A long video on a Passionate Topic that most take to the grave. We all know that we are passionate about our radio choices. Enjoy the video! Thank you to all of those that made this possible!
Why do the Spektrum, JR and Futaba have the TX antenna tip pointing forward?! The point with the lowest radiation! With the other transmitters the antennas are aligned crosswise. Intention or absence of elementary basic knowledge in the high frequency technology?
@@KKM57P They are not pointed forward. they are at a 45 Degree angle to home base. Same as Jeti, Core and any of the other antenna used. Yes I do lack so much basic Knowledge. Please do a better version of this test for the RC Community! Thank you.
@@thelightersideofrc There are serious technical errors in the whole test. Otherwise, 900 MHz would not have nearly the same range as 2.4G. 900MHz would have to reach twice as far with the same transmission power. It has a much lower attenuation. I would like to have an answer to this discrepancy. What the error is here in the test, also explains the reason why this is so.
Thanks much! I'm a 65 year old r/c lifer in Kansas City. I've flown Futaba, Spektrum and now converted to Frsky for the rest of my days. I appreciate the detailed and professional review. You guys rock!
The sorry thing is that no matter how long one has been doing something if they did it wrong or with the wrong equipment and we're not smart enough to notice it or to fix it
@@finn4795also depends on the mode for ELRS. Changes how well the signal stability is for the given power vs latency. ELRS gives way more options for modulation type, power, latency, etc.
Note 1:08:33 ELRS system has different RF modes. Standard LoRa modes, F mode, D mode and they can give different results. For example LoRa mode gives excellent overall link range because can demodulate RF packet at noise floor level. D mode gives more stable link, les jitter at long range because it retransmits each RF packet multiple times. You can easily change those modes from radio menu, from ELRS LUA script.
I have used my Frsky X9D for the last 12 years. Never had a issue with it. But i am now waitng for my new Radiomaster TX16S MKII to arrive via the local post office. I realize I have made a good choice after watching this video. Thanks for sharing and keep up the good work. 👍
Very interesting test, a lot of work, thanks for sharing this! There is no perfect test, but there are some interesting conclusions one can draw. Here is my take: The systems that we can compare in somewhat fair grounds (i.e. no external modules, same type of link -2.4 Ghz FSK only (no LoRa)-, legal FCC transmitting power=
Happy to see FrSky finally getting some more recognition in the airplane world. There's been a huge influx of large gasser and jet pilots flying them in the last year, since the Tandem systems came out. Price to performance is off the charts. I've been using FrSky since 2017 and wouldn't have it any other way.
@@thelightersideofrc If you ever get a chance to meet someone with an X18(S), try it out. It is shaped a lot more traditionally, reminds me of Spektrum for ergonomics. I prefer it over the X20 for that reason. Cheers!
@@oponohou I thought that they had contacted Futaba but the company obviously didn't want to chance it! 😜 Obviously they have a more realistic insider's view of their product than your own? 😁
I have flown airplanes, helicopters and drones with Futaba all my life, since the 90s when I was just a boy, my first radio was a 4-channel Futaba Conquest and currently a T14SG among all the Futaba models that I have collected through the years. For me they are the most reliable and the only radio I have had from another brand has been FrSky Taranis because of its versatility to configure to fly drones and they are also very good.
I would be curious to see a current Futaba transmitter like the 16IZ or 18SZ and a higher end receiver too. That is all I use and have never had issues.
@@thelightersideofrc It was bad timing for me being busy, I would have loved to have made the trip, meet you, and toss my 18MZ into the ring. Not as new as the 16IZ or 18SZ, but a little more current than the 14MZ tested.
I'm really impressed. This video show just how much REAL work and PLANNING is required to do REAL comparisons. Thank you and all of the others in the video for the many many days worth of work required to lead up to this! (and the many hours of editing required to make the actual video!) (p.s. I fly Jeti and FrSky) p.p.s. I am an RF engineer - the Chase Car could/would affect the performance of any of the TX/RX systems (height of car, incline, it is "sort of blocking LOS"), The same applies to having the cab of the truck between the TX and the RX (the return trip re-acquisition comments)
Thanks Very much Sean. It’s nice to see the common sense and appreciation about this video as the amount of slander and negativity blows my mind from a select few! I appreciate your comments very much!
