 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / December 2008Futaba 2.4 GHz FASST Service Advisory
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Futaba 6EX, 7C and TM-7 Service Advisory- This service advisory affects only owners of the Futaba TM-7 module and 6EX and 7C FASST systems. Each FASST transmitter contains a unique eight digit identification code, programmed at the factory to identify the respective transmitter and to allow a receiver to be paired only to that radio's signal. Recently we have learned that a very small number of the TM-7 modules, and 6EX and 7C FASST systems were incorrectly coded with a common code number during the manufacturing process. These units were subsequently sold prior to our awareness of the situation. If two or more units, utilizing this common identification code, were to be in use simultaneously, they may cause interference with one another. Please note: Units which utilize the correct identification code will not be affected by these units. We're extremely confident that this is not a widespread problem. We know of only one instance in the United States. However, to give you peace of mind that your system is not affected, we will soon be setting up test stations at participating hobby shops throughout the country where you will be able to go to determine -- within a matter of minutes -- whether or not your transmitter is affected, at no charge to you. Or, if you prefer, you may send it in to our service center we will analyze it for you at no charge. If any problem is found, it will be replaced. We will gladly pay the postage for returning the unit and sending it back to you. If you have questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact our Futaba Service Center at: 217-398-0007 or via email at: service@futaba-rc.com. Our staff is available to you Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm U.S. Central Standard Time. Precautionary Measures and Information- 1) As with all radio control equipment, we strongly suggest that you pre-flight your aircraft thoroughly prior to flying. When flying at a location with other FASST owners, prior to flying we suggest that all pilots briefly activate their systems simultaneously to check for any interaction between units. If any interactions should occur, do NOT fly. Return the unit to the Futaba Service Center for immediate replacement. 2) Each time that your transmitter is turned on, it is imperative that you allow the FASST system an adequate amount of time to thoroughly boot-up completely before shutting down the transmitter. We recommend allowing the system at least five (5) seconds prior to turning off the power to the transmitter. 3) If the transmitter and receiver have lost their binding which required them to be re-linked, we recommend returning them to the Futaba Service Center for analysis. This is not expected behavior and should be investigated accordingly. I use futaba but i'll wait a long time to have one of those. mk > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Center for analysis. This is not expected behavior and should be > investigated accordingly. On Jan 17, 12:34 pm, "MJKolodziej" <mjmwcsREMOVEKILLERCH...@htcomp.net> wrote: > I use futaba but i'll wait a long time to have one of those. > mk [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Me too! Ted C'mon troops. It's not an equipment problem it's a human error problem. The word is that someone at Futaba assigned IDs that were all zeros to a limited number of transmitters. Therefore one (or more) zero ID xmtrs were affecting other RXs which were being controlled by other zero ID Xmtrs. We're humans. We make mistakes. It could happen anywhere. I'm XPS but I'd take Futaba FASST systems over any others. On Jan 17, 12:34 pm, "MJKolodziej" <mjmwcsREMOVEKILLERCH...@htcomp.net> wrote: > I use futaba but i'll wait a long time to have one of those. > mk [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Me too! Ted > C'mon troops. It's not an equipment problem it's a human > error problem. The word is that someone at Futaba assigned [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > > Ted I'm with Ed on this one. Just make a mental note to let the Tx boot-up completely and be glad that they haven't employed a soft switch on the Tx instead of a switch that actually turns it off - and drains your batteries while it sits in the supposed off position. By going to a software switch, they could prevent anyone from turning off before the 5-second boot-up period. Be glad they haven't. Ed Cregger > C'mon troops. It's not an equipment problem it's a human error problem. > The word is that someone at Futaba assigned IDs that were all zeros to a > limited number of transmitters. Therefore one (or more) zero ID xmtrs > were affecting other RXs which were being controlled by other zero ID > Xmtrs. We're humans. We make mistakes. It could happen anywhere. I'm > XPS but I'd take Futaba FASST systems over any others. It may be a worse problem than Futaba is admitting to right now. Apparently, if you cycle the transmitter's power quickly enough it will be reset to ZGUID. The only way to recover from this is to send the transmitter back to Futaba. So, if you are in the habit of quickly checking your transmitter's battery level, remember to wait a bit before shutting it down again.  SignatureOkay, Marge, as long as we're traumatizing the kids, I have a scandalous story of my own. -- Homer Simpson Another Simpsons Clip Show As a 2.4ghz pilot a thought I would post an email I have received from contact in another flying field, which I believe was also posted o other RC websites. " I thought I'd post this here in an attempt to avoid any accidents. am not trying to bad mouth anybody, just make people aware of _possible_ problem. Below is an extract from a e-mail I received this morning..." Extract: This post is one that I hoped I would not have to post. On its own, it was a local anomaly that was restricted to 3 units, felt that there was no reason to ring alarm bells until we had got t the bottom of the problem. I am posting it now for safety reasons as I have just found out fro the thread below That there has been another occurrence. http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_6857282/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm Also rumours and false truths are out in the UK, so here an account o an actual expereince, please act on it sensibly. Below is a copy of an email I sent to Ripmax in the UK around 1 wee ago. Ripmax are the UK distributors for Futaba and I know they have take immediate action, which is highlight earlier in this thread. "I have to report to you a very serious problem with the Futaba FASST channel system. As you know I am a great supporter of Futaba, always have been. I also believe that the FASST system is far better than any of th competition systems. I have been flying the FASST for some months now and have been totall satisfied until now. In our club there is maybe 6 sets in operation, all of which hav worked perfectly on their own or with each other. No interference issues at all. Today I had a new member to teach to fly; he has 2 Futaba FASST 6 TX and a trainer with 1 RX in it. We were using the 2 TXs together on a buddy lead. All seemed fine, I taxied the model to the take off area and wa waiting for someone to land, and he was also on Futaba 6 FASST. I wa standing next to him; the model was in front of me to the left, so my T was between the model and his TX. Suddenly the throttle opened on the trainer and it was off, I had n control, it swung around to the left and shot off into long gras (luckily), this stopped the