Topic: Is 2.4 all its cracked up to be (again)

Well the real test is out on the field and since day 1 my system has worked flawlessley, much the same as 35MHz Futaba system did before it.

J

So please explain John how in the real world 2.4g has been a huge step in the right direction for you? If both systems as you say worked flawlessly in the real test out on the field. What makes me a "caveman" for holding on to my 35MHz which has worked flawlessly for me when my 2.4g simply didn't

I would agree with the 'new, improved, better than ever' Surf 2.4 advert, but rebel against the 'chuck out your chintz 35' type of argument. 
Roger- unless you fly at shows, then there is no need to change, and I would not have. My problem now is that using both systems side by side can create problems, so I am committed to go down the 2.4 route.

I'd never go back to 35MHz now.  I did used to get glitches with electric models and this was with a variety of receivers that I tried.  I'd kind of got used to it and just accepted that flying electric models would never be relaxing in the same way as flying slope soarers, where my 35MHz gear never caused a single problem.  Since going to 2.4GHz (Spektrum) I haven't had a single glitch so for me it was definitely worthwhile.  And the availability of cheap receivers and BNF models has meant my fleet has expanded far more than I think it would have done on 35MHz.  Also I'm not a club flier but there is a club a couple of miles from one of the fields where 2.4GHz means I can now safely fly.  Anyway I'm now convinced to the point where I don't really care what anyone else thinks.

But I think the key thing to remember when someone disparages your particular radio gear is that it is just a set of contraptions for controlling some toy aeroplanes, not a member of your family.

I posted this, then it magically disappeared!
I would agree with the 'new, improved, better than ever' Surf 2.4 advert, but rebel against the 'chuck out your chintz 35' type of argument. 
Roger- unless you fly at shows, then there is no need to change, and I would not have. My problem now is that using both systems side by side can create problems, so I am committed to go down the 2.4 route.

But I think the key thing to remember when someone disparages your particular radio gear is that it is just a set of contraptions for controlling some toy aeroplanes, not a member of your family.

BURN THE BLASPHEMER!!

There is no god but Multiplex, and BrianB is his prophet...

Err...Damn - that's where the argument starts to sound less convincing...

PDR

BURN THE BLASPHEMER!!

There is no god but Multiplex, and BrianB is his prophet...

Err...Damn - that's where the argument starts to sound less convincing...

PDR

Blessed are the Ori....I thought the swear filter blocked M*lt*plex?

Well the real test is out on the field and since day 1 my system has worked flawlessley, much the same as 35MHz Futaba system did before it.

J

And my 35 meg Futaba still does.
Still not made up my mind whether or not  to splash out my hard earned on 2.4 giggles......

Less convincing or not PDR, it's the path you chose. However, I suspect you chose Multiplex equipment purely on it's merits, which doesn't surprise me.

Skyleader, if you're not experiencing any problems or issues with the gear you have or the site at which you fly, then there appears to be little point in buying any 2.4ghz equipment. Why spend money purchasing 2.4ghz gear which offers a solution to problems you don't seem to have?

Less convincing or not PDR, it's the path you chose. However, I suspect you chose Multiplex equipment purely on it's merits, which doesn't surprise me.

Yes, I chose the Evo for its technical capabilities and I'm very comfortable with my choice, although I'm not blind to its shortcomings.

PDR

And my 35 meg Futaba still does.
Still not made up my mind whether or not  to splash out my hard earned on 2.4 giggles......

If it ain't broke then don't fix it.

J

A phrase that MDS owners have yet to find a use for...

PDR

A phrase that MDS owners have yet to find a use for...

PDR

Crikey Pete, you are on form !

J

Less convincing or not PDR, it's the path you chose. However, I suspect you chose Multiplex equipment purely on it's merits, which doesn't surprise me.

Skyleader, if you're not experiencing any problems or issues with the gear you have or the site at which you fly, then there appears to be little point in buying any 2.4ghz equipment. Why spend money purchasing 2.4ghz gear which offers a solution to problems you don't seem to have?

I had already worked that one out for myself;
BUT, I do not, and never would, use so called 'Cheap' receivers. All 9 of 'em are Futaba Dual Conversion
and 4 of those I put in the 'important' models (??) are PCM. And the more on 2.4, the cleaner 35 megs gets.......

And the more on 2.4, the cleaner 35 megs gets.......

Indeed and then one day you'll be the only one left on 35MHz and have a ready supply of good quality, cheap-as-chips second hand receivers!  You can't lose!

Indeed and then one day you'll be the only one left on 35MHz and have a ready supply of good quality, cheap-as-chips second hand receivers!  You can't lose!

Are you taking the p***, or am I just being my usual super-sensitive self ?

Come to think of it; not that I slag 2.4 at all, but why did us oldens change from 27am to fm and now to 2.4 ??

