What's the main radio brand you use 2017?

[Vic Clare 1]

I started out with 35Mhz Digifleet, sometimes unkindly dubbed 'Dodgyfleet'. then moved on to Sanwa and Futaba. My two current outfitsin regular use are Spektrum DX6i's. I still have the Digifleet and Sanwa which are in full working order but choose to use the Spektrum as 2.4Ghz is less faffing around at the site with a peg board.

[Colin Carpenter]

Starting in 1969 McGregor S/C . Then Climax Digital from Peter Cabrol in Weybridge. Then Flight Link Control Duette. Next Sprengbrook ( Brand from Germany really ).Sanwa , Futaba , JR , Multiplex , Hitec (2000) . Last 3 years Spektrum DX9 . This set has had more use than most of the others put together ,as now retarded !! Did I spell that correctly ? Colin

[MattyB]

Your Spektrum is "retarded" Colin? I know they don't offer the flexibility of OpenTX, but that seems a bit harsh...

The results so far are broadly reflective of the clubs of which I am a member (3), and the sample size of ~280 at the time of writing is sizeable enough to give confidence it can't be too far off. The only place I see anything significantly different is amongst the gliding fraternity; FrSky has a much bigger slice of the soaring club I belong too where they have pretty much eliminated the JR and Multiplex sets.

Whilst I get it's sensible to ask the same question as in previous years so we can compare results, I still think this survey doesn't really explain what is going on in the market. A better question would "What transmitters or modules did you purchase in the last 3 years?", and allow people to tick as many answers as they like. This would tell you about current sales rather than overall usage. For instance it appears around 7% use JR, but how many of them have bought a DMSS set? In my experience it's very few; far more have stick with their older DSM2 JRs or put FrSky modules in the back of the old bombproof 35MHz sets. If that question were asked I would bet on Spektrum in the lead, FrSky a strong second and Futaba third with everyone else in the low single digits.

Maybe we could run that survey in 6 months as a complement to this one?

Edited By MattyB on 04/02/2017 16:58:30

[Colin Carpenter]

Sorry Matty ! Should have put I'm in there ! As retired !!!!😁 Hence , flying lots in the week instead of only Sunday pm . Colin

[Tony Richardson]

Interesting point MattyB I bought a Spektrum module for my 72mz JR 9303 because I really liked the feel and heft of it and did not like the look or feel of the then newer style xg11, then as a backup radio bought a Taranis and really fell in love with it, the one feature I really like is I can take that same Spektrum module and put it in the Taranis set up the control throws accordingly and I'm good to go. I could also plug a FrSky module into the JR and reverse the process.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Radio is not just about your Tx, i agree we should have a poll on what Rx's we're using.

John

[Phil Francis]

Futaba 14SG Transmitter with a mix of Futaba and Frsky receivers.

[ben goodfellow 1]

there should of been 5 futaba problems for every 6 on "you know who today.........lol

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Olav Sivertsen 2]

Posted by Colin Carpenter on 04/02/2017 15:35:17:

Starting in 1969 McGregor S/C . Then Climax Digital from Peter Cabrol in Weybridge. Then Flight Link Control Duette. Next Sprengbrook ( Brand from Germany really ).Sanwa , Futaba , JR , Multiplex , Hitec (2000) . Last 3 years Spektrum DX9 . This set has had more use than most of the others put together ,as now retarded !! Did I spell that correctly ? Colin

[Brian Spearing]

I had a Multiplex Evo on 35MHz for some years, and over a period of time fitted 2.4 modules for Spektrum, Jeti and FrSky, all satisfactory. Then wanting a 2.4 Tx, liking the Mpx logic but not wanting Mpx prices I bought a Taranis. Now all my models are on Frsky apart from two using the old Jeti module with a JetiBox.

Dabbled with a Hitec Aurora 9 that I liked, but sold after Hitec failed to keep up.

Brian

[Peter Miller]

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 04/02/2017 12:50:20:

Not quite Peter although maybe the writing is on the wall? They shut their Japan operation but their factory in Malaysia is still going strong although no new products in the pipeline. My XG11 was made in the Malaysian factory.

Try and buy a new JR Reciever

A friend recently bought one of the Retro JR sets at a "bargain" price. SInce then he has been desparately trying to buy  an extra Rx or two. Ony the £160 versions are available, has to search elsewhere. A few in the USA at a price

Of course if you know of a supply let us know and I will pass it on to my friend

Edited By Peter Miller on 05/02/2017 13:47:52

Edited By Peter Miller on 05/02/2017 13:51:20

[Richard Marklew 1]

What an interesting spectrum of choice! I had an RCS single channel (as advertised in the Feb. 1969 RCME), along with a rubber powered pair of escarpments (one for the throttle as well) when I was 14 (1970). I then built a four channel set from kit parts to the design in "Theory and practice of model radio control" by Paul Newell. My next set was a Futaba 6 in the 1990s (there have been some very big gaps in my RC career!), followed by a Futaba MZ14 12 years ago, which I still have after adding a TM-14 module. I did live just a few miles from MacGregor when they were in Langley, but despite desperately wanting their 2 channel proportional set I never had the money.

