Thread Tools
Jun 14, 2019, 08:38 AM
Registered User
EvanM's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexGalore
What motors/props/battery are you using?
(Inquiring minds, and all that, you know...)
Here are a couple of threads to look through when you get the itch!
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...-made-painless
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...raded-versions
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Jun 16, 2019, 06:40 AM
Registered User
Hi again, unfortunately I couldn't test the DR with DX5e on Friday since access to my favourite testing field was effectively blocked... Will try somewhere else later today.

I got a reply from HH concerning the issue though. It comes to that "full range" means line of sight with the integrated receiver. For FPV they recommend a "real full range receiver like the AR6600T", which apparently can be used - but only "with a lot of effort" - I'm going to ask them how, just out of curiosity.

As expected, they also say that using a diversity transmitter would help, and sent me a setup file for the DR for the DX6 G3. If tests with DX5e are successful I could indeed imagine getting one since the DX5e really has a low-end feel to it. I can always sell it later and go for an MPM on Taranis when I feel more like fiddling around than I do now.
Jun 16, 2019, 07:40 AM
Up! Up! And Away!
GottaZoom's Avatar
Hmmm, ~1/2 mile on my DR oem receiver seems like full range .... can't even see it at that range.

Guessing that RX does not have SAFE. If you'd rather use a "full range" Spektrum RX, then cross you fingers that one of hardline's AR636 test files will work for the DR, too. Having 100% rudder could be useful with diff thrust. Still, I wouldn't expect longer range than I'm already getting with either of those - but a remote RX could help maintain signal visibility to the TX.

You can still do a range test even is you can't fly. Better if you can get the model 2-3 feet off the ground, say put the model up on top of a wooden table or bench. My buddy holds mine for me and we coordinate by phone during a full range test.

PS - the X7 (and similar T12) work as simulator radios, too. If you get a DX6 you might be tempted to sell the X7 .... probably more so it it was a DX9.
Last edited by GottaZoom; Jun 16, 2019 at 07:48 AM.
Jun 16, 2019, 08:31 AM
Registered User
TBH, I still don't get the concept of range test. I read how it works, but how can it guarantee the extra say 300-350m I'd need to get to your 1/2 mile? As I understand it, you put it at fixed distance of 28m and then check it. I would imagine it'd make more sense to keep walking and check continuously, especially if you want to compare 2 transmitters?

I definitely won't try to add an external receiver to the DR - not only is the recommended one quite expensive (when you normally live in the FrSky world ) but it's also against my RTF approach to this model.

In what way is a DX6 or 9 so much better than an X7 that I would want to sell that one? I can't see myself leaving OTX and FrSky - would require too many receiver changes, time to learn a new OS - and too much money.
Jun 16, 2019, 09:04 AM
pull up -- PULL UP!!!
Think of range test as a go/no-go check for something wrong. If you have an RF shadow from a nearby battery or something, the range test might alert you. Passing the test doesn't guarantee a range-certain. But failing it is pretty definitive.
Jun 16, 2019, 12:31 PM
Up! Up! And Away!
GottaZoom's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 747TestPilot
TBH, I still don't get the concept of range test. I read how it works, but how can it guarantee the extra say 300-350m I'd need to get to your 1/2 mile? As I understand it, you put it at fixed distance of 28m and then check it. I would imagine it'd make more sense to keep walking and check continuously, especially if you want to compare 2 transmitters?
The inbuilt range test is just a low power substitute for testing the real range. It's a convenience. The Frsky low power test is essentially the same. A good TX/RX combo might test out many, many yards further than the ~28 meter/90 foot/30 pace minimum.

When you test with several different transmitters and receivers and models you start to get a feel for the go/no go test but also for better and worse. As I said, what really differentiates the better setups is when they pass with some blockage (at either or both ends of the test). On the most problematic and marginal receivers they will fail very quickly with only a small bit of blockage (say just a hand in front of the either antenna). As I think Rex suggested earlier, your DR may have a marginal RX and if that is the case, it won't matter how good of a TX you have.