Are you taking the p***, or am I just being my usual super-sensitive self ?

Come to think of it; not that I slag 2.4 at all, but why did us oldens change from 27am to fm and now to 2.4 ??

with 27 it was the fear of being overtaken by the craze for CB radio using 27- as soon as they gave them their own legal frequencies, the craze died out! Now its a fear of being shot down- even though its never happened to me!

with 27 it was the fear of being overtaken by the craze for CB radio using 27- as soon as they gave them their own legal frequencies, the craze died out! Now its a fear of being shot down- even though its never happened to me!

But many people have been - and there are those amongst us ( ) who damn near shot themselves down!

But many people have been - and there are those amongst us ( ) who damn near shot themselves down!

How can you shoot yourself down? A Tx in each hand?

But many people have been - and there are those amongst us ( ) who damn near shot themselves down!

I know a guy who had a mid-air with himself!
Well to be honest someone else was flying his other plane and they were the only 2 people in the sky at the time!

I know a guy who had a mid-air with himself!
Well to be honest someone else was flying his other plane and they were the only 2 people in the sky at the time!

I get that when I fly combat against my son - using both my own planes...

I wouldn't mind, but he flies a lot less than me and he's a better pilot 

 And the more on 2.4, the cleaner 35 megs gets.......

Unless the unused cheap 35 mhz Tx's get picked up by users who don't appreciate that it's air only, what they might do is illegal but it doesn't help when you've been shot down. But if your flying site is free from any potential 35 mhz interference the only other reason to change would be the fact that you can't get a new/updated Tx on 35 mhz. I still fly on both, but find 2.4 good on electrics (especially EDF) and much better for indoor flying, where you could have somebody's eye out with a 35 mhz tx aerial 

I started off on 27mhz and yes, there was a fear of being shot down with CB radios. It made sense to move to 35mhz which I did with a Futaba FF7 PCM super (still have it for a flight simulator at work).

Currently using a Futaba 9C super. Reliable set, flexible programming and been using it for the last 6 years on 35mhz. . Never been shot down ever since I started flying (1975). Only had a few glitches (I fly mainly electric).

But ... I have done some reading on 2.4ghz technology and it does have some advantages over 35mhz.

This is a personal list of 'wins';
 shorter rx aerial(s)
 freq hopping
 telemetry with data logging
 less likely to get glitches
 vario for my thermal gliders

When I spend a few months building a model, I want the best control system (even if it is a 'cheap' old timer model). I already use a quantum telemetry unit for battery monitoring and find it very useful.

As I see it, 2.4 ghz is 35mhz Plus the goodies listed above. Flown many hours on 35, no complaints.
Looking at Jeti duplex for my next system as it rolls all the above into one. 

Unless the unused cheap 35 mhz Tx's get picked up by users who don't appreciate that it's air only, what they might do is illegal but it doesn't help when you've been shot down. But if your flying site is free from any potential 35 mhz interference the only other reason to change would be the fact that you can't get a new/updated Tx on 35 mhz. I still fly on both, but find 2.4 good on electrics (especially EDF) and much better for indoor flying, where you could have somebody's eye out with a 35 mhz tx aerial 

Good points Frank S; on a slightly different tack, I have a clubmate who regularly swaps his FF9 TX. 35 megs module for a 2.4 one . I mean several times a week. I do not think this is good practice, contact pins and all, or am I being paranoid again ??

Good points Frank S; on a slightly different tack, I have a clubmate who regularly swaps his FF9 TX. 35 megs module for a 2.4 one . I mean several times a week. I do not think this is good practice, contact pins and all, or am I being paranoid again ??

Not good practice at all. They were never meant for that sort of use. There are many cases of the solder coming undone.
I think once you go 2.4 once, there is no escape no way back to 35, and its time for me to bite the bullet and go completely 2.4. If you cant beat them......

All that's correct of course and now I rarely pull the 2.4 module to change back to 35 but I used to do it a lot changing frequency on 35, with no problems...

Not good practice at all. They were never meant for that sort of use. There are many cases of the solder coming undone.

It's not so bad if you're using the buddy port when it's a DIN plug as they are designed for lots of cycles, but module pins are only designed for the low tens of insertion cycles at best. Terrible choice, especially for outdoor use. Cheap though!

Which is interesting, given that the module connector is unchanged from the original J-series (futaba's first modular Tx) and in that transmitter the reversing switches were underneath the module...

FWIW it's not the module contacts which are the problem - it's the solder joint between the contacts and the Tx motherboard. These connectors are standard PCB headers and the contacts are rated for several hundred cycles, but they are intended to have additional mechanical support to the solder joint to achieve this.

PDR

PDR

PDR

PDR

So good they named him twice?  Yes, its the solder that fractures, seen it on a few occasions.

