What is FASST ?

[AEAJR]

No problem setting up flap based camber and reflex on the DX5e. And you are not going to tell the thousands of full house glider pilots out there that they can't fly their sailplanes because they don't have butterfly/crow.

[rcers]

Originally Posted by AEAJR

No problem setting up flap based camber and reflex on the DX5e. And you are not going to tell the thousands of full house glider pilots out there that they can't fly their sailplanes because they don't have butterfly/crow.

Nor can you tell them a DX5 is the way to go.

But I sure like butterfly but yes planes will fly without all of these. But if you are serious you need a decent system with mixing capability.

Mike

[AEAJR]

Originally Posted by rcers

Nor can you tell them a DX5 is the way to go.

But I sure like butterfly but yes planes will fly without all of these. But if you are serious you need a decent system with mixing capability.

Mike

I agree. If you are serious you need a sailplane radio. But the majority of glider pilots out there are not that serious. So, a lot of what we hold sacred for competition thermal soaring is not really a major concern for a lot of full house glider pilots. Flight conditions, full span camber control, ... .

One of the guys who taught me thermal soaring was flying on a standard 4 channel radio and he was an excellent thermal pilot. He learned in the days of manual A-R coordinated turns and manual flap to elevator mixing and only used flap based camber control. And he thermaled with the best of them.

We have a member of our club flying a Radian Pro on a DX6i and he places high in our ALES contests most of the time.

But having those mixes all set up for you is really really nice.

Here is a set-up for a DX5e and a full house e-glider. Not what I would recommend for someone bying a radio, but it works.

Setting up a full house e-glider using a Spektrum DX5e and a 5 channel receiver.

Throttle on channel 5/gear switch

Elevator on right stick - as usual

Ailerons on Y cable, right stick - set up differential mechanically (the old fashioned way)

Rudder on left stick in usual place

Flaps on Y cable - Set them both facing the same way so you can use a standard Y cable. If they are facing opposite, using a reversing Y cable

* set up so when throttle is full forward flaps are neutral when throttle trim is centered.

* set up so that I can get about 1-2 mm of raised flap using the throttle trim button. If that does not work, then put a small spacer in front of the throttle stick so it can't go all the way forward. Set for neutral flaps when the spacer is in place. When I want reflex I flip this spacer out of the way and the throttle moves forward and gives me 1 to 2 mm of reflex on the flaps.

* Set up so I can get 2 to 3 mm down flap for thermal camber using the throttle trim button. Alternate is to mark on the radio where to move the throttle stick for thermal camber setting.

* Set up flaps to get 60+ degrees down flap when throttle stick is moved all the way down. Apply down elevator manually to compensate for increased lift. Now you have fully variable landing control.


Final result - Full house e-glider on a Dx5e

- ailerons, elevator, rudder, variable flaps and motor control. And the DX5e also gives me a 70% dual rate setting that will be handy when in a thermal.

Aileron differential set-up mechanically using the control horns. That is how it was done before there were computer radios.

I have flap based reflex, thermal camber and landing control with manual flap to elevator compensation.

I provide aileron to rudder coordination manually using two sticks for coordinated turns, like a full scale pilot.

I have everything I need to fly a full house glider to enjoy thermal soaring for the next 20 years.



Of course, I have a Futaba 9C Super so I would not do it this way, but you can.

[kyleservicetech]

Originally Posted by AEAJR

And when you read the comments you see that some of these pilots are flying radios that are over 10 years old, so this is not just a refection of currently available radios.

Yeah
A quick sampling of my club members flying on 2.4 Ghz shows that only two are flying Futaba 2.4 Ghz radios. Everyone else on 2.4 Ghz are on either Spektrum or JR equipment.

Most of my club members have multiple models in their inventory, so I suspect the Spektrum/JR "Model Match" feature has something to do with it.

[FlyWheel]

Just one more reason I stick to 72MHz - any transmitter will talk to any receiver (on the same receiver frequency).

[rcers]

Originally Posted by FlyWheel

Just one more reason I stick to 72MHz - any transmitter will talk to any receiver (on the same receiver frequency).

Ummmm Nope!

Positive shift or Negative shift would only talk to the matching receiver. That is why we later saw shift sensing receivers and then eventually Airtronics made a transmitter than you could select the shift on.

Futaba also had "low band" and high band receivers - depending on your channel.

Several also had proprietary PCM coding too.

Mike

[kyleservicetech]

Originally Posted by rcers

Ummmm Nope!

Positive shift or Negative shift would only talk to the matching receiver. That is why we later saw shift sensing receivers and then eventually Airtronics made a transmitter than you could select the shift on.

Futaba also had "low band" and high band receivers - depending on your channel.

Several also had proprietary PCM coding too.

Mike

What was the cost of those top of the line Futaba 72 Mhz receivers??? As compared to the Futaba and Spektrum 2.4 Ghz receivers anyhow.

[rcers]

Originally Posted by kyleservicetech

What was the cost of those top of the line Futaba 72 Mhz receivers??? As compared to the Futaba and Spektrum 2.4 Ghz receivers anyhow.

The Hitec QPCM was around $100 or so the Futaba's were considerably more than that around $150 or more. IIRC.