Futaba take a lot of knocks for their prices, but they are (in my experience - my father used them as well) quite reliable. However, reading these forums, magazines and the interweb I can see that alternatives such as Frsky, Spektrum and so on are just as reliable. It is a pity that there are so many different systems around, it would have been nice to have a single one that meant we could mix and match equipmet. However, I can understand the commercial side, and with no mass market where is the incentive for the manufacturers to get round the table?

[Martyn K]

Having a shared protocol would (I think) actually stifle development and allow costs to rise. We get all the latest bells and whistles primarily because their is competition for the limited market.

Long may it continue. The important things like servos connectors etc are now fairly universal. That is a good thing

Martyn

[Richard Marklew 1]

Martyn,

I must disagree. Shared protocols rarely (if ever) stifle development. I work in IT and without common, shared protocols we would not have much of the connected world (like it or not) we have now. It also stops manufacturers locking users into their technology, which stops real competition between the manufacturers. Think what our market would be like if Futaba used the same protocols as JR and Spectrum. They would all have to compete for our cash (by providing more bells and whistles), and we would have the benefit. The IT market (as already mentioned) is a prime example of where common protocols have given manufacturers the impetus to get on with what really matters, and not inventing new ways of locking users into their technology. We can all exchange data (which includes what I am typing) because of this common set of protocols.

It is interesting that you actually contradict your own argument with your example. I remember when every manufacturer pretty well had their own servo connectors. These days they do not so we can choose to use whatever servo we wish without converters or re-wiring. In addition, they all use, or can use, the same signals from the receivers (SBus et al proving my point I believe). Has this reduced the competition in the servo market or increased cost? I do not see that.

Richard.

[MattyB]

Whether a common protocol would improve or negate competition can be debated (I'm more with Richard's view myself), but the fact is it isn't going to be happen, at least no time soon.

Whether you agree or not, the protocol brands do matter to manufacturers. They see them as something that can mark them out as superior to the competition when marketing in terms of reliability, range or latency. The market now has a fairly large number of proprietary protocols in it, but that is likely to reduce over time as peripheral players exit the market (the low cost competition to the established brands from China and the rapidly evolving market means some are bound to get left behind). Once that happens it would seem even less likely common protocols will develop, as the remainder will all have a bigger slice of the market by percentage. I used to get worried by this, but tbh I no longer see it as an issue - it is not a big problem to run two protocols that cover all my model types (one with cheap lightweight RXs with no telemetry for my smaller park fliers, and the other a bit more costly but with a full but affordable range of telemetry sensors).

[Martyn K]

I work in IT as well - have done for 40 years and there are not people who can claim that. I remember early computer inter-connectivity, distributed computing and all the manufacturer specific variations until Ethernet and Routing protocols were formally devised and implemented by IEEE. Prior to this it was a mess with 3rd parties providing interoperability gateways.

The subtle difference is the inter-connectivity requirement. The Internet needs common protocols or it just does not work. This is a many to many relationship and manufacturers tend to use new technology to provide enhanced performance,

We fly our models on a strictly 1 to 1 relationship between transmitter and receiver and a 1 to many from receiver to servos. Hence common connectivity standards for servos for example is a good thing. It doesn't matter in a 1:1 relationship if the protocol is common or not, what does matter is the ability to co-exist. I am not sure if the fairly recent SBUS protocol is common or manufacturer specific.

The RC Market is nowhere near as big as the Internet, while there is scope for improvement in reliability, we are limited by the requirement to coexist and limited bandwidth which can stifles some performance capabilities

Therefore, we rely on manufacturers to be innovative and cost conscious in the user interface and also in creating a bullet proof link in what is really a very hostile environment. Futaba use custom chips, I understand that other manufacturers use off the shelf technology. Without this ability for manufacturers to specify and to write their own protocols,I suspect that we would still be on DSM-2 as there would have been no driver for change

[Frank Skilbeck]

And don't forget that the brand specific protocols started before 2.4, the older 35 mhz PCM systems where not interchangable. Also when you went above 9 channels different makes did the PPM differently.

[Richard Marklew 1]

Martyn,

Ah, another old hand. Started in IT in 1977, and you are perfectly correct that there are not many of us left. In fact, I think the old RCS system I had raised my interest in electronics and that led to my interest in IT.

I think I did make the point in my original post that this was not going to happen, just that I thought it would help. Really, I think we are all in (semi) violent agreement about common protocols being "A Good Thing" but not necessarily something that will happen in the RC world for at least a while. Ho Hum, on with the balsa bashing.

