HELP! Spektrum DX7 radio failure?
07-18-2007, 05:34 AM
#26
Super Contributor
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sandwich, IL
Posts: 9,565
Originally Posted by Rabbitcreekok
Now if you make a hat out of tinfoil, preferable heavy duty Reynolds Wrap, the radio waves will bounce off the hat and be directed to the receiver in your airplane and reception will be improved. Also your status at the flying field will definitely change.
07-18-2007, 06:08 AM
#27
Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 847
Having read this thread and its reiteration of the need to point the antenna in a correct orientation leads me to believe the design is inherently flawed because with one and only one transmitter antenna the possibility exists that it will fail to send a signal that the plane can receive. Therefore, the design needs to be revised to provide two antennas oriented 90 degrees from one another. With two antennas it should cover a broad spectrum of transmission that will not be missed by the airplane receiver.
Just my two cents. I sure wouldn't by one of these radios if the antenna position / orientation is that critical. The failure mode effects are extremely expensive!!!
Just my two cents. I sure wouldn't by one of these radios if the antenna position / orientation is that critical. The failure mode effects are extremely expensive!!!
07-18-2007, 03:21 PM
#28
UNCLUB OWNER
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,406
Originally Posted by Rabbitcreekok
Now if you make a hat out of tinfoil, preferable heavy duty Reynolds Wrap, the radio waves will bounce off the hat and be directed to the receiver in your airplane and reception will be improved. Also your status at the flying field will definitely change.
I looked through my Spektrum DX7 instruction manual, and DID manage to find a statement about not pointing the antenna directly at your aircraft. It's on one of the last few pages of the manual... Again, it IS possible this was my problem... When I regained control of the P-51 (about 100 yards away, 10 feet off the ground, on the other side of the parking lot), I had lost sight of the airplane and thought I crashed it -- I hung my head low, and dropped the transmitter (the lanyard held it to my neck) -- THAT's when I saw the P-51, tried again, and saw that I had control of the aircraft!
Also, I'm wondering something -- does any RF radiate from the BASE of the antenna? What I mean to say is this -- if you bend the antenna 90 degrees, is your Spektrum radio effectively transmitting on two different antennas (90 degrees to eachother)?
07-18-2007, 03:27 PM
#29
UNCLUB OWNER
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,406
A few pictures of the carnage...
Here's the information I included with the Spektrum DX7 I shipped back for repair:
Rest In Pieces!!!
Spektrum DX7 radio lockout on July 16, 2007. First flight was at 7:10, with a duration of 15.6 minutes – no problems. Second flight (with fresh battery) was at 7:30, with a duration of 2.1 minutes – radio lockout for 10 seconds. Airplane nosed over from approximately 100 feet, and hit ground so hard it BOUNCED five to six feet in the air. After flight battery voltage was 16.52 volts. Battery was a CommonSenseRC 4s 3150 mAh LiPo. Speed controls were twin Castle Creations Phoenix 25’s. This airplane used a Dimension Engineering SmartBEC.
Here's the information I included with the Spektrum DX7 I shipped back for repair:
Rest In Pieces!!!
Spektrum DX7 radio lockout on July 16, 2007. First flight was at 7:10, with a duration of 15.6 minutes – no problems. Second flight (with fresh battery) was at 7:30, with a duration of 2.1 minutes – radio lockout for 10 seconds. Airplane nosed over from approximately 100 feet, and hit ground so hard it BOUNCED five to six feet in the air. After flight battery voltage was 16.52 volts. Battery was a CommonSenseRC 4s 3150 mAh LiPo. Speed controls were twin Castle Creations Phoenix 25’s. This airplane used a Dimension Engineering SmartBEC.
07-18-2007, 03:40 PM
#30
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 440
Originally Posted by Prof100
Having read this thread and its reiteration of the need to point the antenna in a correct orientation leads me to believe the design is inherently flawed because with one and only one transmitter antenna the possibility exists that it will fail to send a signal that the plane can receive. Therefore, the design needs to be revised to provide two antennas oriented 90 degrees from one another. With two antennas it should cover a broad spectrum of transmission that will not be missed by the airplane receiver.
Just my two cents. I sure wouldn't by one of these radios if the antenna position / orientation is that critical. The failure mode effects are extremely expensive!!!
