Topic: Is it time to change from 35Mhz to 2.4G???

Fewer crashes.

Fewer excuses 

Sorry guys, I've not had time to read all the posts yet! I've been to work, been to the gym, been shopping and been getting models ready for posting!! Its been a long old day and I'm due up in 5 hours -noooooooooooo!!!

I promise I will read them all when i return from work on Thursday -honest 

Cheers for all the advice inadvance

Matt

Wrapping up his Luna for me

I've been keeping an eye on this topic as I thinking of buying the Frsky for my JR3810 and I know zilch about 2.4.
Do the aerials on the receiver have to exit the fuselage? or is it safe to keep them inside?

Wrapping up his Luna for me

I've been keeping an eye on this topic as I thinking of buying the Frsky for my JR3810 and I know zilch about 2.4.
Do the aerials on the receiver have to exit the fuselage? or is it safe to keep them inside?

If there's a lot of carbon in the nose area then you need to be putting the aerials outside. I've got a Sting with a glass fuselage but some carbon tows running in there and I've got all my aerials internal and not had any bother. I'm on Spektrum and the good thing with that system is that you can use an onboard data logger to check whether the signal is any way compromised by bad installation.

My 2 penneth, Having used the pootaba fasst system for about a year i have had only i occurence and that lasted about 1 second, i still cant be sure why but i was low and a fair distance away with bushes and walls in between. I got the pootaba as it was on fleabay with a handfull of rxs for the price of an rx so thought id give it a go. i agree that the models feel more responsive and with small electric models that were prone to the odd glitch that is now gone....now i have over the years like most of us collected a range of rxs at the moment i have 11 JR and 14 Futaba plus acouple of gws, corona etc and with futabas pricing of rxs that is some wedge to justify in one go. But the other side of the coin is that 35mhz is now dirt cheap to buy as everyone upgrades, you can get JR or Fut branded rxs second hand for 5-10 quid and the slopes and parks are quiet on 35mhz, as someone who tends to fly alone freq control hasnt been an issue. I use a 9C super and I have a synth tx module and a Futaba 2.4ghz module but have been put off the spektrum one due to the thin coax wire out the back..having read about this new one without the wire that sounds like a better job for the grassy slopes.

Cheers for all the advice guys.

So, I'm in a position where i need to keep my Jr9x2 as its barely a year old. So getting a module must be the way forward.

Theres lots of you using different brands of modules, so is there any that people have had trouble with or heard of trouble.

So we have
-Spectrum who now have one without the wire (which is good) but the odd rumour of issues?
-Ripmax - anyone got any input on this one?
-Jeti - which sounds promising
-Schulze??? I've heard another rumour that Schulze may do modules? I need to research this

I do need to make sure that the 2.4 module will still allow the transmitter to fit in my JR bag. It looks like the aerials add abit of depth to the transmitter.

Silly question now and I'm really gonna show my  ' School Boy' knowledge but can i mix different brands of 2.4 receivers?

No, not really. Think like PCM. The receiver needs to be compatible with the transmitter as it responds to the transmitters GUID.

No issues for me on Spektrum in over 60 models now.

Andy

Its definitely time to change,no issues with Futaba FASST both with tm-8 module in a 9zap and now the 12fg FASST in 2yrs....Chris

Question: Is it really necessary to crank the aerial over on 2.4GHz? I know there is an optimum angle for best signal strength at long distances, but then that is true of 35MHz gear too, but not many of those sets have gimbals to achieve this. Most people fly with the Tx aerial at any angle rather than vertical! I initially thought that 2.4GHz aerials 'broke' for storage and transportation purposes only! 
 A 'broken' aerial just looks so wrong!

I've got a TM-7 Futaba module in my FF9 and it's fine.  For a laugh I bought a FrSky 2.4 module from Giant Cod which was £42 for the module and an 8 channel receiver fully expecting it to have limitations.  Guess what? so far it seems at least as good as the 4 x more expensive Futaba so I'm seriously considering selling my nearly new Futaba module and receivers....

I know everyone is bound to be sceptical and will say they wouldn't trust it in an expensive model (which is why I'm going to back to back test it for a while) but it hasn't missed a beat yet.  One of the superb things about it is it has failsafe on all 8 channels! - Futaba only has it on the throttle and the re-locking onto the signal (if you simulate it by turning off the tranny) is about 5 times as fast as Futaba.