motor. When we returned to the bench we did a test. On the trainer we turned off the matching TX and then the TX of the gu next to me on the flight line (we will call him man A) was switched on and guess what? It had control of the model! We then turned on th models TX, it failed to operate or interfere with the model. We the turned off man A’s TX, the RX went to failsafe, and then 4 second later locked on to its own TX! We then switched on man A'’s TX, i again failed to interfere with the signal. We switched off the trainer own TX and the RX went to failsafe, 4 seconds later it reconnected wit man A’s TX. The RX would connect to 2 TX’s! We then tried the second T (belonging to the man with the trainer) the one that was used on budd lead. Well guess what! The RX worked with this one as well! We repeate the above test with switching on the other TX’s and every time w switched off the controlling TX, 4 seconds later it would bond with on of the other TX’s So to sum up; at this point we had a RX that would work with TX’s Next we tried other TX’s on the field (mine included) and thes would NOT operate the RX, it was just the 3 (2 belonging to the traine and man A’s TX.) We then rebound the RX in the trainer to one of the 3 TX’s tha would operate it, well, nothing changed, and all three could operat it. Man A had 2 models, both with 6 FASST RX’ in them. We turned on one of the original trainer TX’s and, well you hav guessed it, it could control BOTH of his models. We tried other TX’s (including mine) none of them would do th same. So in summary at this point we now have 3 TX’s and 3 RX’ tha will work any or all of the others! To further complicate things we tried the following. I took my TX (no problem with it and no interference on my RX from th other TX’s). We bound the RX in the trainer to my TX and …n problem, it would only work on my TX! We were very lucky today, someone could have been badly hurt or worse, this is a very serious issue. We now have a ban on any 2.4 systems flying with any other 2.4 system. This needs urgent attention as many sets are out there." This news will have to be made public soon for safety reasons. more information at http://www.bmfa.org/news/index.php " Again I wish to emphasis. I am not trying to bad mouth anybody, just make people aware of a possible problem, and to relay a report of any actual incident that has been reported to me, via a friend, that the author wished to be made public." Please follow Futaba's guidance and do not over react. Please act on this report sensibly. Signaturemgfd | On its own, it was a local anomaly that was restricted to 3 units Well, perhaps, but the nature of this problem is that it'll hide itself as long as it's relatively rare. Suppose that 1% of units sold are affected, have a GUID of 0. (Note that the 1% figure is made up.) If you fly alone all the time, you'll never notice any problems. If you fly with one other person, the odds are 1% x 1% or 0.01% that there will be a problem. ... If you fly with 9 other people (and all ten people have their radios on at once!), the odds are somewhere around 10% that one of your radios will have the problem. But since you need at least two people to have the problem for the problem to manifest, that knocks the odds of the problem actually manifesting for somebody to around 1%. (In this case, I didn't look up how to calculate those percentages exactly, so my odds may be slightly off.) My point is that a lot of radios might have this problem, but the circumstances that cause it to cause a problem are quite unlikely as long as the number of radios with this issue is 1% or less. And the place where it's most likely to show up is a large contest or something where you might have dozens of people turning on at once. (I'll assume there's no impound for SS gear.) Considering the number of events already seen, I'll bet there's a lot more than 3 faulty units out there, people who don't realize it becuase they've yet to fly with anybody else who had the same problem. Yet. In any event, I'd say Futaba is handling it correctly. I certainly wouldn't suggest buying one of these radios until the test stations appear at the local hobby shop (or perhaps a diagnostics mode is discovered that will print out the code), but once that's there, I don't see this as a reason not to buy one. And as was already mentioned, this problem could have happened to any of the SS vendors -- it was likely human error, not a flaw in the architecture. (Unless they have a flash chip that can be cleared? Suns used to occasionally run into a similar problem where your unique MAC ID is encoded in NVRAM -- but if this gets cleared, you start with a MAC ID of 00:00:00:00:00:00 -- which works, as long as you're the only one ...) SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzied.us Illiterate? Write today for a free "How to Read" booklet. > As a 2.4ghz pilot a thought I would post an email I have > received from a [quoted text clipped - 149 lines] > Please follow Futaba's guidance and do not over react. > Please act on this report sensibly. ------------- Why ban all 2.4 GHz gear? That makes no sense at all. No two manufacturers use the same encoding/decoding schemes. Why punish those that own non Futaba sets? In fact, I wouldn't even ban Futaba sets. That isn't the club's job and few in the club, if any, are technically educated sufficiently to even begin to know what they are doing. Futaba's problem is limited to other Futaba equipment, not Spektrum/JR/etc. I own one Futaba FAAST system with two receivers. Because of the simplicity of the system, it is being limited to small models. I have other manufactured 2.4 GHz equipment that I will use in my larger models. Ed Cregger We all know Horizon/Spektrum beat everyone else to the market with 2. GHz aircraft RC transmitters, and Futaba, like several othe manufacturers, has been desperately playing catch-up for most of th past two years while watching Spektrum walk away with a ton of sales. I think what we're seeing here is one of the problems resulting fro Futaba's frantic rush to get something on the market. I sincerely hop it is also the last one, but we'll have to wait and see. It's interesting that Futaba chose to use FHSS for their 2.4 GH systems, a technology that Spektrum had previously tested and foun wanting before choosing DSSS for their own 2.4 GHz RC equipment. Perhap Futaba chose FHSS primarily because they already had some experienc with it, and there was that need to get something on the market in hurry even if it was not the ideal technology for the job? Time wil tell, I expect. -Flieslikeabeagl -- flieslikeabeag > We all know Horizon/Spektrum beat everyone else to the > market with 2.4 [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > -Flieslikeabeagle ------------- Let's not forget that Futaba was one of the first with 2.4 GHz gear for R/C cars, which preceded Spektrum by many years. I own two Spektrum systems, one six and one seven channel. They work just fine, but I still like the idea of jumping from one frequency to another (out of many) over the Spektrum method of chosing two freqs and then beating back and forth between the same two freqs for the entire flight. Statistically, Futaba's SS system is much more robust. However, other than low battery problems causing loss of binding with the Spektrum, they seem to be working just fine. Ed, NM2K Ed Cregger Wrote: > Let's not forget that Futaba was one of the first with 2.4 > GHz gear for R/C cars, which preceded Spektrum by many > years. True. It's also true that RC cars don't roll, loop, do snap-rolls, etc and a glitch is rarely destructive as the model stays on