MIke

[kyleservicetech]

Originally Posted by rcers

The Hitec QPCM was around $100 or so the Futaba's were considerably more than that around $150 or more. IIRC.

MIke

Thanks Mike
Funny, folks are now complaining about the high cost of these 2.4 Ghz receivers?

Several club members are flying those $29 Spektrum 4 channel receivers in their 100 Mph foamies, with absolutely no problems. The local hobby shop is selling them for about $26.

[rcers]

Originally Posted by kyleservicetech

Thanks Mike
Funny, folks are now complaining about the high cost of these 2.4 Ghz receivers?

Several club members are flying those $29 Spektrum 4 channel receivers in their 100 Mph foamies, with absolutely no problems. The local hobby shop is selling them for about $26.

Yep I have 6 or 7 of the AR400's and they have been PERFECT. Zero issues. I have also had good results with the Orange line too in my cheaper planes.

Mike

[AEAJR]

Originally Posted by FlyWheel

Just one more reason I stick to 72MHz - any transmitter will talk to any receiver (on the same receiver frequency).

yep. In fact multiple radios could talk to the same receiver at the same tmie. We called that a shoot down.

Originally Posted by kyleservicetech

What was the cost of those top of the line Futaba 72 Mhz receivers??? As compared to the Futaba and Spektrum 2.4 Ghz receivers anyhow.

I went back and looked. In 2007 I purchased a Hitec Supreme 8 channel receiver for $40. Then I added 2 crystals to that at $10 each. One on ch 40 and one on ch 35 so I could change channels to avoid channel conflict. So call that $60 for a quality 8 chanel receiver.

A Futaba receiver would have been about $25 more and the crystals would have been another $5 each.

[kyleservicetech]

Originally Posted by AEAJR

yep. In fact multiple radios could talk to the same receiver at the same tmie. We called that a shoot down.

Ouch Ouch!!!!

Yup, I've also observed these types of crashes over the years. At a very large electric fun fly in the East Coast, one very well nationally known modeler built up a very high quality scale electric model of a military 4 engine bomber. I watched it take off, get about 200 feet, and crash into a real pile of splinters.

Didn't take long to find out why. The modeler had installed the 72 Mhz receiver, with it's antenna very nicely coiled up in a small circle with a rubber band. Even a simple range test would have saved the model. Also saw that happen twice in SE Wisconsin.

Can't happen on 2.4, the antenna's are to short!

[AEAJR]

Originally Posted by kyleservicetech

Ouch Ouch!!!!

Yup, I've also observed these types of crashes over the years. At a very large electric fun fly in the East Coast, one very well nationally known modeler built up a very high quality scale electric model of a military 4 engine bomber. I watched it take off, get about 200 feet, and crash into a real pile of splinters.

Didn't take long to find out why. The modeler had installed the 72 Mhz receiver, with it's antenna very nicely coiled up in a small circle with a rubber band. Even a simple range test would have saved the model. Also saw that happen twice in SE Wisconsin.

Can't happen on 2.4, the antenna's are to short!

Oh, for the good old days of 72 MHz. Oh, wait, I still have a bunch of planes on 72 MHz and they fly just fine.

[rcers]

We had an event at the club last year. We had about 50 pilots likely closer to 50. We had about 48 pilots on 2.4GHz and we had two pilots on 72MHz.

One of those pilots had two radios the other only one. BOTH had the same channel. We told them - we have a frequency control board - you two work it out and use the board.

One of those pilots had never really been to an event and didn't mention he didn't understand frequency control. Within two hours he shot the other guy down.

He had a $600 day that day - he admitted he didn't even know about "channels" as nobody had taught him about that.

It was really a bummer for the event as there were some pretty harsh words between them.

I don't miss 72MHz even ONE TINY LITTLE BIT.

Go figure...

Mike

[AEAJR]

Well, we have gotten far afield of the original poster's question, but I think we answwered it.

Frequency control is a lost skill.

When it was the rule of the day we all feared the pilot who might be flying off field on a 72 MHz radio. You could get shot down, or shoot him down and no one would even know it happened. It would just be a mysterious crash.

Now that a LOT of people have moved to 2.4 GHz, the skills and decipline of 72 MHz have become neglected or forgotten. And the new members don't even know what frequency control is.

My main planes have all been moved to Futaba FASST. Some of my other planes are on Spektrum DSM2.

My 72 MHz fleet is shrinking and is mostly planes I don't fly very often. I have to remind myself to excercise frequency control when I pull one of those out.

[r_kopka]

Originally Posted by rcers

Nor can you tell them a DX5 is the way to go.

But I sure like butterfly but yes planes will fly without all of these. But if you are serious you need a decent system with mixing capability.

What's even more important is storage for several models. If you get a sailpane with flaps it certainly will not be your first and only model. So a computer radio is needed. And even the entry models have lots of mixers.

Futaba has several problems. Here in Europe e.g. console radios are an important issue. Robbe basically takes the hand radios and tells Futaba how to make it to an console radio. But that takes more time and any problems need even more time to get sorted out as the SW still comes from Japan.

And the technicians look more to the Japanese market where telemetry is no issue (forbidden?). So they are way behind with this. Here in Europe since some time now a radio without telemetry won't sell anymore. Even if it is not used...
And we have other brands with well working and cheaper telemetry around.

RK