Martin Church Posted July 7, 2017 Author Share Posted July 7, 2017 16 minutes ago, FrankS said: If you are wedded to Open Tx then you are pretty much locked in with Frsky, a few of my friends have them, some have no issues at all and wouldn't have anything else a couple have low signal warnings (but no loss of control) which they are working through. Have you discussed your issues with T9 to see if they can help. If you are thinking of jumping ship then Multiplex are another option, my radio link has been rock solid, but while the Royal Sx would seem best suited to your needs (hand held form with flexible programming) the lack of inbuilt voice could be a big draw back, and the price of the receivers (but no different to Futaba, Jeti etc) with no cheap clones available. Mpx was an option Frank as I've used the royal evo 35 meg stuff happily in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isoaritfirst Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 From my experience - if it is a problem transmitter (I had 2 before I found one that did work) listen to those warnings. Mine would work well enough in foam. But 100mts in any composite model was their limit. Final x9e I had worked fine and gave no warnings just worked. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThermalBoy Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Generally everyone has a bias towards their own system brand, thats just natural. If however you want a fit and forget about it, ie it just works with a rock solid radio link at a far greater distance than you will ever fly, then you really cant go wrong with either Jeti or Futaba. Downside (to some) is that both are expensive including the Rx's but you have to ask yourself how much value do you put on your planes & time. With Futaba I am often amazed having looked at the install/orientation of the Rx aerials on some modellers planes that it still exhibits a rock solid radio link in full carbon models at great distance, but it does, and thats with just the one Rx! Futaba/Jeti = expensive Peace of mind = priceless. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Church Posted July 7, 2017 Author Share Posted July 7, 2017 48 minutes ago, ThermalBoy said: Generally everyone has a bias towards their own system brand, thats just natural. If however you want a fit and forget about it, ie it just works with a rock solid radio link at a far greater distance than you will ever fly, then you really cant go wrong with either Jeti or Futaba. Downside (to some) is that both are expensive including the Rx's but you have to ask yourself how much value do you put on your planes & time. With Futaba I am often amazed having looked at the install/orientation of the Rx aerials on some modellers planes that it still exhibits a rock solid radio link in full carbon models at great distance, but it does, and thats with just the one Rx! Futaba/Jeti = expensive Peace of mind = priceless. Money being no object I'd agree with you. I guess I have a spare kidney maybe I could sell it & get a jetti on a serious note what is the DS 14 like & what hasn't it got that the DS 16 does? The DS 14 is in budget but is there anything it can't do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satinet Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Wasn't someone selling a fully upgraded ds14 a while ago? Dunno if it went. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThermalBoy Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Sorry I cant help you on Jeti as I fly Futaba. There are lots of flyers though on this forum who do fly Jeti and no doubt will be able to answer your questions correctly. All I can say is that IIRC Jeti pilots have said to me that by the time you have added the necessary software/hardware onto a Jeti DS14 you might as well buy the DS16. But as I say my knowledge of Jeti is extremly limited. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Committee Member PeteMitchell Posted July 7, 2017 Committee Member Share Posted July 7, 2017 Likewise I do know what you may need, but a call to Bernie Jones at eSoaring Gadgets will answer your questions. He is a very helpfull guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rc-soar Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 8 hours ago, Martin Church said: My worry is also in range test mode I can't get more than 30 ish metres wirh model on the ground & me walking away from it. If you're concerned about your transmitter, here's a definitive test you can do in conjunction with (a) a known working transmitter and (b) a 'reference' receiver: http://rc-soar.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/checking-out-your-new-frsky-transmitter.html See para 4. I used this method to check out a number of setups over a couple of days, including two X9Ds, two X9D pluses, a Horus and an external XJT module. The one anomaly (marked in red) was my mistake - I'd flashed an older incompatible version of the RF firmware when converting to non-EU. Flashing the latest version fixed the issue. The nice thing about this method is that it gives hard numbers, and doesn't rely on range test mode (there is after all no guarantee that range test mode is implemented identically on different transmitters). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Church Posted July 7, 2017 Author Share Posted July 7, 2017 After a call from an interested party my issue is being sorted. when I bought my taranis ther was the hoohaaa about eu & lbt firmwares. Now stupidly I thouhgt this wouldnt apply to my set because it was all over the net & obviously my set being new it must be on the right protocol. we shall leave it there & just say a big to the interested third party Thanks for all the help you guys have given I am sticking with my taranis till my kidney has sold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Church Posted July 7, 2017 Author Share Posted July 7, 2017 1 hour ago, rc-soar said: If you're concerned about your transmitter, here's a definitive test you can do in conjunction with (a) a known working transmitter and (b) a 'reference' receiver: http://rc-soar.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/checking-out-your-new-frsky-transmitter.html See para 4. I used this method to check out a number of setups over a couple of days, including two X9Ds, two X9D pluses, a Horus and an external XJT module. The one anomaly (marked in red) was my mistake - I'd flashed an older incompatible version of the RF firmware when converting to non-EU. Flashing the latest version fixed the issue. The nice thing about this method is that it gives hard numbers, and doesn't rely on range test mode (there is after all no guarantee that range test mode is implemented identically on different transmitters). Cheers Mike I'm about to do a lot of flashing myself it seems lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Just my tuppence worth re frsky receivers, if that's the problem. I posted 2 days ago in 'Thermal' that I was continually getting RSSI low and sometimes critical on a D4R-II Rx mounted in a 2m wood RES model. The antennas were running parallel down the fuselage. I went flying today, same model and Rx but with the antennas running outside, more or less at 75 degrees. Now there isn't a problem. I should have actually know better as I've had this issue a few times on my carbon models prior to running the whiskers outside. My personal conclusion is that antenna orientation seems to be the solution. I also run the X/4/8's Rx's as well and have had the same issue. Tony 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentPilot Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Two antennas running parallel close to each other, especially within the 31mm wavelength, can cancel each other out to a certain extent. I considder over 2" spacing between the active portion of the antennas mandatory. Orientated at 90° to each other is even better Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Something I've never done but do wonder, can you run them at 180 degrees, eg one running towards the tail and one toward the nose, or would that be a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentPilot Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 No problem as long as they are well separated. I do this in my glass nose models, antennas running fwd and aft either side of the electronics, plus the satellite behind the wing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Cheers Tony, I've a model to set up so I'll do just that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eamon Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 So just out of curiosity, which is better non EU or LBT? Thanks Eamon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 No idea as I've an original 9D Tx and only run D series and the older X series Rx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Church Posted July 7, 2017 Author Share Posted July 7, 2017 I was advised to try running one horizontal & one vertical & try my range test again tomorrow. Will report back my rssi which on average were sixty. I've also dropped my rssi alarm points to 40 & 38 before they active the low or critical alarms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eamon Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Sounds promising Martin. Hope all goes well. As I said previously I have mine set at 45 ans 42, as at 38 you could lose control so no room to manoeuvre if you set it that low for critical. That said you have to go with what your advised. Look forward to hearing what you report. 60's is a reasonable signal. My understanding is that the X series need the antenna at at least 45 degrees to each other. Regard Eamon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankS Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 16 hours ago, SilentPilot said: Two antennas running parallel close to each other, especially within the 31mm wavelength, can cancel each other out to a certain extent. I considder over 2" spacing between the active portion of the antennas mandatory. Orientated at 90° to each other is even better Tony Does this apply to all makes, I've got a couple of models with Multiplex DR rxs in them with the aerials running parallel inside the fuselage (not enough space to run them at 90 deg), although I've had no LQI alarms (set at 70%) todate it sounds like I might actually be better off with a single aerial rx in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now