Here is a list of all the postings gangster has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: 2.0.14 Now available for download.|
Gonzo hopefully lbt will make no difference as the tx will have moved onto another frequency every few mili seconds (I think it is 20ms for hitec). That would be a lot of channel changes before you, I or the plane would notice. To go into fail safe surely that would mean about 100 failed attempts. Bearing in mind what the TX can hear a few feet off the ground would need a very strong interfering signal The model itself will hear much more
|Thread: Signal Loss with Spektrum?|
Yes Phil I made a total pigs ear of that sentence didnt I ! Few words missing and power and signal loss ran into each other. Hopefully I clarified it later on and separated the two situations .
Thanks for re-emphasising my point that failsafe cannot necessarily overcome power related issues Good point about the spring
I have watched this thread with interest, and lots of sympathy for Ben, but until now have had nothing to add, there are so many unknowns.
There is however something that concerns me about the pitch down.
Ignoring all the other possibilitys and focussing on Ben's believe that there was indeed a radio issue. The title of the thread is signal loss . Surely if there was a signal loss the rx would hold and failsafe regardless if it was brownout blackout or any other thing that involved the signal path. For the servos to move, and we are talking elevator and throttle would involve either an erronious signal from the TX or an issue with the RX. Servos decking the suppy has been suggested and that could be significant
Manufacturers have tried to tell us ,origionally PCM and then 2.4 was the great panacea and we would live happily ever after. I have always been very sceptical that with a minor burst of interference or signal loss it could, in certain circumstances get us into worse problems than the old pretend digital that we have had for decades
I recall someone in our club once suggesting that we should all be made to use PCM because it glitched less, I think my reply was keeping your eyes closed was more effective in not seeing the interference.
I have been fortunate over the last 35 years of flying radio never to have crashed due to TX or RX or interference issues, (have many many crashes due to every other reason, mainly pilot (me) induced.
I have used most makes of radio over that time including Micron and RCME and have never felt any better than any other, choice has been on the feel and features of the TX.
Once problem does however spring to mind, I had a fault develop on a Sanwa Black Custom RX (very expensive in its day) a tantalum capacitor went faulty and intermittently decked the supply this manifested itself in a large glitch and the flair voltage monitor latching a supply fault and flashing. As I said it gave large glitches in flight. Now if this happened in a modern PCM or 2.4 RX I am convinced it would rtesult in the RX getting its knickers in a hell of a twist and resulting in a black bag.
Someone mentioned a servo decking the supply intermittently, remember failsafe cannot work correctly if its own supply is compromised.
So to conclude it may be radio issues but probably not signal loss.
Its always easy to tell others what they should do my instinct would be to accept the new TX and quaranteen the RX and servos for a while maybe test later in something of little value.
Good luck mate hope it goes well for you.
|Thread: Orange rx|
A satellite rx works in conjunction with the main rx to give diversity ie the rx chooses the best signal. Not all Orange receivers support the use of a satellite which plugs into the main rx. Many receivers including some Prange ones achieve the same effect by having two aerials. As far as I know the Orange ones that do have a satellite post work fine on their own without the satellite bear in mind you cannot use a satellite receiver on its own it is not complete and you will not have servo sockets etc
|Thread: ESC got me beat! - Help|
Is it a Futaba transmitter? They seem to need reversing once reversed it should be fine
|Thread: RCM&E Feb 2015 issue|
Not too worried about a couple of days David just hope the flu didn't interrupt your flying. Or indeed Christmas. Hope you are all fit and well now
|Thread: fly away's|
Good point Brian. How on earth do we know that our transmitters are actually on low power. Bit like knowing that the fridge light actually does go out when we close the door in the days when we had proper transmitters. They had a meter on the front that told us so much about the output the aerial matching and consequently the battery.
Like you I have often wondered about the validity of the low power test ( however i do one religiously every flying trip.) I am not sure how much it reduces the output 100 uW springs to mind I am sure someone will know. It is possible that under the right conditions the radio could work at 30 metres with much less. We need to remember that there is in reality no such thing as interference it's matter of ratio of wanted signal to unwanted signal
i do however wish more people would do a range check every visit to the field it does in fact cover most of the more likely scenarios like broken receive or transmitter aerials and is also another opportunity to do a control check. We all know that some people don't even do that before launch. Already mentioned on this thread as a cause of fly aways!
