I am setting up a Four Star 120 with flaps.

I plan to use two Nanos to get the required number of channels and servo ports.

The first Nano will be installed in the fuse to control rudder. elevator, and throttle.

The second Nano will be installed in the wing for the four servos controlling the flaps and ailerons. Easy this way - only one connection for power.

The current servo/channel map is:

ch1 - aileron right
ch2 - elevator
ch3 - throttle
ch4 - rudder
ch5 - flap right
ch6 - flap left
ch7 - aileron left

Is it possible to set up the two Nanos this way and bind as master/slave?

First Nano (fuse):
ch2 - elevator
ch3 - throttle
ch4 - rudder

Second Nano (wing):
ch1 - aileron right
ch5 - flap right
ch6 - flap left
ch7 - aileron left

I have the device programmer. Thanks for any advice.

Paul

Yes, this is easy. You need to bind both receivers at the same time (one slave, one master). Afterwards, you would program each receiver individually using the XDP. Set the channel mapping and failsafe however you like (don't forget to upload the changes). After both receivers are programmed you are ready to go.

Originally Posted by JimDrew

Yes, this is easy. You need to bind both receivers at the same time (one slave, one master). Afterwards, you would program each receiver individually using the XDP. Set the channel mapping and failsafe however you like (don't forget to upload the changes). After both receivers are programmed you are ready to go.

Redundancy using Nano Receivers.
Sorry, if this has breen covered before, but can not find this in the manual or elsewhere. I am Maybe going with this solution, but need to know everything about it.
What kind of redundancy do we get with master/slave solution and one battery on each. I guess we still have controll over master nano Rx, if we loose power on the slave nano Rx.
But what happens if we loose i.e. power on the master nano Rx. Does the Slave Rx still work.

Ok, got it done - works great!

Another question: I left channel #1 (aileron right) on the master receiver, but am not plugging any servos into that spot.

Channel #1 also appears on the slave receiver into which the right aileron servo is plugged.

Is this ok? Is it simply a duplication of channel #1 on both receivers?

Please advise. Thanks,

Paul

Originally Posted by Doffen24

Redundancy using Nano Receivers.
Sorry, if this has breen covered before, but can not find this in the manual or elsewhere. I am Maybe going with this solution, but need to know everything about it.
What kind of redundancy do we get with master/slave solution and one battery on each. I guess we still have controll over master nano Rx, if we loose power on the slave nano Rx.
But what happens if we loose i.e. power on the master nano Rx. Does the Slave Rx still work.

Redundancy is not possible without some type of external box to get the signals from two receivers and compare the difference.

The Master/Slave functionality was strictly to add extra channels.

Originally Posted by FlyingW

Ok, got it done - works great!

Another question: I left channel #1 (aileron right) on the master receiver, but am not plugging any servos into that spot.

Channel #1 also appears on the slave receiver into which the right aileron servo is plugged.

Is this ok? Is it simply a duplication of channel #1 on both receivers?

Please advise. Thanks,

Paul

Yes, you can duplicate any channels on any of the receivers. In fact, I have done setups where I have 4 channels 1's on the same receiver. I will recommend that you do not split surfaces between receivers. By this I mean, put the left aileron on one receiver and the right aileron on a different receiver. Why? If one of the two receivers loses signal, it can become out of sync when it reconnects and you can momentarily (depending on the servo speed) have two surfaces the same direction. If you want to do this anyway, I would recommend that the failsafe be set to USER (not HOLD) with the user defined position being neutral. You can still fly a plane just fine with one aileron locked in the neutral position and the other one operating correctly. If you have two receivers in a plane, you can see from the range test exactly what happens when one receiver loses signal before the other one does and have an understanding of what might happen should a receiver go into failsafe.

I setup my planes with the two or more associated surfaces on the same receiver. So, for 3D planes I have one receiver for the ailerons and elevator halves, and another for the rudder rack, throttle, smoke, etc.

Here is a thought. Fail safe has user and hold options. How about a third option of off. For the areas with ganged servos driving a surface connect each of the servos to a different Rx. If one Rx fails one of the ganged servos will need to be free wheeling to allow the working servo to continue operating in a degraded mode.

Originally Posted by twang

Here is a thought. Fail safe has user and hold options. How about a third option of off. For the areas with ganged servos driving a surface connect each of the servos to a different Rx. If one Rx fails one of the ganged servos will need to be free wheeling to allow the working servo to continue operating in a degraded mode.