EDIT: Our DX4e TXs have tested out the same range as DX6i and module. DX5 uses same radio module as the DX4 and DX6i, IIRC. Haven't tested a DXe. My bud's Turnigy DIY TX (module that gets wired inside another radio) for his T6 and i10 both tested out to have significantly better range (using low power) than any of my other tests.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 747TestPilot
In what way is a DX6 or 9 so much better than an X7 that I would want to sell that one? ....
Really intended a bit tongue in cheek. But some have done just that and they can be perfectly happy doing so. Still, I've gotten so comfortable with OTX basics that I no longer have a craving for the simpleness of my old DX4e or DXe or whatever. The T12 has become my DXe even though it is basically an X7 with a module.

The airware radios do offer one already familiar with traditional TX setup some appeal as they add important features (like reassigning switches to a different channel) as they evolve to keep things familiar. At least for people who don't wonder about all the stuff attached to (buried in) wing types and a few other setup options. I started with a Flysky T6 and that seemed mind-numbingly complex when I first started in RC planes even though it was only a half-step better at progrmming than the DX6i that followed.

If I were spending DX6 or better money now, I'd want an even better OTX radio instead. The first months one has OTX it's hard not to wonder about how much yet will be learned. But at some point I realized that a basic OTX setup was pretty easy with many, many options to use or ignore as I choose AND that there was no rush or pain to learn it all if I didn't want to use a feature. Still, like they say, different strokes for different folks.
Last edited by GottaZoom; Jun 16, 2019 at 01:24 PM.
Jun 16, 2019, 05:21 PM
Registered User
Ok, here I am with some results although they do not include any flying because: a) Throttle via DX5e wasn't working at the field (but it did at home), so I'll do the rebinding without throttle trim down after all (didn't have the binding plug with me of course) and b) It was a little too gusty for risky testing anyway.

So instead I had someone walk with the plane to the place where the dropouts started to occur, constantly moving the right stick. With the DX5e and antenna horizontally, the range was already better even on ground: about 280m. And it probably would have been ever better if there hadn't been bushes and trees between me and the plane at that point, because the path took a turn (no way to leave the path with trees/bushes on one side and a cornfield on the other - wouldn't want to upset the farmer ).

I also temporarily pointed the antenna "the DXe way" - signal was instantly gone. Also I held the DX5e comfortably (low) all the time.

Now some extrapolation from people with lots of experience would be nice... What could this translate to in the air?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaZoom
Our DX4e TXs have tested out the same range as DX6i and module. DX5 uses same radio module as the DX4 and DX6i, IIRC. Haven't tested a DXe. My bud's Turnigy DIY TX (module that gets wired inside another radio) for his T6 and i10 both tested out to have significantly better range (using low power) than any of my other tests.
Do you know if the DX6 G3 also uses that module?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaZoom
Really intended a bit tongue in cheek. But some have done just that and they can be perfectly happy doing so. Still, I've gotten so comfortable with OTX basics that I no longer have a craving for the simpleness of my old DX4e or DXe or whatever.
While I absolutely can't say that I understand all of OTX, I also feel that I've spent so much time on getting things going on it, that I'm not willing to throw that away and switch to a different "universe". And once again, all the Spektrum stuff is so much more expensive, FrSky works just as well. Also Spektrum is not really made for quads at all - I guess they know they' ve lost that battle to FrSky. Consequently, I guess I'd have a hard time finding tutorial vids if I need help with something, while there are always dozens for OTX.

To me it seems Spektrum's main target audience is well-off, older pilots whose model club has simply been using it for ages and don't even know cheaper alternatives have come up.

By the way, I also had a DX6i once, but only one model on it, my first quad: Blade 350QX. I programmed it according to a HH video without even knowing what I was doing.

As I got into Betaflight, it's was practically automatic to get FrSky receivers, especially with the Q X7 just released and offering great value for money. I wasn't even thinking about keeping the DX6i because I wanted SD slot, voice alerts etc. - all the stuff that only the very expensive DX's had at the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaZoom
But at some point I realized that a basic OTX setup was pretty easy with many, many options to use or ignore as I choose AND that there was no rush or pain to learn it all if I didn't want to use a feature. Still, like they say, different strokes for different folks.
My main problem is that I set up new models so rarely that I've always forgotten the basics. But one can always copy a model and go from there...
Jun 16, 2019, 10:18 PM
Up! Up! And Away!
GottaZoom's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 747TestPilot
....So instead I had someone walk with the plane to the place where the dropouts started to occur, constantly moving the right stick. With the DX5e and antenna horizontally, the range was already better even on ground: about 280m. And it probably would have been ever better if there hadn't been bushes and trees between me and the plane at that point, because the path took a turn (no way to leave the path with trees/bushes on one side and a cornfield on the other - wouldn't want to upset the farmer ).

