gunfyter

at the risk of repetitive, i`ll ask this question... which radio is the preferred radio for turbine jets? thanx in advance, gunfyter[8D]

trioval00

My Feedback: (17)

you will find many different types of radios being used, I myself use JR's 8103 and alot of other JR guys use the 10X. I am not a futaba guy any more, so I will let them answer this question



mark

BlackCloud

My Feedback: (12)

LMAO....perfect RCU name to be asking such a question to stir up some battles.
JR 10X was my choice.

BC

AFTERBURNER1

My Feedback: (80)

JR 10X

AlW

My Feedback: (17)

JR10X XMTR JR REC/SERVOS
Al Watson

DrScoles

My Feedback: (18)

Its weird, seems like the majority of jet guys use JR....



Majority of heli guys use Futaba....

With the 14MZ out... unless JR makes a comeback, I would think that Jet guys(scale in particular) would be jumping at the chance to have 14 channels, and no matchboxes.... futaba has independant sub trims......

Here's another one of my favorites....




I felt the difference with the 652, 8103, and 10X.... Jr makes great servos, but IMO their transmitters and receivers are way behind.... I think JR finally came out with a synthesized module.... With the 14MZ, you just point the TX at the plane and you can change the freq. Not being able to assign switches kills me.... as does the matchbox thing... "here, our radio can't do this, so you have to buy more of our stuff so you can gang servos together.....change channels......

Remember... its just one persons opinion

Flame suit on...

Mike

Silver182

My Feedback: (2)

14MZ is the best on the market today... more features & channels than you'll need, great R/F link, synth all-channel...and a fail-safe system you can actually use.
Lee H. DeMary
AMA 36099

747drvr

My Feedback: (5)

I use the 14MZ but have also used the Futaba 9 CAP . Jets tend to eat up the channels very quickly . That's the main reason I bought the 14MZ . Aside from that , all manufacturers make good equipment.

Marc

sirrom

My Feedback: (4)

Started with a Futaba 6x, then Futaba 8U super, then Futaba 9Z, and now Futaba 14Z. Never looked back at any step of the way.


Patrick

mdelzer

It is all marketing. I would say that the majority of Radios purchased has more to do with outside influence then it does on actual research. Back when the Jet age was really taking off with turbines there wasn't much of an internet to go out and look up info on and ask questions. Certain people had already made their radio seletions for one reason or another (possibly sponsorship). Now with that new sponsor hat on, the current jet jocks of the time would recommend the use of that system for a multitude of reasons. Probably more often then not because they knew the system inside and out at that point and knew they would have to provide some support to the new guys (and customers). Just about any radio with 8 or more channels is more then capable of supporting the simplest jets. At a certain point it becomes a taste test more then anything. Coke or Pepsi? Do you call it soda or pop? It's all the same, just different.

JMHO

Mark

....oh and it's pop and I prefer pepsi

Shok

My Feedback: (28)

JR 9303
Love it!

BlackCloud

My Feedback: (12)

Mark,
You forgot Ford Vs. Chevy

BC

erbroens

I have been happy with Futaba in the last 25 years .. and it seems that it´s radio waves are good
enough for a very wide speed range envelope!

Enrique

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

None of the radios is even close to being perfect IMO, and so what you end up selecting is to some extent a compromise based on which one you dislike the least.

A few years ago I figured that to be fair I should try the top of the line radio (at the time) from a couple of manufacturers for my jets, so I bought both the JR 10X and the Futaba WC2 and played with both. The 10X is now used regularly, while the WC2 normally just sits in a cupboard right next to the cat litter ... 'nuff said - but what counts as a "good" radio is very subjective, so you'll find other people who find the 10X radio to be as unimpressive as I found the WC2 to be.

As for the new 14 channel Futaba - nope, as a long time software engineer I definitely know better than to use any flavor of WinDoze in a safety-critical application (and the so-called "answers" that the Futaba reps give when questioned about the OS just shows that they are simply parotting the official line without having even the slightest clue about the subject they're professing to reassure you about).

Don't forget to look beyond JR & Futaba... Multiplex offers radios with phenomenal features and capabilities - too bad they're in the dark ages when it comes to ergonomically designed TX cases. If they'd build a decent TX case, and put the switches etc somewhere sensible, I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

Gordon

Stig Andersen

I'm using the Graupner MX-22 (I think it's called JR 9X in the US) Previously I used a Futaba Radio and was very happy with it. Only reason why I changed to Graupner was, that I wanted 12 channels.

erbroens

Gordon, why you dont take out the 9WC out of the cupboard near the cat litter and donate it for
a kid starting r/c or a friend in your area that would use it?

Seems to be a logical idea.


Best regards, Enrique

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

It's currently set up for a jet that I haven't flown for maybe 2 years or so - I plan on selling the whole setup as a job-lot one of these days. Just need to find the time to get around to it.

volkan

thats what im using, and no probs with it, its still new so im getting used to the switch from futaba to jr. But good so far,
its basicly a JR 9X with the Graupner program

DrScoles

My Feedback: (18)

Gordon,

the MZ has two processors... the windows is soley for running the menus and display... If it has a brain fart, it does not affect the interface betwen tx and rx.... Lots of people have brought that up, understandably so... however, you're not gonna lose control of the model if the windows side of the house has issues...

Mike

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

That's the afore-mentioned "company line" answer that we always get, which actually does NOT answer the question at all ... it's a non-answer response that seems to get trotted out to try to fool the people who don't actually know anything about how computer comm's work.