It was my understanding that some of the original receivers had this problem but it was corrected by a software upgrade. Recover times went from 8-10 seconds back to 1-2. The upgrade was free. I still have one that was never fixed and came close to losing a model.
Maybe for a multirotor, but most of us run 50hz servos in airplanes. I know in higher end planes many run faster servos, but those craft are usually LOS so long range isn't a requirement. I think an important lesson learned is what happens if a certain radio system has a fail safe and does it rebind immediately after signal returns. @@lightbulbjim
Nice vid Jon. Everyone's gonna have there favorite hence comments and ya should try this RX etc. Every Radio got a fair suck of the sav. Of course it all comes down to what's Avitabile in your part of the world. Since no one has done anything, similar mission accomplished. Ya lucky it was a reasonable Weather day.. Great bunch of helpers.Carry on.
I got into FPV back in 2013 and dumped my Spektrum radio immediately as a result. Their limitations were extremely clear even though I never flew much more than about 1km away.
Spektrum is not for long range. So you are using the wrong setup. Long range, you need frsky or the radio master (lower quality), plus a cross fire module / elrs
Thank you for doing this test. This will shake the big transmitter industry for the good. Same happened with independent test with LIPO batteries. We need more independent test like this. Bring it on..!
Results as expected. Using Frsky long time ago with gas turbines, no problem at all. For the " normal" receiver for Frsky you have used a S8R, an old accst protocol receiver, but anyway working perfect. Maybe you should have had better results with the SR8 or R8, both access protocol receivers, much much modern ones for the 2,4 receiver testing. Also, those receivers can work with redundancy, that improves a lot the recepcion, due to the multiple antenas. Thanks for the review, maybe I expected a little more from powerbox, but everything as expected with the others.
Surprised you guys didn't set one of the Radiomasters up to 1000mW and try it just out of curiosity to see how far it would go. Interesting choice using the AR636 receiver from Spektrum, that has been discontinued for some time now although based on the results from the other two, even the newer AR631 or AR637 would probably have similar results. I use Spektrum with Radiomaster and never had a loss of signal, I would never be able to see my planes if I flew 1/2 mile away. I don't think I ever fly more than 400' distance where I fly. Awesome thorough test, appreciate you guys taking the time to set that up, that was a lot of work.
If the ELRS Radiomaster had been set to full power it would have smoked the shit out of every other radio and highlighted just how crappy last-Gen protocols are in comparison, Frsky included. It's too bad ELRS was so severely handicapped for this test.
Awesome review and comparison 💯 I was looking for a stick transmitter for surface use...cars, trucks and boats. Which one goes well for that too? Can the FrSky be used or is that only for airborne RC's?🙂
@@thelightersideofrc I have seen it depends if it is in configuration mode 1 or 2. I would probably open it up and switch the gimbals around and fixate the direction too and use those two spare channels for some extra knobs 🙂
I am wondering how my home built system will work, i know the FCC and DOD wouldn't like what i built and use if they were to try and jam the multiple frequencys it uses it would cripple themselves as well. but as of now, I've been just over 26 miles away, always above tree, hills, and building line not going to try behind hills or anything on a aircraft flight and haven't lost video or any control glitches on my test plane.
I would say this test is perfect. Perfect to find out how far can a RC-Car be controlled by a dedicated RC Plane TX system. So what xucks the most in this test is the best for RC planes. Weird but you get the point after understanding that. I like these Gheddo-Mod channels on YT. 😂
It would be interesting to do the same test but with only the Radiomaster TX16S and binding to any of the compatible receivers it can bind to using the onboard Multi-protocole. You could get a kind of receiver only performance test since the signal would be coming from a unique source.
That's the amazing thing about RM. It has the amazing ELRS protocol option while performing with all the other protocols too. All with cnc hall gimbals, limitless color touchscreen programmability, 16 channels, and for mich less than any other offering.