Edited By gangster on 09/01/2015 09:57:16
|Thread: Fr Sky X8R|
This is one of the many debates that go through modelling circles. Most instruction say at 90 degrees to each other however does that mean one vertical and one horizontal or both in the same plane. I have seen models where the owner is so obsessed with getting one vertical that they have bent one aerial tightly against the body of the receiver which in the case of a Rx with two short aerials a recipe for disaster Accepting the fact that there is a 30dB difference between vertical and horizontal In theory there is a case for one each way however we also need to consider the fact that the tx aerial is normally held at the slope and that the receiver is moving . I am certain that many of the glitches we have experience on 27 and 35 probably occur when the aerials are end on to each other
another debate then is TX aerial straight out or hinged parallel to case
to answer the original question my thoughts are 90 degrees either way but certainly not parallel.u
|Thread: DSM2 is dead (on new Spektrum radios)|
Edited to delete duplicate
Edited By gangster on 06/01/2015 14:58:25
Frank to clarify please are you saying that the Futaba fhss systems are all compliant or will we see the disappearance s-fhss receivers in the shops presumably the next generation of transmitters might be backward comparable as appears to be the case with the 10j I also wonder if the 3rd party comparability could become a bigger issue I think that could be the case with the latest (dsm2) comparable spektrums.
I guess this is not just a Spektrum issue . Other protocols produced by other manufactures may also fall foul of the etsi change . Whilst it is accepted that we can continue to use the earlier protocols I am assuming that we will no longer be able to buy receivers to match our old transmitters. So do we stock up on receivers now or if we do will we then be stuffed if our transmitters pack up or we wanted to change them things have not changed on 35mhz in 30 years but seems those days have gone. DSM2 is the subject of this post but I assume we can we can also include s fhss and faast in the same concern
|Thread: fly away's|
Well at least it has raised the issue of the importance of failsafe, and good maintenance too.
Just a thought went through my mind, how far would a model go on a fly away if it had no failsafe and AS3X stabilisation. I assume an electric model would head off for miles until the battery voltage dropped a bit and the motor stopped whence it would begin a nice stable descent. Ideally there should be belt and braces whereby the esc would go into failsafe as soon as the signal was lost.
But this is not a reason to discourage people from setting the failsafe (which your post sounds like)
Piers I have just re-read the entire thread and cannot see a single post that discourages the use of fail safe, a few including mine do though warn against the complacency that it is a complete umbrella and will remove all danger.
It is as you say important to encourage its use if you have the facility and indeed in the case of an investigation for an insurance claim or worse it is possible that it would be taken into consideration.
Now how are we going to get people to do range checks regularly, I have seen sone cruel things done to 2.4 rx aerials that will untimately restrict range regardless of how much the radio costs
1. It unnecessarily undermines their confidence in their radio gear and far too often results in them undergoing additional expenditure because they erroneously believe there is "something wrong" with their radio.
Quite so but worse than that it also undermines the confidence of others, particularly newcomers,if they are using the same brand.
I suppose the next debate is how should you set up your failsafe I have used failsafe on both 35 and 2.4 and have always set for engine tickover or cut and neutral controls Maybe that is a recipe for creating a perfect flyaway.
What bothers me about this thread, and I really do not wish to be at all critical of the op, the point I am about to make is about radio control generally. Failsafe is not an complete panacea for all problems, in reality all makes of radio,regardless of some comments you read here and on other forums have been generally totally reliable for the last 30 years.
How many crashes are radio related ?, my guess is no more than 10%, and of that 10% maybe 90% of those are due to bad installation, poor battery care and lack of maintenance. Failsafe will only work on loss of rf path.
How many "interference" related crashes are really interference? maybe a fraction of a % with the exception of switch ons
|Thread: Any tips on how to stick my velcro to my lipo?|
Had. Thought this morning. Maybe use Prymol on the heat shrink first
Edited By gangster on 28/12/2014 12:48:02
Evostic impact adhesive. The smelly stuff. Or Wilcox contact works for me
|Thread: Tx for Bind n fly models|
Just another thought. Would it be possible (and cheaper) to put Futaba receivers that match you TX in both. I don't know those helis so it night not be an option
I suggest you look closely at both transmitters. They are both good as are most radios you can buy. Choice in my opinion has be down to features and personal choice. Whilst both the DX6 and the DX8 are of adequate quality there is a world of difference between the two. Somehow the DX8 seems a much higher quality bit of kit and more flexible and as you are used to the Futaba 8fg you might find the DX6 too basic for you whereas you should feel the DX 8
much nearer the level in the market that you are used to
|Thread: mode 1 -2 buddy box|
Surely the issue of steering on the ground and in the air is the same for both modes. I had not flown rudder only since the 70s and happily use the rudder with left hand and aileron with the right. However I built a Junior 60 ( 3channel) last year I put the rudder as I would an aileron I still automatically try to steer on the ground with the left stick
as expected the oldest debate in the world has high jacked the thread. To go back to the op. I would suggest if it works on the ground it will work in the air .Do a range test first please though
Edited By gangster on 26/12/2014 11:07:14
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!