the ground. Al of those manoeuvres are routine for model aircraft, and one-tenth-of-a-second glitch can destroy a model if, for instance, th pilot is flying a 3D helicopter low to the ground. I attended a seminar given by Spektrum engineering manager John Adam back in 2006; during his talk he commented that providing a solid R link to a model aircraft was an extremely difficult technical challenge for the reasons above - the need for a continuous link without an dropouts at all, and the continually changing orientation of the mode wrt the transmitter. Ed Cregger Wrote: > I own two Spektrum systems, one six and one seven channel. > They work just fine, but I still like the idea of jumping > from one frequency to another (out of many) over the > Spektrum method of chosing two freqs and then beating back > and forth between the same two freqs for the entire flight. AFAIK Spektrum equipment transmits continuously on two frequencies, i does not beat back and forth between them. Either one frequency b itself would in fact do the job - having two provides a fail-saf redundancy. And if you get technically precise it isn't really tw discrete frequencies - it is two rather wide bands of frequencies (whic is why it's still spread-spectrum), which reduces the impact of an interfering signal. I'm not an RF engineer, but to my knowledge FHSS has significantl worse signal to noise ratio than DSSS (or to put it another way, DSS has higher processing gain). Also when the Tx frequency hops, the Rx ha to do likewise, which means the two have to sync up again after ever hop. And what happens when something goes wrong and the sync up doesn' happen immediately as intended? Most forms of RF link can tolerate the brief dropouts that result fro this sort of thing (FHSS sync gone wrong). Model aircraft cannot Apparently this is why Spektrum tried FHSS, found it wanting, and wen to a DSSS solution. Ed Cregger Wrote: > Statistically, Futaba's SS system is much more robust. I take shiny marketing pamphlets with a large grain of salt, so I thin we'll have to wait and let the statistics pile up for a while to se which system is more robust in the real world. :) But from what I know my money is on the Spektrum approach. I think we have good evidence tha they took their time and got the engineering right almost from th start. (Not that Spektrum is perfect, for instance it would have bee really nice to have two-way telemetry and eventually force feedback fro the servos actuating the control surfaces on the model. :) ) Ed Cregger Wrote: > However, other than low battery problems causing loss of > binding with the Spektrum, they seem to be working just > fine. > Ed, NM2K I had one radio lockout back in 2006 with a DX6/AR6000 that totaled on of my models; unfortunately it is very hard to be 100% sure if th problem was a Spektrum lockout or an overheating BEC. I'm curious as to the actual statistical frequency of any problems wit Spektrum lockouts - in hundreds of flights with Spektrum equipment tha is more or less the only problem I've seen with the DX6 other than on or two minor throttle channel glitches over the years, and I'v experienced zero problems with my DX7 used with any of the Spektru receivers. There is an inevitable downside to putting a microcontroller into an R receiver: microcontrollers run code, bad code can cause a lock-up, an any time power is applied microcontrollers take time to boot up! We gai many advantages over the older all-analogue receivers, but gain some ne failure modes to go with them. The well-respected Berg DSP receiver also had lockout/reboot issues before the 2.4 GHz stuff arrived on th market. -Flieslikeabeagl -- flieslikeabeag > Ed Cregger Wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 126 lines] > > -Flieslikeabeagle ------------- You sound like a software oriented (non RF) trained Spektrum salesman. I'm not going to argue with you. Think what please. Ed Cregger Ed Cregger Wrote: > You sound like a software oriented (non RF) trained Spektrum > salesman. I'm not going to argue with you. Think what > please. > Ed Cregger Your analysis of my "sound" is seriously wrong, unfortunately. a) I'm not "software oriented"; I sometimes write software for fun o to make my job easier, but my training is in something much more basi and much more fundamental - physics. That means I have a pretty soli grasp on such things as Maxwells equations, EM radiation, diffractio and interference, radiation patterns, fourier transforms, and so on, al of which are quite relevant to understanding RC equipment. b) I most certainly am not a salesman for anything. Since there is essentially zero other information in your comment there is no reply that needs to be made. If you have a specific issu you wish to discuss, we can always attempt discourse. -Flieslikeabeagl -- flieslikeabeag > Ed Cregger Wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > specific issue > you wish to discuss, we can always attempt discourse. ------------- Oh, aren't we impressed with ourself. Stop it with the teenage sounding baloney. Who are you trying to impress anyway? Me? That won't happen. You have already proven yourself to be an obnoxious twit. Conversation over. Ed Cregger Ed Cregger Wrote: > Stop it with the teenage sounding baloney. Who are you > trying to impress anyway? Me? That won't happen. You have > already proven yourself to be an obnoxious twit. > Conversation over. > Ed Cregger Ed, I'm truly sorry for you. You must be in a lot of internal pain t lash out at a total stranger in this way. Have a nice life. -Flieslikeabeagl -- flieslikeabeag flieslikeabeagl Wrote: > Ed, I'm truly sorry for you. You must be in a lot of internal pain t > lash out at a total stranger in this way. > > Have a nice life. > > -Flieslikeabeagle Flieslikeabeagle, Don't go there man or you may end up getting your hand bitten as did. I wrote this summary of the issue in my club forum: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8965153&postcount=138 And started getting bashed by Loyalists when I asked if it looked lik a good synopsis of the issue. THEN, when I said, if Futaba does not like what is being said about th issue in the Futaba created Advisory thread they can moderate and delet unwanted posts, Krysta, from futaba slapped my hand for such suggestion and closed the thread. (start at post #189 to the bottom.) http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=803207&page=13#post899461 -- mrm I keep falling back on their original claim of always getting it righ the first time... heh... kinda like putting together a $3,00 transmitter and loading it with Windows CE :D :D :D :D : -- ShellDud ShellDude Wrote: > I keep falling back on their original claim of always getting it righ > the first time... heh... kinda like putting together a $3,00 > transmitter and loading it with Windows CE :D :D :D :D :D I don't get the Windows choice either. With Linux and Qtopia available why would anyone pay for a buggy OS like Windows CE? (Nice acronym "wince" !) A bit off topic, but in Dec 2007 I was shopping for portable GPS uni for my car. I was surprised at the number of GPS units I found in stor displays that had locked up and were showing the Windows "blue screen o death", sometimes accompanied by the usual Windows error messages: "xyz.dll cannot be found", "zaerer.exe has committed an illega operation", and so on. -Flieslikeabeagl -- flieslikeabeag >ShellDude Wrote: >> I keep falling back on their original claim of always getting it right [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >"xyz.dll cannot be found", "zaerer.exe has committed an illegal >operation", and so on. Bit unfail, my WinCE