I switched from Spektrum to Powerbox about 18 months ago, and i don't regret it. Powerbox was the only radio you tested with just one standard receiver and nothing else. I would have like to have seen the same set up options as you did with Jeti. for example a Powerbox Pioneer or Mercury SR2 with 2 PBR-26D satellite receivers. These is the set set ups i have on my Rebel 1.5m Hot and Rebel 2m classic. I don't know if it would have made a difference but it would have been interesting to see.
Thanks Neil. They are all great Radios! Can't go wrong with any of them. Just tested what we had but yes it would have been interesting to see more variations.
The amount of work put into this test is very impressive the only beef I have is the receiver antenna should have been mounted 5 to 8 ft wood pole above the truck.
Never thought about that, but can definitely understand, I have been around rc for a long time, but actually I wasn’t thinking of doing whole lot just Jeti 900 , I obviously I fly Jeti in nz one of the first! 16 now 12 & 24 new gen. Just be fascinating to know a real world test. Anyway hope you are having a great summer, winter biting here now.
The ELRS system can be changed to many many different modes. You don’t need the long range mode on for normal jet flying, this maintains the resolution and latency.
Great video, but I am concerned about one thing. A few years ago, I flew a Futaba 32mz with a device that counted lost frames for each flight. I would typically get to a flying field early mid-morning and fly until late afternoon, and what I found was that the radio frequency environment changed considerably throughout the day. When I first arrived in the morning, the RF environment would be the best. I might get only a few hundred lost frames at this time. Then, as the day progressed, my lost frames would increase to several thousand sometime in the afternoon and then drop off towards the end of the day. I interpreted this as the RF environment being variable throughout the day, and it leads me to be concerned that this effect could have been confounded with the results presented in this video. The proper way to test for this would have been to set the testing up with randomized replicates for each test. Each radio should have been independently tested three times, and the order of all the tests should have been randomized. If this was done, the effects of RF environment variation would have been shared equally across all radios, and three replicates would have allowed for dropping any "high flyers" from each set of three tests... Another concern that just crossed my mind is that my testing with my Futaba radio taught me that transmitter antenna orientation has a big effect on signal quality. I found that the best orientation for my Futaba radio was pointed down at 45 degrees w.r.t. the ground. In this orientation, I might get less than 100 lost frames, but in any other orientation, my lost frames would be in the thousands. Was there any attempt to standardize transmitter antenna orientation for the radios in this test?
Would like to see the Radiomaster tested using the built in, 4 in 1 basic system With a mix of different manufacturers receivers and not the long range ELRS add on module and receiver. This would be a good idea for a stand alone video.
Up to 1w is legal without a ham license. And when I fly big expensive models, I’m going to use the radio to its maximum capability. Love your videos btw.
The nice thing about radiomaster is it can talk to all of those relievers and be tuned to get the best reception. It's perfect for me since I've had so many different brands over the last decade and I can just set it up to talk to the futaba, airtronics, Jr, spectrum or hitec recievers..I run frsky on one's I have to update from the old fm receivers.
@thelightersideofrc I want to say that the frsky transmitter can do it as well, but the other nice thing is you can do software updates and make the radio master a touchscreen by just going to the support page. I loved my airtronics radio, but they went out of business and I an not a spectrum fan boy. I know that Jr is affiliated with spectrum and the futaba stuff is great but over priced. So in the end I decided to try the radiomaster and once you get past the learning curve, it just opened the door for more options.
Hmmm. I have happily used Spektrum for the last 4 years with everything from sail planes to 6S EDF's. I have a RadioMaster TX-16S. I guess I should start using it!
Would be cool to see some 915Mhz elrs as well! Especially with different antenna configurations (ceramic vs dipole vs diversity), same for frsky! Especially at lower frequencies (50, 100hz)!
What would be a good and more relevant test, at 1km of separation put the rx or tx in a Faraday cage to force a loss of link and then see how they recover the connection. That's one that might show some very interesting results.
@@thelightersideofrc undoubtedly. I thought from watching your video that you made it clear that your methodology was far from perfect, but was at least consistent.