Matty B. may have a good point as well. It may well be that market forces will drive the more expensive brands either into a niche in our niche (and hence out of business) or to pick up the Low cost Competition protocols. I believe, in the words of a misquoted Chinese proverb, we live in interesting times.

Frank,

Indeed, and before that again. There were all sorts of systems in "The Old Days" and I suppose we should be glad of the interoperability we have now.

Cheers,

Richard.

[Phil Green]

My gear is mostly homebrews or antique refits (RCS, Skyleader, Kraft, Remcon etc)
usually with a Frsky module. 
As in previous polls, I'm not sure if thats 'Frsky' or 'Other'
The S/C 'Gem' in the avatar on the left is an exception with a Spekky DM9 module. 

I see a lot of members started with single channel gear, often the RCS Guidance System
or a Macgregor.  I wonder if I can sneak in a mention here of our upcoming sixth annual
"Single Channel & Retro R/C" event at Pontefract Racecource on the 21st of May?
www.singlechannel.co.uk

All welcome!

Cheers
Phil

 

 

Edited By Phil Green on 06/02/2017 21:21:19

[Colin Carpenter]

Hi Phil. However the FLC Duette coming along ? Regards Colin

[MattyB]

Posted by Richard Marklew 1 on 06/02/2017 15:52:31:

...Matty B. may have a good point as well. It may well be that market forces will drive the more expensive brands either into a niche in our niche (and hence out of business) or to pick up the Low cost Competition protocols. I believe, in the words of a misquoted Chinese proverb, we live in interesting times.

Yep, there is definitely going to be some consolidation in the nearish future - some will exit through attrition, whilst others will be acquired.

Based on this survey and watching the conversations online I would only say 3 of the main players have a guaranteed long term future - Futaba (slightly on the wane but still with a loyal following and lots of other products outside of consumer RC to drive their overall business), Spektrum (the market leader in terms of sales globally) and FrSky (growing and developing products rapidly, they could be an acquisition target but will not be leaving the market anytime soon). Some would add Jeti into this group - they seem to have won a fair few sales in the higher margin end of the market with their excellent telemetry and high build quality - but without finding a way into club level sets (i.e. £100-400) and the growing offering something for the multirotor market I wonder whether they will decline over time.

So what about Hitec, Multiplex, Graupner SJ, Multiplex and JR? All have their advantages and none are bad products, but I am not sure any of them are big or nimble enough to adapt competition from the big three and challenger Chinese brands like Flysky. I have no doubt some of them will continue to produce RC gear long term, but not all of them will survive. JR are the ones that look really vulnerable to me - yes they may still be in business, but I am not sure in the current market you can pause all development and expect all your customers to still be there when (or if?) you come back, especially if RXs become as common as Dodo eggs. There must be some very nervous 28x owners out there...

[Tomtom39]

I'm rather glad that I sold my JR equipment last year (having been an ardent supporter of their systems for some time) and switched over to Jeti. Brilliant radio and service from both their UK distributor and Jeti in the CZ .

The poll on this site is pretty indicative of the split of types/brands of radio system at our club with a predominance of DX6's (and other Spektrum radios), a few Futaba's, with Hitec,Graupner and a couple of us with Jeti's. We also have three users of FRSKY (these seem to be relegated to those flying multicopter but suspect that as more members get exposed to the system they will consider this as an alternative choice - point taken Matty)

[Danny Fenton]

I suppose many of us actually use more than one set, and although the header is for "main" brand, my indoor equipment is FRSky Q X7 with a home brew Spekky module.

I love my Jeti, for my more valuable models, but how can you not be impressed with a 32 channel extremely capable Q X7 transmitter for a £109......

Cheers

Danny

[Swissflyer]

Getting a buzz?

Well, being an impoverished teenager back in February 1969, I did build a home brew two channel version of the RCM&E digital proportional radio system that was featured back then (see “The Way We Were February 1969 article). It worked and for a teenager that was truly heady stuff.

Yes, it was only two channels as the “impoverished” budget would only stretch to two servos! Many of the electronic components were donated by the local electronic repair workshop where I made holiday money by repairing six transistor radios. Remember them?

These days radio gear is so cheap that doing a DIY job would make no sense.

I have used HiTech, Futaba and Graupner/JR, the two Graupner transmitters upgraded beautifully with drop in 2.4GHz modules. That saved a lot of re-programming.

I have to say that I have not had a radio glitch since moving to 2.4Ghz.

My next step is to test out my new, nicely engineered, Chinese transmitter that offers downlink telemetry and promises to buzz/vibrate in my hands when the flight batteries are flagging.

Now who would have imagined that back in the ‘60s?

Happy flying

Mark