I also temporarily pointed the antenna "the DXe way" - signal was instantly gone. Also I held the DX5e comfortably (low) all the time.

Now some extrapolation from people with lots of experience would be nice... What could this translate to in the air?
Assuming you were in regular transmit mode (not range test) your range is going to be about the same ~300m from the TX. I've never tried more than about 75 paces in range test mode but doubt you could go that far with the TX beeping for low power.

Since your DR will be in some less than ideal orientations, the instant loss is problematic, however. Your effective range is probably whatever distance you can hold the DR pointed away from you and still have control. Go behind a tree or bushes and you may lose control if it is that sensitive. Same if you turn the TX for a moment.

Please do the 30 pace test with range test mode (IIRC it will beep the whole time), clear LOS and trying different orientations to see if you get pass/fail for 360 degrees. Then see if you have to go closer or can go much further, still with full working control and range test mode beeping. After that you can try adding blocking to see what distance you can go. Be sure to use the worst orientation (probably going away or pointed at you). Don't test for your best orientation because you don't want to fly that far and have it fail.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 747TestPilot
Do you know if the DX6 G3 also uses that module?
AFAIK, there is no JR module bay in most of the newer Spek radios.

My perception is that there are still people using a Spektrum remote RX tied to a FC because I see questions bout how to bind. Most of the flight controllers I've used will work with a DSM remote. A remote ("sat") RX is smaller, but it needs a FC or RX to convert the incoming radio to PWM for servo/throttle controls.

...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 747TestPilot
My main problem is that I set up new models so rarely that I've always forgotten the basics. But one can always copy a model and go from there...
I use the wizard most often, unless I'm doing something very similar that I already have. As you say, it helps to stay with it. Have been building a bunch of whoops, so plenty of practice with simple setups ... they only take a couple minutes with the wizard, setting a TC & mode, and then confirming channel direction.
Jun 18, 2019, 09:47 AM
Registered User
Has anybody tried the EMax RS2205 2300KV motors (3S or 4S) ?

I am thinking about a setup on 3S with two batteries 2200mAh and two Castle ESC's 25A. Propeller's: 2 x 5045.
With 3S this motor pulls up to 250 Watt. So in total at full throttle you have to feed 2x250 = 500 Watt.

I plan to put the batteries in parallel to the motor fairings.

It would be a powerful jet, but you have to watch the CG and of course the weight !?!


I still have a lot of 3S 2200mAh batteries, so that I favor above mentioned setup.
But 4S would also be interesting and give even much more power !?!
Jun 18, 2019, 11:03 AM
Up! Up! And Away!
GottaZoom's Avatar
Have used both 2304 and 2306 motors in addition to my favorite 2204s because they handled the steeper props. Others have used 2205, 2206 and 2208 also, IIRC. There have been some phenomenal power to weight motors produced over the last few years. But, as you say, more power leads to more suck and more weight to feed the suck.

I ran 2100 mAh with the larger motors and my bud ran slightly larger 2200+. They are powerful, but just heavy and still not even into warmliner speeds.

Been thinking of planning a 4S DR, but will probably try that with smaller motors where the watts aren't as high but hopefully efficiency can be better with lower weight.
Jun 18, 2019, 11:34 PM
Registered User
Success! With the old DX5e / horizontal antenna I easily passed the DXe point of dropout (240m) and reached 360m, which is more or less the end of the field, without a single dropout.

So unless the antenna in the DXe is a different one (I actually wonder how they put it in the "stub" - the adjustable part on the DX5e being rather long), antenna placement alone increased range by 50%, and I actually had the feeling I could have gone further. But leaving the field felt like pushing my luck too far, as it was also a bit gusty.

For the moment, I'm totally satisfied. If this works say 10 times, I might fly further, into another direction but that would be over water, so I'd better be sure...

I had already prepared a set of MinimOSD + GPS for this which I will now install. Originally I wanted to do it just because it was left from another model and I'm an OSD and GPS freak, but keeping track of distance to home should actually be very useful for further testing.

Anyway, I'm now enjoying flying the DR again.
Jun 19, 2019, 06:48 AM
Up! Up! And Away!
GottaZoom's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 747TestPilot
Success! With the old DX5e / horizontal antenna I easily passed the DXe point of dropout (240m) and reached 360m, which is more or less the end of the field, without a single dropout. ....
That's great!