XPS has an even better solution for ganged servos in the works though...

Originally Posted by JimDrew

Redundancy is not possible without some type of external box to get the signals from two receivers and compare the difference.

The Master/Slave functionality was strictly to add extra channels.

Originally Posted by JimDrew

Yes, you can duplicate any channels on any of the receivers. In fact, I have done setups where I have 4 channels 1's on the same receiver. I will recommend that you do not split surfaces between receivers. By this I mean, put the left aileron on one receiver and the right aileron on a different receiver. Why? If one of the two receivers loses signal, it can become out of sync when it reconnects and you can momentarily (depending on the servo speed) have two surfaces the same direction. If you want to do this anyway, I would recommend that the failsafe be set to USER (not HOLD) with the user defined position being neutral. You can still fly a plane just fine with one aileron locked in the neutral position and the other one operating correctly. If you have two receivers in a plane, you can see from the range test exactly what happens when one receiver loses signal before the other one does and have an understanding of what might happen should a receiver go into failsafe.

I setup my planes with the two or more associated surfaces on the same receiver. So, for 3D planes I have one receiver for the ailerons and elevator halves, and another for the rudder rack, throttle, smoke, etc.

Will all Rx go to failsafe if signal is lost from either master or slave Rx ,as it was a single Rx (Both Rx act as one Rx) Right?

Originally Posted by Doffen24

Will all Rx go to failsafe if signal is lost from either master or slave Rx ,as it was a single Rx (Both Rx act as one Rx) Right?

From reading Jim's description in the "quote" you quoted, I would say no to your question....

That is why he is recommending that you split surfaces between receivers.... that is, in case one looses signal on one receiver the second receiver can be used to fly the plane.....Jim gave the example of loosing one aileron......

Originally Posted by twang

Here is a thought. Fail safe has user and hold options. How about a third option of off. For the areas with ganged servos driving a surface connect each of the servos to a different Rx. If one Rx fails one of the ganged servos will need to be free wheeling to allow the working servo to continue operating in a degraded mode.

There is a third option 'OFF'. This turns off the PWM signal going to the servo so it 'free wheels'.

Originally Posted by Doffen24

Will all Rx go to failsafe if signal is lost from either master or slave Rx ,as it was a single Rx (Both Rx act as one Rx) Right?

Only the receiver that has a signal loss will go into failsafe. The other receiver (if not having reception issues) will not.

These are two separate receivers, not joined or sharing any info between them.

Originally Posted by JuanRodriguez

From reading Jim's description in the "quote" you quoted, I would say no to your question....

That is why he is recommending that you split surfaces between receivers.... that is, in case one looses signal on one receiver the second receiver can be used to fly the plane.....Jim gave the example of loosing one aileron......

I DON'T recommend splitting the surfaces UNLESS you are going to set the failsafe to a neutral position for each controlled surface. A good example of a potential problem is if two receivers were to control each elevator half. Even if one surface went neutral because of a failsafe, pulling or pushing the functioning elevator half would induce a roll. It all depends on your personal preference of what happens during a failsafe. The good news is that we really don't need to worry about signal loss.

Originally Posted by JimDrew

Only the receiver that has a signal loss will go into failsafe. The other receiver (if not having reception issues) will not.

These are two separate receivers, not joined or sharing any info between them.

If that is the case, we have some kind of redundancy. If one Rx stop working because of Power issue or signal loss, we could still have some controll
over some of the servoes (if servo-config/failsafe are set correct). So it is better to have two Receivers then one.....

Or what?

I have noted that the two receivers started with people that were sponsored and had access to all the RX they wanted. Why then not use two RX and promote that. With two 72 mhz RX they would both have signal problems at the same time. But even with the 72 mhz RX how many RX have you ever seen just fail during flight.

Now with 2.4mhz I just don't have signal loss. Never seen a 2.4mhz RX fail in flight. (I always exclude Spectrum) That takes us to the battery. In my larger birds I always use two batteries with two connections to the RX. In the over 50 planes I own, with the latest, 2.4 mhz equipment, I have never had a problem.

So my TF B-25, 50cc P-47, 50cc P-40, 100cc Extra, 50cc Extra, etc. all fly with one RX and two batteries.

Please note that with all the multiple RX that Spectrum uses in some of their DSM2 stuff guys still lost aircraft. So more than one RX did not save the plane. Point is that all you really need is one GOOD 2.4mhz RX. IMHO