PDA has performed without any issues, I guess it's the little darlings in the stores trying to break them and either trying to load or just deleting things they should not. Not what you'd do if it was your own. However I thought it was an odd choice, but it gave Futaba the photo and MP3 ability they use for the display. I dare say they use it in industrial machines too, mrm1 Wrote: > I wrote this summary of the issue in my club forum: > > http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8965153&postcount=138 > > And started getting bashed by Loyalists when I asked if it looked lik > a good synopsis of the issue. All I can say is: 1) Looks like a good summary to me 2) People who make the mistake of identifying their personal ego with corporate product are easily upset - all you have to do to a confirme Starbucks junkie is remind them that McDonalds coffee has been ranke higher quality than Starbucks coffee by reviewers, and you have hissy-fit on your hands. mrm1 Wrote: > Krysta, from futaba slapped my hand for such a suggestion and close > the thread. (start at post #189 to the bottom.) > http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=803207&page=13#post8994618 Sorry you had that sort of response. My previous online experience wit Krysta here on RCG has been good. I guess Futaba reps are a littl thin-skinned about this issue right now; I know I would be if I wa spokesman for a product with an Achilles heel like this one! -Flieslikeabeagl -- flieslikeabeag > I had one radio lockout back in 2006 with a DX6/AR6000 that totaled one > of my models; unfortunately it is very hard to be 100% sure if the > problem was a Spektrum lockout or an overheating BEC. I've had exactly "one" problem with Spektrum. I had a Slow Stick lock up and be totally nonresponsive at SEFF last year. The Horizon Hobby team (on site for the event) was very responsive to the problem, checked out my equipment, and determined I had a TX range issue. They took my TX with them, sent me a brand new one. No problems whatsoever in the following 9 months! I had numerous problems with glitches on 72MHz, and I'm not going back. PCPhill I'll be manning the raffle at SEFF '08. If anyone from Rec.Models.RC.AIR are there, please stop by and say "Hi"! I'd love to put some faces to the names... A side note: During the noon demos, Horizon had a midair with a huge Extra 260 and some other 3D plane. They gave the damaged Extra to my daughter (who was assisting the event director) and then sent her replacements for the damaged parts. Needless to say I'm a confirmed Horizon fan! ... | > Let's not forget that Futaba was one of the first with 2.4 | > GHz gear for R/C cars, which preceded Spektrum by many | > years. And years before that, Futaba had spread spectrum industrial R/C gear. I don't know why they took so long to get it into modelling R/C usage. Perhaps because they already saw themsevles as a/the industry leader, why try harder? I do not know ... | True. It's also true that RC cars don't roll, loop, do snap-rolls, etc, | and a glitch is rarely destructive as the model stays on the ground. You'd be surprised how much damage an out-of-control R/C car can do. Consider an 1/8th scale car running into your shins at 60 mph -- or worse, hitting something and going airborne, flying at your face ... | I attended a seminar given by Spektrum engineering manager John Adams | back in 2006; during his talk he commented that providing a solid RF | link to a model aircraft was an extremely difficult technical challenge, | for the reasons above - the need for a continuous link without any | dropouts at all, and the continually changing orientation of the model | wrt the transmitter. Cars have similar issues and needs, but the ranges are a lot lower. | Also when the Tx frequency hops, the Rx has to do likewise, which | means the two have to sync up again after every hop. And what | happens when something goes wrong and the sync up doesn't happen | immediately as intended? This sync-up thing is pretty well worked out. People have been doing spread spectrum like this for what, 50 years? They know how to make it work, and it works. Basically, this is just FHSS FUD. | Most forms of RF link can tolerate the brief dropouts that result from | this sort of thing (FHSS sync gone wrong). Model aircraft cannot. | Apparently this is why Spektrum tried FHSS, found it wanting, and went | to a DSSS solution. I know they weren't happy with FHSS, but I've never really seen a technical explanation for why. If you have a reference, I'd like to see it. | > Statistically, Futaba's SS system is much more robust. | > | I take shiny marketing pamphlets with a large grain of salt You must have had lots of salt when you read Spektrum's original press releases and FAQs then! | (Not that Spektrum is perfect, for instance it would have been | really nice to have two-way telemetry and eventually force feedback | from the servos actuating the control surfaces on the model. :) ) The car people already have built-in telemetry from Nomadio and have had it for a while. XPS has promised it for planes, and their literature makes it sound like it's available now, but I can't seem to find a place to buy it -- which suggests it's not ready yet. SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzied.us Man who falls in vat of molten optical glass makes spectacle of self. > You'd be surprised how much damage an out-of-control R/C car can do. > Consider an 1/8th scale car running into your shins at 60 mph -- or > worse, hitting something and going airborne, flying at your face ... It sounds like in this example, a few loops and rolls and spins are still possible with a car! <g> SignatureJim in NC Doug McLaren Wrote: > You'd be surprised how much damage an out-of-control R/C car can do. > Consider an 1/8th scale car running into your shins at 60 mph -- or > worse, hitting something and going airborne, flying at your face ... I'll take your word for it. :) I have little personal experience wit RC cars. Doug McLaren Wrote: > Cars have similar issues and needs, but the ranges are a lot lower. A very good point! Doug McLaren Wrote: > This sync-up thing is pretty well worked out. People have been doing > spread spectrum like this for what, 50 years? They know how to make > it work, and it works. Basically, this is just FHSS FUD. I'm not so sure...most 2.4 GHz FHSS RF links we use have the odd shor dropout that simply isn't of much consequence. Anyone who's used cordless phone or a Wi Fi ethernet card has probably experienced thes little glitches. They simply don't matter in the applications mentione above. But even a very short glitch causes loss of pilot confidence whe flying an RC model, and a slightly longer glitch can cause a crash. Doug McLaren Wrote: > I know they weren't happy with FHSS, but I've never really seen a > technical explanation for why. If you have a reference, I'd like to > see it. From memory, John Adams said that the FHSS systems had more shor dropouts in the RF link, and the problem was never overcome. There wa also reduced range and S/N ratio with FHSS due to the increase processing gain of a DSSS system over an FHSS system. Doug McLaren Wrote: > You must have had lots of salt when you read Spektrum's original press > releases and FAQs then! Sure. When I worked as an engineer I quickly found out how wide the ga is between what the engineers say and what the marketers say! That was one of the reasons I attended John Adam's talk back in Ja 2006. This guy is an engineer and RC pilot (he brought a passel of hi micro electric helicopters with him to the talk). I think he wa Spektrum Chief Engineer at the time, now