Problems!! 14MZ 2.4 R6014FS

[1bwana1]

Simpleton,
You are right, "users" would probably have been a better word. In this case I used the word "fan" to imply that the people reporting the problem, have chosen to use Futaba, and probably like Futaba products. They are not out to bash Futaba, but are sincere in reporting the problem, in hopes of a solution.

Mith,
You bring up a good point, I doubt the other components are as hot as the RXs seem to be getting. We need to document these numbers, and find out why the RXs are having the issue. We have a lot to learn at this point. Have you tried to get your 2.4 equipment to overheat? Your technical talents could be useful here.

[lazun]

Somewhere along the line we lost something. The manufacturer screwed up. The RX’s temperature operating range is wrong. If optimum is between the values stated by one of these posts, it is still failing at 130 degrees. If operating range is between these temps, you are telling us that they aloud no tolerance? You got to be kidding. And they do not come online again until well in the upper 90's. We are trying to justify something that is simply an engineering oversight. What have they come up with? They have designed a RX that will fail on a hot summer day. We tried a heat shield and that was at 85 degrees in the sun. Wow amazing stuff. However, the RX was at 132 degrees under it in the shade.

[03fomoco]

Operational Limits, I understand that manufactures list operational limits for their products but there is what the manual says and then there is real life. Would you tolerate your car not starting on an Arizona day due to the computer being to hot, how about the radio not working. What about your cell phone you left in the car or the black IPod on your arm when you are running. We have all used a laptop and felt how hot the bottom of the case gets in your lap and you know the processor is well over 150f as that is normally considered the threshold of discomfort to a human. Simply put no matter what the book said you would not tolerate the item failing to work, period. Nothing mentioned even has the ability to kill someone like a 26x10 spinning, etc... Everything listed is probably rated under 40c but you know that they were tested until an acceptable failure level was reached.

The facts are not in nor is the cure but sadly I have to refer back to the 5014G3 receivers and what was used as a fix and also the fact that customers had to pay for the fix. That was pathetic and I think a good reason Futaba lost a lot of their high end market customers. For a large corporation to admit a product has a dangerous failure mode is unheard of unless someone is seriously injured or killed and with our model and lack of court experts would make proving it next to impossible. And then as the catch all you have the manufactures operating limits which are somewhat unreasoable for the environment their product needs to operate in. Basically if the item cannot be designed to operate under the required conditions it needs to be scrapped and redesigned. Again speculation until more data is provided. Sadly in today's busy competitive world I have a bad feeling deadlines, loss of market audience, loss of customers, and "get the product to the shelf" may all be involved. I hope I am wrong.

Dave

[Jurgen Heilig]

	Quote: Originally Posted by 1bwana1
	Jurgen, You keep saying that no equipment should be expected to run at those temperatures. However, these people, and their equipment have been flying at the same fields, and in the same environment for many years. The only receivers that are experiencing this failure are the new Futaba 2.4 receivers. Even the 72 Futaba systems seem to handle the environment just fine. There is a new limit with the Futaba 2.4 system that people (mostly Futaba fans) are running into. This needs to be understood by those planning on using this gear.

If these people got away with it in the past, they where probably just lucky?!

And how many crashes have been blamed on interference or other reasons, when it was simply a matter of operating the R/C equipment outside its temperature range?

You as the operator are responsible for keeping the temperature of your R/C gear, the max. rpm of your prop, the max. current for your ESC and your BEC within specs.

Jürgen

[Jurgen Heilig]

	Quote: Originally Posted by lazun
	... We tried a heat shield and that was at 85 degrees in the sun. Wow amazing stuff. However, the RX was at 132 degrees under it in the shade.

Again, you are implying that the heat is generated by the rx itself. Yes the current is approx. 80mA on the FASST receivers, which is way more than a conventional rx, but that only results in a temperature rise of approx. 9°F (@5V) above ambient tempearture before the situation stabilizes.

What voltage are you using on your R6014RS? Higher voltage will cause more heat losses.

Jürgen

[Fish07]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Jurgen Heilig
	If these people got away with it in the past, they where probably just lucky?! And how many crashes have been blamed on interference or other reasons, when it was simply a matter of operating the R/C equipment outside its temperature range? You as the operator are responsible for keeping the temperature of your R/C gear, the max. rpm of your prop, the max. current for your ESC and your BEC within specs. Jürgen

As good as it gets,you said it all.

[Fish07]

	Quote: Originally Posted by lazun
	Somewhere along the line we lost something. The manufacturer screwed up. The RX’s temperature operating range is wrong. If optimum is between the values stated by one of these posts, it is still failing at 130 degrees. If operating range is between these temps, you are telling us that they aloud no tolerance? You got to be kidding. And they do not come online again until well in the upper 90's. We are trying to justify something that is simply an engineering oversight. What have they come up with? They have designed a RX that will fail on a hot summer day. We tried a heat shield and that was at 85 degrees in the sun. Wow amazing stuff. However, the RX was at 132 degrees under it in the shade.

Uhmmm,you sound like...from the competition ,dont you work our are related to some of the new ,Super duper stuff with those magical antennas,sounds a bit suspicious,you digging to much ,whats the big deal ,???
at least Futaba will take care of the problem,so chill out give them a brake ,cause your sounding suspicious.

[BR289]

I think Futaba is checking out the heat issue claims and whatever else the problem could be. I wasnt expecting any type of solution overnight. I am skeptical on flying anything until something is found, and I am sure something will be. There are too many claims not to be something wrong. I have probably six of the 6014 recievers, and probably 12 or so of the smaller ones as I was replacing all my 72 stuff when I heard of this problem.
I do hope something comes up soon....

[DR10044]

Has anyone who actually works for Futaba said they are looking into the problem?

[1bwana1]

	Quote: Originally Posted by DR10044
	Has anyone who actually works for Futaba said they are looking into the problem?

Yes, in an earlier post in this thread.

[DougV]

	Quote: Originally Posted by DR10044
	Has anyone who actually works for Futaba said they are looking into the problem?

Yes just today. http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7443726/tm.htm

[grayuk]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Jurgen Heilig
	If these people got away with it in the past, they where probably just lucky?! And how many crashes have been blamed on interference or other reasons, when it was simply a matter of operating the R/C equipment outside its temperature range? You as the operator are responsible for keeping the temperature of your R/C gear, the max. rpm of your prop, the max. current for your ESC and your BEC within specs. Jürgen

I think there may be more truth in this than first though.
I need to understand a few things.
Have all the failures been in large aerobatic models?
In ALL of these models is the rx under the canopy?
Was the old PCM 72 meg in the same place or has the FASST rx only been placed there because of the short aerials and fear of interference from the carbon/fuel?

If the answer to the above is yes in most cases it may be that the real problem is the location of the rx.
Just a thought…any thoughts or feedback on this?

Paul