Fantastic Video. These are very surprising results. I was all into PowerBox until I changed about 2 months ago to Jeti. I was shocked by the PowerBox result. I have never seen anything like this test. Well done to all that helped to get us modellers some actual data. I imagine some will say this was wrong or you should have done that. Very easy to say, but the amount of work you all put into a fair test is awesome. Once again, thank you to everyone who helped. Craig Australia
Great work Jon and crew!! Thnx for making the effort! I was already a big ELRS fan (and yes Radiomaster too, but that is not what this test was about) and I'm not surprised it did this well, even at a fraction of the max outputpower! What amazed me was how badly the other, high-end en very much more expensive units performed!! A standard Tx16S with ELRS and a reciever will set you back somewhere around 250 euro (sorry I don't get the imperial sizes.. ;p) while some of the others cost up to ten times as much.... Open source is awesome!!
I’m fully in line with you. I like a lot my tx16s, never get any issue in more than 3 years, edgetx is very powerfull, and since 1 year I use elrs. both togethere are just amazing for a very competitive prices. On top off with fast improvment from open source community, they really make a great job
I loved the Horus Radio and had it in my cart a few times when they just couldn't get their protocols easy to use and then Jumper Radio release the T16S pro internal multiprotocol module for less that $150..Sold, only thing I did was replace the ribbon cables. This now old TX is working great and still my daily driver. Along the way when deep discounts appeared I purchased a Eachine T16s for $120, and recently Team Black Sheep sold their old stock RM T16S Max for $79. It is my backup and for learning EdgeTX.
I was quite surprised by the test results with the Powerbox Systems as well however, many people use them all over the world flying turbines and large scale aircraft. I see Martin Pickering for example flying with his in very large turbine models with what appears to be a rock solid link. Although I switched to Graupner from Spektrum I have to say with Spektrum DSMX I never had an issue, only their now obsolute DSM2 was basically proven junk by RCModelReviews. I have to agree with some of the other posters that newer equipment from Spektrum and Futaba would have likely faired better. Also, from what I mentiond about Powerbox Systems and the disappointing performance in the test vs. real world results I've seen in videos by Martin Pickering I don't think distance when flying line of sight rc aircraft is the ultimate test, helpful and informational no doubt, but as long as the Tx-Rx signal is solid while within a line of sight distance in the air which I think all of these brands do quite well, then all is well.
Jeepers - this is not what the test showed (Nor how Martin flies either - ) He likely has multiple receivers in his planes, are well setup and flies relatively close. In this case - all the transmitters would work for him (However he is sponsored by PB)
@@petetynning9964 on the TD receiver line, both signals are important-ish. RadioMaster is running 250mW 2.4gHz, whereas the X20S is at 900mhz 25mW and whatever output wattage is used on the 2.4gHz frequency band. In all fairness, there is no comparison.
I picked up a boxer a while back..looks like I need to add an elrs module to it. Would be fun to compare with an old school 72mhz system. I still fly a lot on 72, and have never once had range issues. My boxer with 4-1 protocol actually didn't seem to do that great unless the antennas were in the perfect spots. I would get dead zones out the sides sometimes. Looks like ELRS is the way to go..a little extra HP makes a big difference!!
Just my experience. For the longest time, we had power lines running along the back edge of our flight line. I flew Spektrum early on and noticed consistent interference. Switched to FrSky for a bit and it was better but hated the early radio build quality. Switched to Jeti and never looked back. My DS-14, DS-12 and now DS-16 G2 have been flawless. The power lines have since been removed but have been super happy with Jeti the last 6 years.
Yea it's funny how those "Small" things can cause interference. Doing the Test, were the Grain bins causing issues for some of the radios? Love my Jeti as well. Happy it performed well and reconnected after signal loss unlike some others.
@@thelightersideofrcyes they suck especially when 5+yr old spek receivers are used in the “test” The modern current gen 630 receiver would never be used in anything more than a park flyer does not have an external. I did have a good laugh when I saw the prehistoric receivers used to represent SPEK. 😂😂😂😂. What a waste of an hour
I would love to see some of the Flysky radios tested. That said, I am confident any of these radios will maintain signal as far as the eye can see, once the plane is in the air. Interesting and informative video; thanks for your work.