he's Engineering Manager o something. Exact title notwithstanding, after his talk and the flood o questions he answered from the very interested audience, I came awa with a quite positive impression of the Spektrum engineering teams work He didn't give us marketing BS - he gave us technical answers t technical questions. -Flieslikeabeagl -- flieslikeabeag | Doug McLaren Wrote: | > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | I'll take your word for it. :) I have little personal experience with | RC cars. As do I. But I have seen some crashes that could have really hurt somebody had somebody been in the wrong place ... ... -- let me re-insert some text that was trimmed -- | > > Also when the Tx frequency hops, the Rx has to do likewise, which | > > means the two have to sync up again after every hop. And what | > > happens when something goes wrong and the sync up doesn't happen | > > immediately as intended? --- re-introduction complete --- | > This sync-up thing is pretty well worked out. People have been doing | > spread spectrum like this for what, 50 years? They know how to make [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | above. But even a very short glitch causes loss of pilot confidence when | flying an RC model, and a slightly longer glitch can cause a crash. I was talking specifically to the idea of FHSS `losing sync' when it hops. The only time that this will generally happen is if the TX or RX loses power, or gains/loses some time somehow (going through a wormhole or something similar might do it, let's hope your flying field doesn't have many.) As for WiFi, it doesn't use FHSS at all, so it's a poor example of FHSS glitching. And cordless phones could use either form of spread spectrum -- or perhaps no spread spectrum at all. As for glitches not causing problems, even a 1% packet loss in a TCP/IP link, over whatever medium, will really mess things up. The system can recover, yes, but throughput will drop by a very large margin. TCP does handle lost packets, yes, but not very well. Losing 1% of your R/C frames probably wouldn't even be noticeable by most flyers, because once the next valid frame arrived, all would be well again. With PPM, frames usually aren't lost but are instead corrupted, so you might have a visible `glitch' in the controls where the servos do something you didn't tell them to, but with PCM and SS usually invalid frames are quietly dropped and you probably won't even notice. | From memory, John Adams said that the FHSS systems had more short | dropouts in the RF link, and the problem was never overcome. There was | also reduced range and S/N ratio with FHSS due to the increased | processing gain of a DSSS system over an FHSS system. In any event, it sounds like Futaba worked out whatever the problem was. They have been doing spread spectrum in their industrial R/C stuff for well over a decade now, so they probably do know what they're doing -- they just moved slowly in getting it packaged for us. This problem with the zero GUID has nothing to do with FHSS vs DSSS -- it's either a manufacturing process glitch, or overlooking a `weakness' in the components they use (and forgetting to add some sort of failsafe to detect that. They could certainly make their firmware throw an error if a 0 GUID is detected or an invalid CRC in the flash memory, had they considered it.) (And which is more dangerous? An out of control R/C plane, or crane? Could probably go either way ...) In any event, Futaba's system does sound like it has one big advantage over Spektrum's system -- how it handles _bad_ interference. Suppose somebody brings their 2.4 GHz camera to the field, and it's using the usual six MHz of bandwidth. Suppose that both 1 MHz channels that your Spektrum system are using are within this 6 MHz (and if Spektrum keeps them far apart, suppose that two people bring their 2.4 GHz cameras ...) Spread spectrum can cut through interference to some degree, but the range will be greatly reduced. Since Spektrum can't hop channels at all, you'll crash once you get out of the greatly reduced range. In the Futaba case, OK, less than 10% of the band is `ruined' -- but the rest is fine. So maybe you'll lose 10% of your frames -- the plane might seem slightly `jerky' (or maybe you'd need to lose a lot more than 10% for it to be noticeable) but it's still completely flyable. In fact, you could probably lose 95% of your frames and still fly the plane. Of course, this is all guesses, because I don't have any Futaba spread-spectrum gear and have not tested any of it. | That was one of the reasons I attended John Adam's talk back in Jan | 2006. This guy is an engineer and RC pilot To be fair, if you get a job designing R/C equipment, people will take you a lot more seriously if you actually do R/C. Even if he knew nothing about R/C before getting hired, I'll bet his job/boss probably *required* that he pick up the hobby if he wasn't already into it. (It would be nice to be able to deduct R/C stuff on your taxes!) | Exact title notwithstanding, after his talk and the flood of | questions he answered from the very interested audience Being first is neat like that! | I came away with a quite positive impression of the Spektrum | engineering teams work. Futaba's team probably would have put on a similar performance, had they been first. They could do it now, but people wouldn't be quite so interested anymore -- now there's several R/C spread spectrum vendors, lots of people are using it, ho-hum. SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzied.us `If one studies too zealously, one easily loses his pants.' -- Albert Einstein > We all know Horizon/Spektrum beat everyone else to the market with 2.4 > GHz aircraft RC transmitters, and Futaba, like several other [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > -Flieslikeabeagle I think this is an accurate summary from our doggy friend. Apart from the fact that the current issues have nothing to do with FASST per se, but more, it seems, due to penny pinching the design around the way the FLASH ram is used to store GUID's.. The argument is raging as to whether its ever safe to store something so fundamental in RAM which can get corrupted. As much as how easy it seems to be to corrupt it. The Natural Philosopher Wrote: > Apart from the fact that the current issues have nothing to do with > FASST per se, but more, it seems, due to penny pinching the design > around the way the FLASH ram is used to store GUID's.. Very true, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. The point I wa trying to make was that I think there is some reason to believe th entire design process was rushed, from the choice of the fundamental R technology to the implementation of the actual firmware. We don't ye have statistics on any issues with the choice of FHSS, but I wouldn't b surprised of some emerge over the next year or two. We'll just have t wait and see. The Natural Philosopher Wrote: > The argument is raging as to whether its ever safe to store somethin > so > fundamental in RAM which can get corrupted. As much as how easy i > seems > to be to corrupt it. This didn't even occur to me, but you're absolutely right. A fe passing gamma particles (the sun streams them at us all the time) migh be all it would take... -Flieslikeabeagl -- flieslikeabeag > We all know Horizon/Spektrum beat everyone else to the market with 2.4 > GHz aircraft RC transmitters, and Futaba, like several other [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think what we're seeing here is one of the problems resulting from > Futaba's frantic rush to get something on the market. Complete and utter speculation. mk >> We all know Horizon/Spektrum beat everyone else to the market with 2.4 >> GHz aircraft RC transmitters, and Futaba, like several other [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Complete and utter speculation. But experienced and educated and, as I know from elsewhere, disinterested speculation. However Futaba phrase it, I bet you this model of tranny will be (effectively) replaced inside of 6 months.. "It just got better!!" ;-) > mk The Natural Philosopher Wrote: > But experienced and educated and, as I know from elsewhere > disinterested speculation. > > However Futaba phrase it, I bet you this model of tranny will be > (effectively) replaced inside of 6 months.. Thank you for the vote of confidence. :) Yes, I do strive fo scientific objectivity as much as possible during these sorts o discussions. Since we humans are subjective by nature complet Spock-like objectivity may be forever beyond us (Malcom Gladwell's boo "Blink" is a fascinating read on the subject), but all we can do is mak our best effort, and I endeavour to do just that. -Flieslikeabeagl -- flieslikeabeag > The Natural Philosopher Wrote: >> But experienced and educated and, as I know from elsewhere, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > -Flieslikeabeagle I got an interesting response from the LHS..they too claimed it was all part of the 'brand wars' between Spektrum and Futaba. That is a dangerous conclusion to come to IMHO. MJKolodziej Wrote: > > We all know Horizon/Spektrum beat everyone else to the market wit > 2.4 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Complete and utter speculation. > mk Which part? The first paragraph is objective fact, we've even had a least one Futaba rep post here on RCG admitting that Spektrum had caugh them flat-footed and they were racing to catch up. If you're in lawyering mood, those were not his exact words, but as close as I ca remember to the content of his post. The second paragraph is speculation, yes, however it is based on th evidence I've seen so far. For example, when a company chooses t release a new microcontroller based RC transmitter in the year 2007 an it has only six model memories, it is a dead giveaway that this is a old product using old electronic components that are nearly obsolet technically - they must be from an era when the price of flash memor was so high that the cost of the few hundred bytes needed to store models settings was significant. Another giveaway is Futaba's use of custom RF chip in an era when 2.4 GHz spread-spectrum equipment i ubiquitous and dozens of much cheaper off-the-shelf solutions exist they probably were using what they already had and knew, rather tha taking the time to come up to speed with currently available parts. third giveaway is this enormous blunder with non-unique GUID's - tha smells of a rushed job if anything does. By the way, if it isn't already obvious, I have nothing against Futab the company - in fact my first microcontroller based transmitter wa made by Futaba; back in 2005 I bought a Futaba 7CAP that served me wel until Spektrum made a better mousetrap. -Flieslikeabeagl -- flieslikeabeag > The second paragraph is speculation, yes, however it is based on the > evidence I've seen so far. For example, when a company chooses to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > was so high that the cost of the few hundred bytes needed to store a > models settings was significant. I really doubt that the reason the 2.4GHz TX has only 6 model memories - either Futaba didn't have the flash space or else it is an intentional restriction to position the TX to the low end of the market. > Another giveaway is Futaba's use of a > custom RF chip in an era when 2.4 GHz spread-spectrum equipment is > ubiquitous and dozens of much cheaper off-the-shelf solutions exist - > they probably were using what they already had and knew, rather than > taking the time to come up to speed with currently available parts. That's basically a stupid argument. It's 100 fold easier to move to 2.4GHz by using other peoples chips than to have to grapple with the intricacies of a completely new system. I'm prepared to bet that Futaba's comparatively late entry to the 2.4GHz field has some dependence on their decision to go it alone with the consequent huge development effort entailed by that. > A > third giveaway is this enormous blunder with non-unique GUID's - that > smells of a rushed job if anything does. They had a manufacturing problem where a process was not applied to part of their poroduction run. I really don't see what that has to do with your speculative "rush to get something on the market" ? > By the way, if it isn't already obvious, I have nothing against Futaba > the company - in fact my first microcontroller based transmitter was > made by Futaba; back in 2005 I bought a Futaba 7CAP that served me well > until Spektrum made a better mousetrap. Me neither :-) In fact all the TXs I've owned in the past have been Futaba ones but the lamentable failings of the 9C Super I own mean I am now looking to jump ship when the 2.4GHz market settles. Ironically, Futaba's version of 2.4GHz seems like it may have major advantages over the Spektrum / JR implementation (in respect of x-country glider application) so I may have to go with them after all. SignatureBoo >> The second paragraph is speculation, yes, however it is based on the >> evidence I've seen so far. For example, when a company chooses to [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > of their poroduction run. I really don't see what that has to do with > your speculative "rush to get something on the market" ? No. That sadly is a blind. They have a hardware circuit that makes two fundamental errors. - they store something that is supposed to be unique,and unalterable in FLASH ram, which is very alterable. - They fail to design around WELL KNOWN problems with FLASH RAM under which power supply voltages outside of known limits cause completely unpredictable behaviour in it. Because of the nature of Flash, you have to erase and rewrite whole sections of it to change a single bit. Lose power at that point, and you end up with a whole section erased, and not re-written. The hardware workaround is a big fuckoff capacitor and some voltage detection stuff that signals to the circuit that power is failing,and holds enough voltage in the cap to complete a write cycle, and then shuts down cleanly. >> By the way, if it isn't already obvious, I have nothing against Futaba >> the company - in fact my first microcontroller based transmitter was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the Spektrum / JR implementation (in respect of x-country glider > application) so I may have to go with them after all. Me neither. But in this case they have made a big cockup, and haven;'t yet gotten around to admitting the full extent. Personally speaking, I think that with the bugs out, the FASST stuff looks a market beater. That doesn't mean I am prepared to excuse the COVER UP on the cockup. Altho the cockup itself, is - well understanable, if not excusable. > >> The second paragraph is speculation, yes, however it is based on the > >> evidence I've seen so far. For example, when a company chooses to [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Natural, you have it exactly correct. Non-volatile memory, like Flash and EEPROM, does NOT mean non- corruptible. There are other technologies, some quite old like fusible link memory, hardware program cards/chips/plugs, etc., that are truly permanent memory. However, those methods could add significantly to production cost. The question is: "What price safety