Just my two cents. I sure wouldn't by one of these radios if the antenna position / orientation is that critical. The failure mode effects are extremely expensive!!!
07-18-2007, 06:54 PM
#31
Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 847
Originally Posted by Lip84
By this logic you shouldnt be flying ANY rc aircraft. The same rules apply to 27, 72, and 2.4 ghz radio waves. So be careful where you point your Tx no matter what the frequency. Just thought I would let you know
07-18-2007, 07:48 PM
#33
Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 847
Originally Posted by Lip84
Haha, yea...control line FTW 
Do you have a link to a source on that Prof? I dont doubt you but am curious since I have not seen this and have been doing research on the DX7 system recently.
lip84
Do you have a link to a source on that Prof? I dont doubt you but am curious since I have not seen this and have been doing research on the DX7 system recently.
lip84
I don't have an annotated bibliography of my conclusions since I feel like I am being cross-examined in a product liability case by the defendant, Spektrum radios. Seriously, I just recall in several reviews I have read the authors dwelled on the importance of proper antenna orientation. Even Horizon's (they market them) writeup devotes 5 paragraphs to signal fade and how the "dual link" featue counters any fade (a euphemism for losing contact) problems. See below:
http://www.horizonhobby.com/Articles...ID=1535&Page=2
My thoughts are the addition of the dual link feature is a counter measure for potential or probable signal losses.
07-18-2007, 07:49 PM
#34
Super Contributor
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sandwich, IL
Posts: 9,565
Originally Posted by Prof100
Having read this thread and its reiteration of the need to point the antenna in a correct orientation leads me to believe the design is inherently flawed because with one and only one transmitter antenna the possibility exists that it will fail to send a signal that the plane can receive. Therefore, the design needs to be revised to provide two antennas oriented 90 degrees from one another. With two antennas it should cover a broad spectrum of transmission that will not be missed by the airplane receiver.
Just my two cents. I sure wouldn't by one of these radios if the antenna position / orientation is that critical. The failure mode effects are extremely expensive!!!
Just my two cents. I sure wouldn't by one of these radios if the antenna position / orientation is that critical. The failure mode effects are extremely expensive!!!
07-18-2007, 08:23 PM
#35
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 440
Prof,
I meant no disrespect and did not want to make you feel like you were being cross examined in a court case. You simply made me aware of information that I had not been aware of prior to your input and wanted to see it first hand. that is all. I am sorry if you felt that I was attacking you, that was not my intent at all.
Lip84
I meant no disrespect and did not want to make you feel like you were being cross examined in a court case. You simply made me aware of information that I had not been aware of prior to your input and wanted to see it first hand. that is all. I am sorry if you felt that I was attacking you, that was not my intent at all.
Lip84
07-18-2007, 08:25 PM
#36
Super Contributor
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sandwich, IL
Posts: 9,565
Originally Posted by Prof100
lip84,
I don't have an annotated bibliography of my conclusions since I feel like I am being cross-examined in a product liability case by the defendant, Spektrum radios. Seriously, I just recall in several reviews I have read the authors dwelled on the importance of proper antenna orientation. Even Horizon's (they market them) writeup devotes 5 paragraphs to signal fade and how the "dual link" featue counters any fade (a euphemism for losing contact) problems. See below:
http://www.horizonhobby.com/Articles...ID=1535&Page=2
My thoughts are the addition of the dual link feature is a counter measure for potential or probable signal losses.
I don't have an annotated bibliography of my conclusions since I feel like I am being cross-examined in a product liability case by the defendant, Spektrum radios. Seriously, I just recall in several reviews I have read the authors dwelled on the importance of proper antenna orientation. Even Horizon's (they market them) writeup devotes 5 paragraphs to signal fade and how the "dual link" featue counters any fade (a euphemism for losing contact) problems. See below:
http://www.horizonhobby.com/Articles...ID=1535&Page=2
My thoughts are the addition of the dual link feature is a counter measure for potential or probable signal losses.
07-18-2007, 08:46 PM
#37
Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 847
Originally Posted by Lip84
Prof,
I meant no disrespect and did not want to make you feel like you were being cross examined in a court case. You simply made me aware of information that I had not been aware of prior to your input and wanted to see it first hand. that is all. I am sorry if you felt that I was attacking you, that was not my intent at all.
