand receiver or
servo. It has shift select so JR and Futaba and Hitec receivers all work
equally well. This is a very impressive radio.

My next choice would be the Futaba 9C but a bit more expensive.

You will eventually want the features a computer radio offers. It will be
much less expensive in the long run to go ahead and get one now.

If cost is a huge factor, go ahead and get the Futaba 6EXA. It's a good deal
for the money.

Most of all....have fun!

On 3/7/2004 6:12 AM Ted shuffled out of his cave and grunted these great
(and sometimes not so great) words of knowledge:

As several people have mentioned, there are several excellent brands of
radios out there.  I would suggest seeing what the majority of people
are using at your local flying field.  The reason for this is:  If you
have a question or problem with the radio, the odds are someone at the
field is going to be able to help you out.  I know you can always go
digging in the manual, or call the company, but camaraderie is also part
of this also. :-)

Get the six channel computerized transmitter because you will one day
need it, but at the outset you only need a four channel rig and have
no real use for complex programming.

Until you get into complex scale models or bleeding edge aerobatics,
six channels will support the four basic functions (elevator, rudder,
aileron, throttle) plus retracts, and the sixth channel could be used
for any number of options like smoke, brakes, speed brakes, or
whatever 'feature' you'd care to add.  Not many models actually need
more than six channels, and the vast majority are flown on four.

As for novices 'needing' a computerized transmitter, I think it's a
mistake to build a model and depend on transmitter programmability and
flexibility just to get the model flying properly.

For example your first three, maybe four models will not need two
channels to control ailerons.  It's only when you get into more
sophisticated models that you need such flexibility, and I'm talking
about expensive, precise pattern models and large (even more
expensive) aerobatic models.

IMHO if you cannot get the ailerons working properly with one channel
you simply do not know what you're doing, and we get 'help' queries
about aileron controls all the time.  Look a bit farther down the
message list to see what I mean.  In the thread "Aileron Differential
- Help !",  two of the first three answers from seasoned vets have the
"what" right but have the "why" reversed.  Only one of them can be
correct with respect to how ailerons work.

If indeed you want to compromise the ailerons by making them do double
duty as ersatz flaps, then yes you could use two channels.  A better
solution is a mechanical mixer driven by the second channel.  If you
leave the aileron function on one channel and put the mechanical flap
mixer on a second channel, you still have a basic control system and
will have adhered to the KISS principle : don't make things complex
solely for the sake of complexity, or, just because you can do
something doesn't mean you should.

You can well and truly shoot yourself in the foot by using two
channels to control ailerons if you don't have a sound understanding
OF ailerons.  A surprising number of models have been carried off the
flying field in trash bags because the modeler got something wrong
somewhere between the stick and the aileron.  One 'popular sport' is
reversing the aileron leads.  Using two channels to control ailerons
carries with it the distinct possibility that you will launch the
model with the ailerons reversed, and it won't likely complete the
departure turn.  I've seen that happen at the highest levels of the
hobby, including at a Scale Master's qualifier where the gent flying
the model had a bad case of brain fade because of the pressure of
competition.  Had he keyed his aileron cables so they could not be
plugged in backwards, he'd could have spent the night sleeping instead
of repairing his model for the second day's competition.

With one aileron channel it is not possible to reverse the leads, and
while you may well crash the model before the departure turn it will
not be because you got the ailerons plugged in backwards, you may have
installed the servos incorrectly.  That's not brain fade at the field,
it's a crash installed on the building bench and the building bench is
where it all begins.  The vast majority of crashes are built into the
model, whereas a much smaller percentage result from flight-line brain
fade.  Building the model so you can put it together wrong at the
field is remarkably dumb.

I think novices need to learn how to build the mechanical bits of
control systems correctly and accurately first, and then learn to use
those basic control systems to fly the model.

I think novices need to go through the process of figuring out how to
install two servos for a split elevator using one channel.  It's not
difficult at all, and covers the basics nicely.

Only after you've got the basics well and truly down pat are you ready
to move up to two-channel ailerons, flapperon mixing, rudder-aileron
mixing, and complex models with lots of optional functions.

There's nothing worse than stuffing the model you've worked on for
months (or years) simply because you're trying to learn the model and
the transmitter at the same time.

Mr. Scott was quite correct when he opined that 'the trickier they
make the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drains'.

No amount of transmitter programmability will counter the basic
limitations of a given model.  A high-winged basic trainer won't do
inverted flight very well no matter what transmitter is used - the
airframe simply doesn't have the capability of accurate inverted
flight.

Forcing flapperons onto a aileron-only airframe is a poor compromise
compared to dedicated flaps, and at best the model flies poorly in
flapperon mode - you don't get the effectiveness of dedicated flaps
and have less roll authority.

I suggest you use the transmitter in it's most basic mode (one channel
per flight control function) until you can build straight, robust,
accurate mechanical control systems.  Move on to complex programming
solutions as your actual needs become more complex.

I have a Futaba 9ZAS WC II.

The reasons I have that decidedly-expensive transmitter/synth module
have nothing to do with programmability.  I bought that $1200 system
because I can store multiple models in memory, I have 9 channels to
support the complex scale models I build, and the synthesizer module
allows me to fly on any of 50 channels.

I have yet to use or need the highly complex programmability of the
transmitter, and I may never have need of such functionality.  I
flight test my models with an old Futaba gold-face 7 channel
transmitter.  If a model won't fly properly from a bone-head basic
transmitter, the problem is in the model and that's where the fix is
needed.

The only difference between using the gold-face FM transmitter and the
9ZAS WC II transmitter in FM mode is that I have to swap the throttle
and elevator servo plugs at the receiver because the channel encoding
sequence is different between the two transmitters.  Otherwise there's
no functional difference between using the 1985 Futaba and the 2001
Futaba.  No difference at all, from an operational standpoint.  The 9Z
system has a whole bunch of extra features and programming capability,
but none of that makes any difference in how well the model flies.

I could use the 9Z programmability to make my highly-loaded scale
warbirds more docile on final (mix throttle, flaps, and elevator to
maintain the descent profile as the gear is comes down), but I prefer
flying the model myself, not letting the transmitter fly the model.

I dunno 'bout you, but the reason I build is to fly.  I don't spend
two or three years building a decent scale model so a transmitter can
have all the fun.

Cheers,
Fred McClellan
The House Of Balsa Dust
http://home.mindspring.com/~the-plumber