and reliability?" To points brought up by others: As for re-using older transmitter technology and adapting it to the new 2.4GHz RF link instead of designing new circuitry throughout: that is a far more common practice than most people realize. Most new and complex systems build upon older, proven (read as "reliable") technology. The fact that the FASST system only allows three digit naming indicates that Futaba re-used much of its older encoder sub- system. So what? It works. I always thought that the main reason for going to 2.4 was to improve the RF link. Keep in mind that if you go with an XPS system, that is exactly what you're doing. Finally, I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere, but I hope that Futaba has a handle on exactly what group of radios has the 0000 ID problem. Surely they can nail it down to serial numbers or production dates? DougSter >>>> The second paragraph is speculation, yes, however it is based on the >>>> evidence I've seen so far. For example, when a company chooses to [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > has a handle on exactly what group of radios has the 0000 ID problem. > Surely they can nail it down to serial numbers or production dates? I think there is a disjunct between what Futaba knows and what futaba knows. I am about as sure that this is not a manufacturing, but a design issue, as I was sure that Saddam had about zero 'weapons of mass destruction that could threaten western interests and be deployed in 45 minutes'. As it happened he didn't actually have any at all. Let alone delivery systems for them. I think that's when I was first called DH, for making that statement. When all the armchair patriots were cracking Buds and watching the Shrub beat Iraq straight into the arms of the Jihadists. Nobody likes a smart a.s do they? So my moneyss on it being a design hardware issue They will first of all come out wit a 'firmware fix' that will simply flash a warning when ZGUID is detected, plus some notes about timing your on off sequences to a millisecond. Then a new model will come out with a completely different PCB, and 'any sets that show the warning;' will be replaced as and when they do, and get returned.. > DougSter > Me neither :-) In fact all the TXs I've owned in the past have been > Futaba ones but the lamentable failings of the 9C Super I own mean I am > now looking to jump ship when the 2.4GHz market settles. I just bought a 9C. What failings can I expect? mk MJKolodziej Wrote: > > Me neither :-) In fact all the TXs I've owned in the past have been > > Futaba ones but the lamentable failings of the 9C Super I own mean [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I just bought a 9C. What failings can I expect? > mk A fairly sizeable latency for one: http://www.runryder.com/helicopter/gallery/8588/latency_pcm13.gif http://www.runryder.com/helicopter/gallery/8588/latency_pcm13_avg.gif -Flieslikeabeagl -- flieslikeabeag > MJKolodziej Wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -Flieslikeabeagle I didn't see my TX there, are we on the same TX? Fut 9C ? mk So far, the problem seems to be limited to the original 6EX transmitters and some 7 channel transmitters. CR > I didn't see my TX there, are we on the same TX? Fut 9C ? > mk ... | >> I just bought a 9C. What failings can I expect? | >> mk | > A fairly sizeable latency for one: | > http://www.runryder.com/helicopter/gallery/8588/latency_pcm13.gif | > http://www.runryder.com/helicopter/gallery/8588/latency_pcm13_avg.gif ... | I didn't see my TX there, are we on the same TX? Fut 9C ? Futaba 9C - R149DP is the 2nd to the last item on the first page, and the last item on the second page. In any event, a few things to consider here -- -- this is CCPM, where the 9C is known to be slower. In other modes, it's faster than this. Also note that this is a helicopter mode -- for planes, things are not so bad. -- this is PCM, where everything is known to be slower. Using a PPM RX will give considerably lower latencies. (Though to be fair, the spread spectrum gear generally has similar features to PCM receivers, without the additional cost or latency.) -- I doubt anybody who reads this group has a 120 ms reaction time (approximately the maximum measured latency of the 9C + PCM RX) and most of us probably couldn't tell the difference between the worst case 9C at 85 ms and best case 12Z + R5114DPS at 20 ms. Yes, it's a shortcoming of the 9C. But it's a pretty minor one. And this chart is basically set up to give it's worst case scenario. My 9C has a problem with V-tails and 4 servo wings. This problem was fixed, but I have one of the first ones made, so it still has the problem. Newer ones should have this fixed. Either way, I wouldn't buy a 9C new now. But not because it's a bad TX -- it's not -- but there are better ones out there now. And any new gear I buy would be spread spectrum. My next TX will probably be a JR X9303, unless something better comes out. SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzied.us Talking with you is sort of the conversational equivalent of an out of body experience. --Calvin & Hobbes Doug McLaren Wrote: > -- I doubt anybody who reads this group has a 120 ms reaction time > (approximately the maximum measured latency of the 9C + PCM RX) and > most of us probably couldn't tell the difference between the worst > case 9C at 85 ms and best case 12Z + R5114DPS at 20 ms. Doug, I agree that a 120 mS reaction time to a sudden one-time externa stimulus is exceptional - but you're overlooking a major factor. Ther are many situations where we input periodic (rhythmically repetitive control inputs for RC models, a classic example being a rolling harrier In these cases, it may take a lot longer than 120 mS to implement th first finger movement, but the subsequent rhythmic movements can easil be timed to considerably greater accuracy than 120 mS by anyone - n need for special super-fast reflexes. There are also many situations when we anticipate an upcoming contro input in advance, and therefore can time it to much higher precisio than 120 mS. For instance, if you put your model into a snap-roll o spin, you anticipate the point at which you need to input correctiv control inputs to stop the roll or spin at the desired heading. Several years ago I worked as an engineer on a team designing a hig quality loudspeaker system with internal DSP processing. We wanted t find out if such a speaker could be used as a live monitor by musician while they played their music. In order to find out if the latency/dela from the processing in the speaker would be an issue in this situation I took one of my electric guitars in to work one day and did some quic experiments playing scales and groups of sixteenth notes through a pur delay line (with adjustable delay) to see how much delay mattered. What I found surprised me. A mere 20 mS of delay was quite detectable and had a deteriorating effect on my ability to play. 15 mS was abou the threshold where I couldn't quite be sure if I could detect the dela or not. Below 10 mS, I couldn't feel the effect of the added delay Anything over 30 mS was really nasty - it became increasingly impossibl for me to play the guitar at all as the delay was turned up beyond thi point. Keep in mind I'm no Van Halen. My guitar playing is amateurish and m top speed is not particularly fast as guitarists go. And even so, 20 m was unacceptably large for me. Surely 15 mS would have been too much fo someone with better guitar technique than myself. So is 120 mS delay in an RC transmitter an issue? Perhaps not whe we're using slow servos with 200 mS delay of their own, and almos certainly