Lip84
I meant no disrespect and did not want to make you feel like you were being cross examined in a court case. You simply made me aware of information that I had not been aware of prior to your input and wanted to see it first hand. that is all. I am sorry if you felt that I was attacking you, that was not my intent at all.
Lip84
lip84,
I never felt disrespected nor did I feel I was being attacked. My response was simply a poor attempt at humor.
I would like to have a radio system that doesn't require crystal changes, is bullet proof in terms of interference, and does not fade or lose communication with a plane. The new Spektrum radio systems are extremely appealing because they appear to meet those needs.
However, my experience taught me (albeit scattered over 25 years of RC in both surface and air) was alarmed by the amount of information provided about the veracity of the new Spektrum systems in terms of fade or communication loss. I am always suspicious when I hear a sales pitch that stresses features to counter problems you might have with the product you are considering buying.
07-18-2007, 08:55 PM
#38
Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 847
Originally Posted by gfdengine204
And when I read those statements, I took them to mean the Dual Link feature is not to overcome a TX shortcoming, but the possibility of the rx antenna being shielded by an engine or motor in the aircraft.
07-18-2007, 09:02 PM
#39
Community Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: McAlester, Oklahoma
Posts: 10,811
Originally Posted by Prof100
lip84,
I never felt disrespected nor did I feel I was being attacked. My response was simply a poor attempt at humor.
I would like to have a radio system that doesn't require crystal changes, is bullet proof in terms of interference, and does not fade or lose communication with a plane. The new Spektrum radio systems are extremely appealing because they appear to meet those needs.
However, my experience taught me (albeit scattered over 25 years of RC in both surface and air) was alarmed by the amount of information provided about the veracity of the new Spektrum systems in terms of fade or communication loss. I am always suspicious when I hear a sales pitch that stresses features to counter problems you might have with the product you are considering buying.
I never felt disrespected nor did I feel I was being attacked. My response was simply a poor attempt at humor.
I would like to have a radio system that doesn't require crystal changes, is bullet proof in terms of interference, and does not fade or lose communication with a plane. The new Spektrum radio systems are extremely appealing because they appear to meet those needs.
However, my experience taught me (albeit scattered over 25 years of RC in both surface and air) was alarmed by the amount of information provided about the veracity of the new Spektrum systems in terms of fade or communication loss. I am always suspicious when I hear a sales pitch that stresses features to counter problems you might have with the product you are considering buying.
With our our old systems, we has a long antenna trailing behind our models as they flew. Or the antenna was hidden inside the fuselage or wing, but it was long.
The 2.4 Ghz systems use short, 2" or so, antennas, due to the higher frequency. Because these antennas could be blanked out by a large lump of metal in the front, read engine, they use 2 separate links and antennas. This is to assure that they can always receive a signal. Folks are flying 200mph turbine powered jets with the 2.4 Ghz systems.
With anything new there are going to be lots of rumors about the systems, as well as some problems. These problems will be reported with enthusiasm, as they should. The old systems have problems but they aren't reported on forums since it is not news.
I like my DX systems and have had no problems. But then, I did not have problems with the 72 Mhz systems.
07-18-2007, 09:19 PM
#40
Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 847
Originally Posted by Rabbitcreekok
With our our old systems, we has a long antenna trailing behind our models as they flew. Or the antenna was hidden inside the fuselage or wing, but it was long.
The 2.4 Ghz systems use short, 2" or so, antennas, due to the higher frequency. Because these antennas could be blanked out by a large lump of metal in the front, read engine, they use 2 separate links and antennas. This is to assure that they can always receive a signal. Folks are flying 200mph turbine powered jets with the 2.4 Ghz systems.
With anything new there are going to be lots of rumors about the systems, as well as some problems. These problems will be reported with enthusiasm, as they should. The old systems have problems but they aren't reported on forums since it is not news.
I like my DX systems and have had no problems. But then, I did not have problems with the 72 Mhz systems.