Adding in vertical you are possibly 400m from the TX and perhaps pushing toward 500m. IIRC my math, LOS distance is the square root of the sum of the squares of ground and vertical distance.

I've pulled my DX4e apart and they seem to be built very similarly with same components from what I"ve seen online. On mine, the antenna was a short coaxial / shielded wire with a snap connector at the radio module. Was going to use it on my DSM hack module but the uncased kit I got ended up coming with its own antenna. The last 31mm of unshielded wire is all that is typical for a 0 db antenna on any of the 2.4 TXs and RXs. So far, I think I've seen maybe one antenna that was anything more than a standard quarter wave unity (no gain) antenna, but I don't remember it being the DX4 TX.

With your love of FPV and GPS, you might follow the Nano Goblin (NG). Using iNav with return to home by GPS is fairly common in that crowd and I'd expect the settings for the NG to adapt to the DR fairly easily. My betaflight experience is still very low, so I haven't yet tried something new to me like iNav branch or GPS with the DR. [Closest I've gotten is using a F1 CC3D FC that worked pretty well with default settings on the DR.]
Jun 24, 2019, 12:24 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaZoom
With your love of FPV and GPS, you might follow the Nano Goblin (NG). Using iNav with return to home by GPS is fairly common in that crowd and I'd expect the settings for the NG to adapt to the DR fairly easily. My betaflight experience is still very low, so I haven't yet tried something new to me like iNav branch or GPS with the DR. [Closest I've gotten is using a F1 CC3D FC that worked pretty well with default settings on the DR.]
I already tried that route last year. It mostly led to frustration and is one of the reasons I was looking for something like DR - instantly rewarding, forgiving, on-rails flying, no settings to mess with. Over months I was trying to get INAV running smoothly on a Nano Talon, but it never really worked out. It did fly but the yaw always felt like attached to a rubber band. Landing like that was always a nightmare and often led to a crash. I tried everything from Autotune to manual settings to make it work better but it never did. In the end I tried switching to Arduplane, but autumn got in the way, then winter.

For this year's flying season I changed two things: Software (Arduplane has been around for much longer and makes a more solid impression on me so far) and plane. Instead of the futuristic FPV "brick" Nano Talon I'll try a traditionally shaped plane (Volantex Ranger G2) with a bigger wingspan and no v-tail to complicate things. It should just glide/fly more smoothly, so I might even dare switching to manual mode for troubleshooting (checking if problems are cause by plane or configuration).

So far I have half-assembled the Ranger G2 - assembly is rated "extremely easy" by reviewers, but when you've never installed control horns and push rods before, it still takes a while.

Ah yes, and in other news, I found a good deal on a DX6 G3...
Jun 29, 2019, 12:25 AM
Registered User
Does anyone know what the dual rates in the DR RTF transmitters are set to approximately?

I received a model profile for DX6 from HH but dual rates were not set up, and I would like them to be like on the DX(4/5)e before I start experimenting.

Can't wait to check the range with diversity...
Jun 29, 2019, 07:47 AM
Out Standing In The Field
RexGalore's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 747TestPilot
Does anyone know what the dual rates in the DR RTF transmitters are set to approximately?

I received a model profile for DX6 from HH but dual rates were not set up, and I would like them to be like on the DX(4/5)e before I start experimenting.

Can't wait to check the range with diversity...
Back in 2013, Quietguy posted that high rates were 100% and low were 70%.
That seems correct in my memory, as well.

Good luck with your 'speriments!


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Product E-Flite Apprentice S 15e RTF With SAFE Technology.... ChuckTseeker Beginner Training Area (Aircraft-Electric) 10293 Jul 12, 2019 08:56 AM
News 350 QX BNF With SAFE™ Technology by Blade® RCGroups Update Multirotor Drone Talk 25845 Oct 02, 2018 12:11 AM
Discussion New E-Flite Apprentice S w/ SAFE Technology Unboxing/Flight ManiacsDane Beginner Training Area (Aircraft-Electric) 0 May 31, 2013 01:46 PM
Article Hobbyzone Commander II Trainer RTF with Anti-Crash Technology Review jbourke Electric Plane Talk 7 Oct 16, 2008 09:29 PM