RC Groups

RC Groups
    Radios
        Poll Hitec Aurora 9 or Futaba 8FG ???

#1 nicnaimless Feb 25, 2010 08:14 PM

Hitec Aurora 9 or Futaba 8FG ???
 
I will be purchasing this TX to operate a quadcopter in AP applications similar to the mikrokopter and also to fly traditional helis.

I'm a bit of a newbie so I'd really appreciate opinions from the veterans.

Peace!

#2 RC Man Feb 26, 2010 05:36 AM

The Hitec is slow compared to the 8FG.

If you are into helicopters the Futaba FG series has the best programming that I have seen.

Does the Hitec have SD card and software upgrade capability?


?

#3 udogigahertz Feb 26, 2010 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RC Man (Post 14451507)
The Hitec is slow compared to the 8FG.

If you are into helicopters the Futaba FG series has the best programming that I have seen.

Does the Hitec have SD card and software upgrade capability?


?

SD card no but it is updatable by a separate device named "HPP 22 programmer" via internet.

Maybe for helicopters the T8FG would be the better choice? I do not know, because I don't fly helicopters.

Both transmitters have their pros and cons, both are very fine radios. The decision between them is not easy ........

Udo

#4 rod.d Feb 26, 2010 10:49 AM

I recently made this post in the 8FG thread:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showp...&postcount=453

I had the A9 on backorder for a while until I discovered the 8FG, and I am glad I got the Futaba. Of course everyone who has an A9 will tell you they love it, and I am sure they do. Just be careful looking at the specs and capabilities. The latency (52ms) was also an issue for me. The manual on the T8FG is not great, I will say that. Coming from Spektrum it is a bit of a jump, but I can see the potential. There is just a learning curve, the same as there was with my first TX.

#5 adaptabl Feb 26, 2010 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nicnaimless (Post 14448748)
I will be purchasing this TX to operate a quadcopter in AP applications similar to the mikrokopter and also to fly traditional helis.

I'm a bit of a newbie so I'd really appreciate opinions from the veterans.

Peace!

I would buy the A9. The speed issue will not matter since servo speed and reaction time make a far greater difference. The A9 is far superior in programming and value plus it has amazing stick feel being quad ball bearing (not bushing like the Futaba). That would greatly help you with Heli's. The biggest problem is finding an A9. They are in such high demand that it is dificult to find one. The higher end Futaba 10C is closer to the A9 in specs.

#6 rod.d Feb 26, 2010 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaptabl (Post 14454526)
I would buy the A9. The speed issue will not matter since servo speed and reaction time make a far greater difference. The A9 is far superior in programming and value. The biggest problem is finding an A9. They are in such high demand that it is dificult to find one.

This is the argument that everyone is making about the A9. What I can't seem to understand is (maybe you can help), the response time of all things involved contribute to the total response time. So if you have:

100ms human reaction time
52ms transmitter to receiver latency
.12ms servo latency
equals 152.12ms total latency for the servo to move to its full travel

That 52 ms could be cut down to 10 to 20ms and improve the total response time by up to 28% right (assuming 10ms)? Yes, people will have longer latency than the electronics. But the electronics contribute to the total response time, and in the case of the A9 it could be improved.

#7 Bigster Feb 26, 2010 01:29 PM

I have an A9 on order, but just looked at the 8FG on Tower. The SD card is, IMHO, a glaring omission in the Aurora. I'm not a heli pilot, so I'm also not familiar with the impact of latency to that degree.

But, would having the ability to do telemetry in the A9 be a plus for you in AP?

#8 adaptabl Feb 26, 2010 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rod.d (Post 14454585)
This is the argument that everyone is making about the A9. What I can't seem to understand is (maybe you can help), the response time of all things involved contribute to the total response time. So if you have:

100ms human reaction time
52ms transmitter to receiver latency
.12ms servo latency
equals 152.12ms total latency for the servo to move to its full travel

That 52 ms could be cut down to 10 to 20ms and improve the total response time by up to 28% right (assuming 10ms)? Yes, people will have longer latency than the electronics. But the electronics contribute to the total response time, and in the case of the A9 it could be improved.