It's really worth considering trying it as the 8 channel receivers are £20 and the 4 channel £17.  Lots of hugely positive feedback on this forum and on Giant Cod's and from independent testers

Simon  

Question: Is it really necessary to crank the aerial over on 2.4GHz? I know there is an optimum angle for best signal strength at long distances, but then that is true of 35MHz gear too, but not many of those sets have gimbals to achieve this. Most people fly with the Tx aerial at any angle rather than vertical! I initially thought that 2.4GHz aerials 'broke' for storage and transportation purposes only! 
 A 'broken' aerial just looks so wrong!

That's the beauty of 2.4,my Ariel stays cranked from the case to the air and back again,I never need to touch it.It does give a better signal spread on its side but you will only notice the difference from being vertical when flying at the limits of the range...which is probably nowhere near the limits of the eyes so overall its just good practice to crank it.
Regarding the reboot issue(swarrans)The time taken for the tx to come back on and power the module is nothing to do with the reconnection of the 2.4ghz link.If possible shroud the aerial with lead to force a link break then remove it and watch the time taken for reconnection,this is the real time and all the 2.4gear now a days does it in milliseconds...they are all ok.I had ASSAN for over 18months running parallel with my futaba fasst and had no probs with that until i upgraded the module,but that's a long storey.

In short...ALL 2,4ghz stuff will be safer than 35mhz due to its very nature...you pays your money and takes your choice...

p.s..any cheep futaba rx going spare now you are converting to Frsky...Chris

I will probably be selling my almost new TM7 module (not sure what to price it at) and a couple of 7 channel receivers at £40 each - but not just yet...

Simon

I've finally bitten the bullet and bought a 2.4GHz setup and my reasoning is thus; I think that in the near future 35MHz will be excluded from most (if not all) fly-ins and comps just like 27MHz was, and then there is the issue of the ocassional frequency clashes at the club. Also, I thought that I should buy a set now as the prices are bound to increase slightly in the future and I think that the systems are as reliable and well proven as they're ever going to get. One other thing, I can now take my set on holiday to Germany without fear of flying outside of their rules and regs., I think. 

 What set did I buy? Well as I'm now a confirmed gliderist I chose the Multiplex M-Link system because of the ease of use/ flexibility it affords, and then there's the standard telemetry system which really does appeal to me.
 

Let us all know (on this thread) what you think about the system once you have had it up and running for a while.

Simon

Let us all know (on this thread) what you think about the system once you have had it up and running for a while.

Simon

Will do. 

M-Link - loving it - nothing not to like really!

Just a little bit out of thread.
As a retired old git, carbon fus planes have been a bit outside my budget, apart from a Prodij with which I use 35mhz with about 6" of antenna out the back- works fine.
However, after scrimping and saving I'm about to receive a shiny bit o' full carbon model.

Question is- do I stick with 35 mhz, or get a 2.4 ghz module.
Are there big probs in antenna placement with the 2.4 Rx? But all this talk about being better "connected" is attractive.
Hope the escaping worms are not going to be too big!

35meg doesn't actually like carbon either. So with full carbon models you still have to come up with a "solution" like wires inside the tails or something.  Having a long wire dangling outside works obviously, but isn't too elegant.

On my Blade, which has a fair bit of carbon, I have the aerials sticking out of the fuselage at 90 degrees to the fuselage, and on opposite sides below the centre line in front of the wing, so that both aerials at at 90 degrees to each other too.  (8 o'clock and 4 o'clock if that makes more sense. 

As 2.4 aerials are so short, a little over 50mm, they will not have much drag, and hopefully will not be sheared off when landing.  The position chosen was as much about wire length, being clear of hand holds when launching and space in the fuselage as good orientation for best signal reception.   A dab of hot melt glue or silicon can be used to create a small fillet as the wire passes through the fuselage to retain and support it.

To answer the original question of this thread, you could argue a good case that its a good time to sit tight for a while.  I agree that 2.4 is the future, although I think that we are a long,   long way off stopping 35meg at shows and fly ins.

The Frsky threads also running at the moment suggest that  there are further developments to come. Some will bring cheap 2.4 sets, a fraction of the current big brands prices, yet fully reliable, or if you want to stay with he big names, the capabilities of the sets are going to develop to give real time feedback from the model.