I will hard disagree with that. If you fly near any sort of development, dual redundancy like Frsky and Jeti are almost required. Your airplane might make it 100 feet before losing signal in my area if you use a Spektrum.
@thelightersideofrc The FrSky Twin Lite Pro Module system is FrSky ELRS+FSK dualband. Since the Radiomaster and the FrSky are clearly in the lead may be worth doing a second test with different power outputs comparing the following 3: 1. FrSky Tandem 2. FrSky Twin 3. RM ELRS
Hello Jon, the results with the Powerbox are not very meaningful with this setup. I think Powerbox is the only system with a patch antenna. This has a completely different radiation pattern than the normal antennas of the other transmitters. Holding the antenna over the head towards the sky was completely wrong here. In addition, the Core transmitters have to comply with the European specifications for radiation power and radiate less than 100mW. So the comparison is quite unfair.
You bet! have been raked over the coals a bunch by many folks! All Radios tested in the same scenario and layout. If your a Core Flier, Enjoy your radio! I was expecting it to win and if we modified the test it probably would. But, the test radio is on it's way back.
In the field where I fly in Los Angeles, we have what's called a Spektrum dead-zone where we had a good amount of signal loss from Spektrum users. I lost two planes because of this dead-zone. I switched to FrSky X18s Tandem and it solved my headache. I have not had issues with the dual frequency and it does great and the radio is full of wonderful features/channels for the best affordability than Spektrum. Spektrum charges for more channels which I hated.
@@thelightersideofrc Correct, I fly at Apollo! and yup, it's literally like a bermuda triangle for Spektrum. It's on the left most side of the field where one would normally make a final approach to landing. Some days out of the year, the "triangle" likes to eat planes during final approach, some days it doesnt. FrSky solved the issue asap
Great video, thanks for the effort! One thing though, the satellite receivers from Spektrum and Jr need to be about one wavelength apart or more (12.5 cm is the wavelength for 2.4 GHz signal, Horizon hobby video states at least 3 inches, but up to 32 inches apart), they seem really close in some tests.
To make a valid test, the transmission power of each radio should be reported and each of the receivers used should be identified. I think they're trying apples and pears.
Great test , really interesting. 25mw is the power limit for Germany. You should still take these test results with a grain of salt, especially the 900mhz satellites. If your neighbour runs a 2,4ghz video surveillance setup the 900mhz backup will save your plane, since interference will occur at much shorter distances
Wow Jon, thanks for this test! And thanks to you and ALL your helpers that made this possible. That took a lot of effort. Just as an aside, I would've really liked to see how the Radiomaster radios would have done using the internal module's DSM protocol. Maybe next time ;-)
Good Question. I don't have any, no one around me had any and I'm not willing to spend hundreds of dollars for a receiver i won't use. With the results shown between the park flyer setup and the 3 sat setup I don't think it would have made a difference.
how are each of the Tx AE polarised? What polarisation for each Rx are you using? If Vertic pol TX compared to horiz RX pol and you point null at the RX of course it will drop out early.
Jon! A very impressive video that took a ton of effort from you and a very awesome crew! Thanks to all of you, big time! I'm flying with a gen 1 Spektrum DX18 that hasn't let me down (at least not yet), but I wonder....what happens as I grow and model performance increases? Radiomaster was impressive. Thanks again.
I would like to see a discuseion of transmitter modulation and transmitter field strength measurements, and antenna design to see best received signal strgenth. That along with height above ground for both transmitter and receiver and standing wave ratio for a broad banded antenna will show best radio frequency characteristics.
for the price of the FRSKY x20/X18 line of transmitters and the Tandem Receivers, Its hard to argue that its easily the best bang for the buck. Especially considering the transmitters have ports for external 900m/2.4g antennas.
Everything is always a competition? Why do you need validation if you're happy with what you got? I used to Kitesurf and every kite was the best when you asked people who used a brand.
I wonder where we could have gotten such a great for its time but now woefully inferior system of measurement from! 🤓 I literally just guessed 1 km = .58 mile then looked it up and confirmed it's actually 1 km = .62 mile so I wasn't too far off. All in good fun, I don't think the majority of us would have gotten quite that close. We really need to convert to metric over here but that's another topic