See http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=2534885 etc. for details of why this "answer" is not an answer at all.

Gordon

pilott34

Im using the Futaba 9Z...no probs.

Mike

DrScoles

My Feedback: (18)

Hard to believe that any electronics manufacturer would spend the time and money to develop a transmitter using a system that could easliy down a $10k airplane via a software glitch... I don't think Futaba is that stupid. The windows portion can freeze up, haven't heard of a single lost plane because of it. Anyone else?

The "company line" statement is probably meant for those of us mere mortals who do not have an electronics/software background....

Gordon, go to www.14mz.com they have explanations on everything, maybe you could come up with something and share it with those of us who are software challenged...?

Any rationally thinking person has to agree that it would be suicide for Futaba to release a product that could easily shut down the transmitting function in the radio.... There will be better radios than the MZ down the line, I'm sure JR will top it eventually, but for now, it kicks ass and chews bubblegum....

Mike

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Given how new the system is and how few there are out there, that aint surprising... and just coz it aint happened yet doesn't mean it can't.

As to how much money & time Futaba spent on this & the idea that that somehow makes it a good system, maybe you oughta do a web search for some of the problems found so far. These include having the system freeze, having problems with the RX, etc., etc. So - how come that still happened despite the amount of time & money Futaba already spent ? Simple answer - spending time & money does not gaurantee anything except that time & money have both been used.


Indeed - it's probably meant to reassure people who don't understand that the reassurances don't mean anything.


I'm just about to head home ... can't type in an explanation in the few minutes I have right now, so I'll come back to this topic in a little while... (promise)

I certainly didn't say that it could EASILY shut down - just that Futaba's "there are two processors so if the one running Windows freezes it can't possibly affect the other" line is bogus.

Gordon

J. Campbell

My Feedback: (31)

I have mostly always flown futaba from the start, i think you will find that most guys stick with what they started out with.. Futaba has assignable switches, is a little more cost effective, i "personally" think they range check better on the ground.. JR however has easier programming "if you are new to it" and has the DSC.. If you dont own a radio i think you will be better off with JR as most JET pilots use it and can help you and can copy thier programs to you... I am thinking about going over to a 10x for just this reason and i want several 3 position switches.. The 14 mz is just way out of line on price for me, i keep hoping that futaba will upgrade their 9 ZAP to a 10 ch.. If that were to happen i would NOT buy the 10X...

At the end of the day they ALL work.. One is NOT better than the other, they just are a little different in features... also it bascially comes down to who will have the new 2.4 system running without issues.. Russ

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

OK - so why does the "Windows only runs on the one processor, the flight info is processed on the other, so if the Windows stuff hangs it can't affect your flight info" answer not cut it ?

Let's start with an (oversimplified) analogy, and then we'll look into a little more detail (without getting TOO technical, I promise).

OK - first the analogy. Let's say my boss & I share an office ; he is always getting sick, and a lot of the time I end up being given his germs and getting sick too. So, we make a change, and get separate offices. Now he (Windows) is in his office (processor), and I'm in mine. Since we now are in separate offices, him getting sick can't cause me to get sick, right ? Wrong ... since we still have to work together, we must periodically meet face to face. Although this means that the risk of me catching the cold from him has been reduced since I'm not cohabiting with him, our necessary interaction means that the risk still exists.

Now, don't take the "cold" analogy too far and think I'm talking about viruses & stuff, coz I'm not ... I'm just pointing out that separating two things "most of the way" is not the same as keeping them 100% isolated.

Now let's consider the software. Since the "but we have two processors" idea implies that a single processor would be scarier, let's first consider the "single process, single processor" approach. The things to be done by the software include (but are not limited to) the following simplified steps:

[ul][*] Play music, if applicable.[*] Check timer, voltage levels, etc to decide whether to isue a "warning" beep etc.[*] Decide what info is to be displayed on-screen, and send that info to the LCD driver.[*] Poll (touch)screen & other input devices to check for user input ; if user proramming input recieved, modify the configuration data.[*] Poll sticks, switches etc to determine control inputs[*] For each channel:[*] - Look up configuration data to determine settings for reversing, expo, rates, end points etc;[*] - Combining hte above data with the stick / switch (etc) position, calculate the output signal component for that channel.[*] Calculate checksum (PCM)[*] Pass signal to RF section for transmission.
[/ul]

... and the above would be done in a "loop" (i.e when you have done the last item in the list, start over again at the top. By "configuration data", I mean the data hat is stored about (a) the TX as a whole, and (b) this model in particular - such as what end-points you have set, whether channel number X is reversed or not, etc).

Now, each of the above "functions" in the list is not "atomic" - it is implemented by section of code that may involve many lines of code and quite likely a loop or two in each as well. Now, when we talk about a program "hanging", that frequently means that we manage to get into a loop that we aren't able to get out of - whether in the program code itself, or in the operating system (the "OS", which is just a program itself). So, let's say that we are in the play music function, and either our function or the OS hangs. We may spend all our time issuing a single note, or pausing between notes). The result is that we never get out of "play music" mode in order to progress to the part where we build up a signal and send it to be transmitted. That's bad.

No problem, you say - we'll have TWO processors and separate processes on each, and the code that plays music and all that guff will be on one processor while the code that creates and sends our RF signal is on another - so even if we get stuck playing music on the one running Windows, we can still generate & send signals. Problem solved ! Not quite....

(...continued in next post)