Personally I see all prices coming down... not going up.

If you want / need 2.4 now, go for it, if happy with existing gear, I think that there are gains to be made by sitting tight for 12 months.
stu k

The 2.4 ghz only rule has already started - Top Gun this year was a 2.4 only show!

.... bump !

I have been offered a Futaba 14MZ second hand - just needs 2.4 module and I'm part
of the revolution !

No one has mentioned the 14MZ in this thread though - and I have never seen one on
the F3F circuit. Any reason for this that anyone can think of ? Are they superior (or inferior)
to the 12FG or FX30 which were my other choices ?

The 14MZ is a very good radio, has better quality sticks than the 12FG, and will do everything you could want in terms of programming gliders.  The big down side for the slope is the battery duration is very poor.  It uses the same one as the 12z, which is marginal (particularly in cold weather), but due to the colour screen and backlight uses more juice.  I would not have one for sloping myself, due to that 'feature' .  It is easy to change batteries though, and you can get them fairly cheap on ebay (and they seem as good as the Futaba/Sony originals).

Simon

Didnt Espan of Torpland use one for a little while.

I know Bob Ryan has one for a little while too, but changed it out for a 12Z due to battery life, oh and no windows based software looking after stuff, and a singlle processor PCB to control everything.

So why cant Robbe do a FX35 say with 12Z inners, would be a very good replacement of the old FC-28.

FWIW and my 2p's worth !

J

You lads need to speak to Beckett for a totally unbiased F3F opinion of the 14MZ.
Mind he doesn't chuck it at you though!
 

The 14MZ is a very good radio, has better quality sticks than the 12FG, and will do everything you could want in terms of programming gliders.  The big down side for the slope is the battery duration is very poor.  It uses the same one as the 12z, which is marginal (particularly in cold weather), but due to the colour screen and backlight uses more juice.  I would not have one for sloping myself, due to that 'feature' .  It is easy to change batteries though, and you can get them fairly cheap on ebay (and they seem as good as the Futaba/Sony originals).

Simon

The main reason for both battery duration and it's non acceptance on the slopes is that it's a 'stupid great lump of a delicate box with a bling bling BLING colour screen that nobody actually needs)

Oh Aye and you can buy THREE top of the range transmitters from Multiplex or whoever for the same money!

Futaba seem to have lost the plot!

Let us all know (on this thread) what you think about the system once you have had it up and running for a while.

Simon

I have been using M-link in a P4000 for about a month now running the 7CH "light" receivers in 3 F3X models (Skorpion DSL, carbon Big Sting and carbon Calypso Cobra).  In each case the rx antenna have been kept internal to the fuselage.  No issues whatsoever, the system just seems to work, with that familiar "locked in" feeling with 2.4.

I have a couple of observations of M-link compared to my MC24 fitted with a Spekky module:

- the range check with with M-link is very positive, in all situations, whereas the Spekky sometimes needs an act of faith to fly if the range check is made with the model on the ground
- so far no start up issues with M-link, whereas Spekky occasionally has a "fit" if I follow the prescribed method of tx on first
- the P4000 seems to be using no juice whatsoever - this is one benefit that is often overlooked with 2.4GHz systems; the Spekky was good, but I don't seem to need to get into a routine of charging the P4000 - so maybe that's a negative point as it's sure to catch me out eventually!

Binding and range checking on M-Link is streets ahead of anything else out there - they're small but confidence inspiring issues!

Yeah, the Spektrum range check is odd, the power is reduced so much that perfectly good setups sometimes range check badly.  Oh well, at least it's perfect in the air!

The live feedback of signal strength at the two Rx aerials is a very reassuring feature, as is the Tx warning by "beeping" near the limits of range.  I found the last feature does work when I had not screwed the tx antenna on far enough when I first tried the Jeti set up, and inadvertently flew my model effectively without the tx aerial connected.  I could fly to park flier range before the occasional freezing of the controls was noticed.  To use the Rx signal strength feedback properly it does need someone other than the pilot to read the signal strength on the Jeti box, as the range test is going to be an eyesight test too.

The range on 2.4 control is very good, but the telemetry range is not as good, as the telemetry transmitter in the Rx has less power than the control Tx.