The 2.4 Ghz systems use short, 2" or so, antennas, due to the higher frequency. Because these antennas could be blanked out by a large lump of metal in the front, read engine, they use 2 separate links and antennas. This is to assure that they can always receive a signal. Folks are flying 200mph turbine powered jets with the 2.4 Ghz systems.
With anything new there are going to be lots of rumors about the systems, as well as some problems. These problems will be reported with enthusiasm, as they should. The old systems have problems but they aren't reported on forums since it is not news.
I like my DX systems and have had no problems. But then, I did not have problems with the 72 Mhz systems.
Jim,
Great comments, thanks. I, too, have never had any problems with 72 mhz radios.
07-18-2007, 10:37 PM
#42
Originally Posted by Prof100
Having read this thread and its reiteration of the need to point the antenna in a correct orientation leads me to believe the design is inherently flawed because with one and only one transmitter antenna the possibility exists that it will fail to send a signal that the plane can receive. Therefore, the design needs to be revised to provide two antennas oriented 90 degrees from one another. With two antennas it should cover a broad spectrum of transmission that will not be missed by the airplane receiver.
Just my two cents. I sure wouldn't by one of these radios if the antenna position / orientation is that critical. The failure mode effects are extremely expensive!!!
Just my two cents. I sure wouldn't by one of these radios if the antenna position / orientation is that critical. The failure mode effects are extremely expensive!!!
http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products...odID=SPMAR6200
I have the DX7 and I have been using the AR7000 rx on my electrics (24 oz on up) and not even used the AR6100 unless its on my 3D foamy which flys right in front of me. The 6100 is noted for radio blocked signals if it gets in the way of a Battery or such.
07-18-2007, 11:04 PM
#44
Super Contributor
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sandwich, IL
Posts: 9,565
Well, being that the AR6100 has 2 very small antennas, were one to place it in a plane with a large engine or motor (made of metal), and the engine/motor were directly in the path of the radio signal, the rx could be shielded and not receive the signal. That would cause the RX to use the failsafe positions programmed in at binding, until it can re-acquire the signal.
The AR6200 has a remote rx like the AR7000, which eliminates this problem.
The AR6200 has a remote rx like the AR7000, which eliminates this problem.
07-19-2007, 03:25 PM
#46
UNCLUB OWNER
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,406
Hmmmm -- thinking back to my radio failures...
1) The flat foamie was in a 3-D "hovering" attitude when it failed. The only thing between the receiver and the transmitter was a small piece of 6mm Depron, and about 20 feet of wide open air.
2) This GWS P-51 was traveling towards me -- about 50 feet up, and about 50 feet west. The receiver is in the bottom of the aircraft (cut into the wing, where the landing gear servo used to go). In this case, there is some 6mm Depron, some beaded styrofoam, some fiberglass, some MicroLite covering, and the possibility of the stock GWS wing mount screw between the transmitter and receiver.
3) This was an interesting one, because the receiver was "rebooting" for about 25 seconds; during that time, the airplane traveled approximately 200 yards, in a gentle left turn, and showed it's bottom/nose, bottom/starboard side, and tail (but never it's top or port side) to the transmitter. The airplane was in a similar attitude as #2 (above), but was at about 100 feet of altitude, and 100 feet west when the loss of signal occurred. Signal was regained at 10 FEET of altitude, and 100 YARDS away. Since the receiver is at the bottom of the wing, you would think that the weak signal would occur when it was closest to the ground (and farthest away)... This airplane actually glided (unpowered and in free-flight mode), directly over my head at about 75 feet of altitude -- at that point, the only thing between the receiver and transmitter was a piece of 6mm Depron, some fiberglass, and some MicroLite covering.
4) This P-38 was at about 100 feet up and about 75 yards south-east. It was making a gentle bank to port when the glitch happened. The receiver is in the bottom of the gondola (center pod). This is the ONLY case where the motor, gearbox, and/or ESC could have been between the receiver and transmitter. This airplane was also fiberglassed -- I wonder if the fiberglass could be the problem?! ??
Last night, I was thinking more about this, and it sounds to me like Spektrum has a design flaw... First, a 10 to 25 second reboot time is unacceptable. Second, steps should have been taken to keep a momentary low-voltage dip from having such catastrophic results. A simple Resistor/Capacitor network on the receiver's power input would alieviate this issue!!!