not if the transmitter is being used to fly a sedate mode with inherently slow responses. But the guys who fly twitchy 3 helicopters with lightning-fast 70mS tail rotor servos say they can fee the difference. And I can see no reason not to believe them. I CAN say for sure that I can feel the difference in latency between model flown with 5 V DC power to the servos and the same model flow immediately afterwards with 6 V DC to the servos, because I tried thi on a .40 size electric model with a switching BEC that let me try bot voltages by simply moving a jumper. If you look at typical servo specs they often pick up about 40 to 50 mS of additional delay at 5 V compare to 6 V. And I could easily feel this difference when, for instance flying snap-rolls or spins: at 6V the model would stop snappin noticeably sooner after I neutralized the controls. If in doubt, highly encourage you to try it yourself - I was using a $8 switching BE from United Hobbies, so there is not much cost outlay in trying th experiment. -Flieslikeabeagl -- flieslikeabeag > Doug McLaren Wrote: >> -- I doubt anybody who reads this group has a 120 ms reaction time [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > -Flieslikeabeagle Interesting stiff. Thanx beagle. echo style delays are MOST disconcerting if you play to what you hear..rather than just finger the notes. The Natural Philosopher Wrote: > Interesting stiff. Thanx beagle. echo style delays are MOS > disconcerting if you play to what you hear..rather than just finger th > notes. I play by ear, which might have something to do with it. But don't al musicians, even when reading from a score, listen to what they'r playing so they can create the tone and emotional context they're tryin for? One of the weird things I discovered from that experiment was tha there was a delay setting where the guitar strings felt like they wer covered in grease. I don't mean sounded like they were covered in greas - they actually felt sort of sticky/slippery to the fingers of my lef hand. I think my brain was struggling to understand the delay betwee touching the string and hearing the note, and chose to interpret it i this way. Weird, a bit like one of those optical illusions we've al seen, only this one was an auditory illusion with a crossover to a th tactile sense! I don't remember exactly what delay setting caused the "greasy" feelin (it's been few years), but I think it was around 30 mS or so. -Flieslikeabeagl -- flieslikeabeag >I play by ear, which might have something to do with it. But don't all >musicians, even when reading from a score, listen to what they're >playing so they can create the tone and emotional context they're trying >for? That's gotta be tough. Most of the people I know either use their fingers or a pick ;-) >> I play by ear, which might have something to do with it. But don't all >> musicians, even when reading from a score, listen to what they're [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Most of the people I know either use their fingers or a pick ;-) Coffee/keyboard alert! Bastard ;-) Too late! ;-0 >> Me neither :-) In fact all the TXs I've owned in the past have been >> Futaba ones but the lamentable failings of the 9C Super I own mean I am >> now looking to jump ship when the 2.4GHz market settles. > > I just bought a 9C. What failings can I expect? > mk >> Me neither :-) In fact all the TXs I've owned in the past have been >> Futaba ones but the lamentable failings of the 9C Super I own mean I am >> now looking to jump ship when the 2.4GHz market settles. > > I just bought a 9C. What failings can I expect? Well, there are quite a few. Someone else has mentioned high latency (near the worst of all txs available when used in PCM mode), a few of my pet peeves are as follows : 1. Broken throttle-controlled airbrake design means trims are dangerous in acro mode. (This was fixed in glider mode from the 9C to 9C Super so why they couldn't have fixed it in acro mode too beggars belief). This means that an intermediate plane like the H9 Ultrastick cannot be completely programmed on a 9C as it can on the JR equivalent. And before you point me at the howto on the Futaba website, it doesn't work. And when I say the howto doesn't work I mean hopelessly, uselessly, laughably doesn't work, and stands no chance being made to work whatever you do. 2. Side-control sliders can't be set up to allow eg flaps to be controlled with neutral flap at slider full up and full flap at slider full down. Best that can be done is to have no flap movement from slider middle to slider up and full flap at slider down. This is a problem with the sliders and no amount of mixing will cure it. 3. The only servo that can be slowed is (bizarrely) the throttle servo. The manual alleges this to be so an IC engined plane can be made to perform like a turbine with a slow engine spool up. It's just plain weird IMHO, much more useful would be a servo slow that can be used on other things like retracts. 4. Futaba's advertising states the 9C to be a 9 channel TX. It's not really : even if you do splash for a Futaba PCM dual conversion RX it is not possible to set the ATV for the 9th channel. And the key downside of a dual conversion RX is if you stack the plane you can't just discard the crashed XTAL, you have to send the RX away to get the internal XTAL replaced by a service engineer. 5. The rotary dial turns the wrong way cf the way the display selection changes. Or maybe that's just me :-) I did ask Ripmax but they said there's no way to alter it. 6. There are others... Having said that and got it off my chest, my 9C Super has been reliable in the 18 months I've had it and it's not a bad TX for all that. I just get more and more tee'd off with the programming style that seems to be designed to permit exactly those facilities that Futaba deem suitable for a mid range TX and to prevent anything more adventurous from being tried. Oh for a mainstream TX with the kind of flexible programming model shown by the Profi 4000, now demised. Hth, SignatureBoo >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >Center for analysis. This is not expected behavior and should be >investigated accordingly. I HAVE LOST 3 PLANES WITH ONE OF MY TRANSMITTERS,, I HAVE TWO AND HAVE HAD EACH CHECKED OUT AT THE HOBBY SHOP FOR THE CODES. ALL THREE JUST LOST COMPLETE CONTROL. ONE JUST FLEW STRAIGHT DOWN OVER THE RUNWAY AND SLOWLY ROLLED OVER INTO THE GROUND, NOWTHROTTLE CONTROL OR ANYTHING. AND I FINALLY FIGURED OUT IT MUST BE THE TX BECAUSE, I STARTED TO FLY SAT MORNING, AND THE RECEIVER WAS NOT BOUND !! I DID THE BINDING, FLEW,, THEN ABOUT FIVE HOURS LATER IN THE AFTERNOON, IT WAS NOT BOUND AGAIN ! THIS TIME I DID NOT FLY, AND AM SENDING BOTH THE TX AND RX BACK TO THE FACTORY,,, I FULLY EXPECT TO GET A NEW TX AND OR RX OR COMPLETE OVERHAUL OF THE TX AND RX, OR I WILL BECOME THE WORST FUTABA FASST RADIO VOICE AT OUR FLYING FIELD. I HAVE NOT HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE OTHER TX FLYING ANY PLANES. ONE OUT OF TWO, OR FIFTY PERCENT IS NOT GOOD. IF YOU ARE LOSING ANY PLANES DUE TO SEEMINGLY OUT OF CONTROL OR LOST LINK,,, MIGHT START THINKING SPEKTRUM,, I HAVE ALREADY BOUGHT A TX AND THREE RX FOR MY SMALL ELECTRICS. AND SOME OF THE OTHER THREADS WERE TALKING ABOUT THE FREQUENCY HOPING OF FUTABAS OVER THE SPEKTRUM,, I FULLY BELIEVE THE FREQ HOPPING IS A PROVEN TECHNOLOGY, AS I WAS A SATELLITE COMM INSTRUCTOR IN THE AIR FORCE, AND WE WERE USING THIS BACK IN THE 1980'S, SO I AM SURE IT WORKS OK,, IF THE CHIPS ARE GOOD. BUT, SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH MINE,,, DAY,,, |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.