You have a problem with your calculation. The servo speed is .12seconds or 120MS that needs to be added to this calculation.

100ms human reaction time (not a realistic time more like 250ms)
52ms transmitter to receiver latency
120ms or .12seconds servo latency
equals 270ms total latency for the servo to move to its full travel

total of 270ms for the servo to move to it's full travel. Reduce this be 30ms is about 11% difference in the very best case. An amount not noticeable.

#9 pilotpete2 Feb 26, 2010 01:38 PM

The 8FG gimbals are not bushed, they are ball-bearing;)
The A9 has more bling, but FASST has a well proven track record as far as link reliability :popcorn:
Pete

#10 renatoa Feb 26, 2010 01:38 PM

... fixed

#11 rod.d Feb 26, 2010 01:41 PM

Yep, that was my mistake!:o

Now I understand why it is not THAT big of a deal. Still, faster is faster and I am sticking to that! :D

#12 MikeMayberry Feb 26, 2010 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilotpete2 (Post 14454705)
The 8FG gimbals are not bushed, they are ball-bearing;)
The A9 has more bling, but FASST has a well proven track record as far as link reliability :popcorn:
Pete

Zero reported failures in 6 months with the Hitec AFHSS is a pretty good track record as well! :D

Aurora 9 can save unlimited models to the PC and has the ability to update it's firmware as well with the HPP-22 interface. Individual models can be transfered to another Aurora either by PC or direct with the trainer cord. So I don't see how an SD card advantage over this. More model memory I guess... but the Aurora already has 30 built in.

Mike.

#13 Jevgeniy Feb 26, 2010 04:23 PM

Cant say much about helicopters, but for planes Hitec seemed more interesting to me and I like it's intuitive GUI and touch screen menu, you can acess things much faster.
Futaba 8FG don't have flight conditions in plane mode, no telemetry, no iddle down as Hitec has (you can set it up at any moment using switch and throttle stick position), no trim adjust function. Of course if you need flight conditions you can set up your plane at sail plane mode using P.MIX for plane features like throttle curve. If you are using smoke pump and not linear Knife edge mix you will not have any one of 5 mixes left after main functions setup.
But Futaba have advantages like more 3-pos switches, virtual channels so you can create mixes without using actual channel as second, offset mix (you will have to use one channel for it on A9).
Must be some other differences, but I have named the one's I care and know.
Probably I should have mentioned Hitec scan mode which are very useful for FPV flying.
Review: Hitec Spectra AFHSS 2.4GHz receiver and module (part 3) (6 min 2 sec)


There are more functions for sail planes on Futaba 8 (12 preset mixes and the ones I have mentioned before - offset mix and virtual chanels which might be useful for sail plane flyers at some cases), don't know about choppers.

#14 tai626 Feb 26, 2010 06:39 PM

The SD card can be swap between 8FGs at field. So if my 8FG gets wet (knock the wood)during a contest, I can just insert my SD card into my buddy's 8FG, link my receiver and I am ready to go. The ATX Sd-10g has the same feature, but with more expensive proprietary card.
Tai

#15 DannyZRC Feb 26, 2010 07:35 PM

the A9 has more programming flexibility and will excel in non-standard applications where hand-wrought mixing is important.

if the quadcopter is such an application, then the A9 distinguishes itself.

if non-standard mixing isn't an issue, then the 8FG provides more outright performance in terms of latency response, but the A9 provides a more pleasant user interface and the novel telemetry feature.

the A9 is probably the better choice for anyone not already invested to FASST and also not overly concerned with latency.

the 8FG is still an excellent offering, but unless you're a competition flier I would say the A9's features are more everyday useful and provide for a better purchase.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:30 AM.