Yes, its the solder that fractures, seen it on a few occasions.

A solder joint should never be expected to take mechanical force. Either additional support or flexible wires need to be used or it will just fracture pretty quickly.

PCB Headers are rated for a few hundred insertion cycles before the connection starts to get dubious. DIN plugs are rated for at least a thousand, usually many more.  I know which I'd prefer in the critical signal path between my thumbs and my plane...

...which is why I solder hack modules into place instead, why add a connector at all if you don't need it!
 

Is it all it is cracked up to be...in my opinion ...yes. 
I have been flying FASST 2.4 since it came out, i still use 4.8volts (as do all the other FASST flyers in my club).
I never changed any installation, just fitted the rx and flew the model.
I have had hundreds of flights on 3 Turbines, heli's, electrics, and IC models.
I have never had any problems at all, not one.
Our club is totally Futaba and i know of no issues.
Loads of range, no peg board.
I have flown at the Nationals every year since going 2.4, a very crowded rf environment with multiple flight lines...not one problem.
So speaking from experience, i would never go back to 35 meg.

my 2 cents...

Hi gray

Reading your post Gray, it leads one to assume you did have problems on 35mhz. Was that the case?

Hi gray

Reading your post Gray, it leads one to assume you did have problems on 35mhz. Was that the case?

I used to Fly Futaba PCM and to be honest, after doing that I had no real problems.
However, I did lose an expensive turbine model once due to a prat turning on the same frequency.
This was always my big fear, especially flying at public events.
The peace of mind I have now with FASST, has been built up over the last 4 or 5 years, it is great to know that the same prat cannot 'take me out' again. I have absolute confidence in it, not one 'moment' even in the worst possible conditions. At the Hop Farm this year I flew a turbine and it started to rain, drizzle first then ‘real rain’ I have a friend stand over me with an umbrella, the radio worked perfectly, even though the landing was a bit wet!
I did a lot of testing prior to going FASST, I just could not break the RF link, that includes carbon fuselages, fuel containers, metal tailpipes etc, etc.
My testing is fully documented on a long thread in the jet section RCU.
As I say, I would not go back, i am a very happy customer.

hi gray,
thanks for sharing your experiences on 35mhz and 2.4 ghz , losing any model is bad, losing an expensive turbine model is very bad.
Just been on RCU but I cannot find the post you refer to. What is your 'tag' on RCU so that I can search for it? or even better, post a link!

ta, Vince

Vince
My tag is GRAYUK.
Here is a link.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_6188151/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm

Paul G.

Vince
My tag is GRAYUK.
Here is a link.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_6188151/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm

Paul G.

Funny how it's all changed from the early days, 'not recommended for jets' 

Interesting stepping back in time, doesn't seem like 4 years ago.

J

Yes
Amazing this new 'trickery' was viewed.
I am now amazed when i see people on 35meg 
4 years...god i am getting old..

Paul G

I'm actually amazed that you're amazed Gray. After all, the 35mhz channels we use(d) are exclusive model flying with no other users, that certainly can't be said of 2.4ghz.........

You'd doubtless be amazed further if you flew where I fly. We have a chap who still uses 27mhz without a problem.

I'm actually amazed that you're amazed Gray. After all, the 35mhz channels we use(d) are exclusive model flying with no other users, that certainly can't be said of 2.4ghz.........

That's the theory. Unfortunately, there have been quite a few illegal uses of 35 over the years.
Mike

I understand what you're saying Michael, but the same applies to 2.4ghz really, in that it's a free for all band. I've often seen it referred to (even on here) as a "junk" band. Ok, so far we haven't seen the effects of miriads of 2.4ghz band users yet, but perhaps it's early days?

I understand what you're saying Michael, but the same applies to 2.4ghz really, in that it's a free for all band. I've often seen it referred to (even on here) as a "junk" band. Ok, so far we haven't seen the effects of miriads of 2.4ghz band users yet, but perhaps it's early days?

Yeah, there's only almost all wi-fi setups (including most mobile or DECT cordless phones, laptops etc.), walkie talkies, microwave ovens, video senders, wireless CCTV cameras, hardly any really.

It *is* a 'junkband' but it's exactly because of that that the systems have had to be developed from the off with redundancy, checksums, Globally Unique Identifiers etc. all built in.

35MHz only really works at all if it has a clear chunk of spectrum to work in, any interference and down it goes. It's been good enough so far, and arguably it's getting safer as people move to 2.4 for radio gear, but it is far more fragile in the first place than 2.4.

I'm not doing 35 down, but I know enough about the theory of data transmission protocols, and about human reliability, that I had no problem at all choosing to go 2.4 right from the start. If I had a large investment in 35MHz kit I'd probably still be using it for some things.