Sorry to vent. :o
1) The flat foamie was in a 3-D "hovering" attitude when it failed. The only thing between the receiver and the transmitter was a small piece of 6mm Depron, and about 20 feet of wide open air.
2) This GWS P-51 was traveling towards me -- about 50 feet up, and about 50 feet west. The receiver is in the bottom of the aircraft (cut into the wing, where the landing gear servo used to go). In this case, there is some 6mm Depron, some beaded styrofoam, some fiberglass, some MicroLite covering, and the possibility of the stock GWS wing mount screw between the transmitter and receiver.
3) This was an interesting one, because the receiver was "rebooting" for about 25 seconds; during that time, the airplane traveled approximately 200 yards, in a gentle left turn, and showed it's bottom/nose, bottom/starboard side, and tail (but never it's top or port side) to the transmitter. The airplane was in a similar attitude as #2 (above), but was at about 100 feet of altitude, and 100 feet west when the loss of signal occurred. Signal was regained at 10 FEET of altitude, and 100 YARDS away. Since the receiver is at the bottom of the wing, you would think that the weak signal would occur when it was closest to the ground (and farthest away)... This airplane actually glided (unpowered and in free-flight mode), directly over my head at about 75 feet of altitude -- at that point, the only thing between the receiver and transmitter was a piece of 6mm Depron, some fiberglass, and some MicroLite covering.
4) This P-38 was at about 100 feet up and about 75 yards south-east. It was making a gentle bank to port when the glitch happened. The receiver is in the bottom of the gondola (center pod). This is the ONLY case where the motor, gearbox, and/or ESC could have been between the receiver and transmitter. This airplane was also fiberglassed -- I wonder if the fiberglass could be the problem?! ??
Last night, I was thinking more about this, and it sounds to me like Spektrum has a design flaw... First, a 10 to 25 second reboot time is unacceptable. Second, steps should have been taken to keep a momentary low-voltage dip from having such catastrophic results. A simple Resistor/Capacitor network on the receiver's power input would alieviate this issue!!!
Sorry to vent. :o
07-19-2007, 03:47 PM
#47
UNCLUB OWNER
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,406
Oh -- one more thing I wanted to make perfectly clear to everyone...
Please note how, in each case, my DX7 seems to fail 2 minutes into the second flight of the day. It's always the same story:
Please note how, in each case, my DX7 seems to fail 2 minutes into the second flight of the day. It's always the same story:
1) I fly airplane "A" with excellent results (15 to 20 minute flight, with no glitches).
2) Then, I fly airplane "A" with a different battery pack, and I get a receiver reboot about 2 minutes into the flight.
All three airplanes crashed with different batteries (so it's not the battery). :o (3s 800 mAh LiPo, 3s 2220 mAh LiPo, 4s 3150 mAh LiPo.)
2) Then, I fly airplane "A" with a different battery pack, and I get a receiver reboot about 2 minutes into the flight.
07-19-2007, 04:05 PM
#48
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 440
could it be the TX batt? Maybe there is a short that is draining the tx battery faster tha normal. Or perhaps the Tx battery was a dud or it is faulty (ie not taking a full charge).
Just wanted to venture a spur of the moment guess
Just wanted to venture a spur of the moment guess
07-19-2007, 04:37 PM
#49
Community Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: McAlester, Oklahoma
Posts: 10,811
I really don't think it is a design flaw because it would be showing up in other systems. I have never had a minutes problem with my DX-6 or DX-7 and I have never heard of anyone else with this problem.
It sounds more like there is a problem with your transmitter. I think you said you sent it back to Horizon. Please let us know what they say.
It sounds more like there is a problem with your transmitter. I think you said you sent it back to Horizon. Please let us know what they say.
07-19-2007, 05:15 PM
#50
Super Contributor
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sandwich, IL
Posts: 9,565
I agree with Jim; a "design flaw" would be showing up in multiple units. This is the first time I have ever heard of your particular complaint.
Please let us know what HH has to say about it. I would venture to guess it is either a bad TX battery or, like previously suggested, a short or something draining the battery quickly.
Please let us know what HH has to say about it. I would venture to guess it is either a bad TX battery or, like previously suggested, a short or something draining the battery quickly.
