RC Model Reviews

I have a new one on the way. They "lost" my return to Hobbyking.

No one has commented on my question about the Turnigy 9X transmitter and receivers in another section of these forums, so I'll repost it and rephrase it here in the hope that someone can help me with the answer: Will Hobby King HKTR6A receivers work with a Turnigy 9X transmitter?

In one of Bruce's reviews (http://www.rcmodelreviews.com/hobbykingrc3.shtml) a Hobby King 6-channel HKTR6A 2.4GHz reviver was bound to an IMAX 9X transmitter. The IMAX 9X and Turnigy 9X are basically one-in-the same, but they may use a different 2.4 RF/binding scheme?

I own a bunch of the HKTR6A receivers I'd like to use with the potential purchase of a Turnigy 9X. But I'd rather not buy the Turnigy 9X on the speculation that it will bind with the HKTR6A receivers. On the surface the HKTR6A seems like it may be a better receiver (all be it fewer channels) than the receiver that comes with the Turnigy 9X.

Any answers are greatly appreciated!

ps I did not mean to over-post my question so I apologize if I had not originally listed it in the appropriate area.

The new Turnigy 9X is the V2 product and so you'd need the V2 version of the HK 6-channel receiver.

I've not tested the V2 compatibility but they should bind up just fine because they're both actually the FlySky system.

But don't shoot me if I'm wrong!

So that makes sense. Sounds like IMAX9 used the Flysky technology/scheme found in HK V1, and now the Turnigy9 utilizes the different Flysky technology/scheme found in the HK v2.

Now for a digression (and Bruce your experience here helps) does anyone have real world, bench, or a good range testing comparison of the HK V1 system vs. the HK V2??? I'm not asking about the bells and whistles and the transmitter features, just if the V2 has proven to be a more robust system when it comes to range and signal reliability?

Cheers and thanks

Both versions use the same basic chips so the range should be pretty similar.

In favor of the V2 is the fact that it uses a sleeved dipole antenna which (in theory) offers slightly higher gain than the quarter-wave antennas of the V1

In favor of the V1 is that it had a satellite that should provide more range when the main receiver's antenna is shielded or cross-polarized.

In practice -- they both offer what I would call "moderate range".

The V1 receivers seemed to be pretty variable in range -- I had one that was only good for about 200 yards and another that I could fly to the limits of (my) visibility.

I have range-tested the V2 to over 500 yards on the ground which means it's probably good for at least 750 yards in the air.

They won't have the range of a FASST, Hitec or FrSky full-range system but both systems provide more than adequate range for regular sport flying.

I wouldn't use one in a large glider though -- given that these can be flown to quite significant altitudes and distances.

The big problem seems to be that in the case of both the V1 and V2, there appears to be quite a variance between individual units and neither version offers a power-down range-test so, unless you're prepared to do a lot of walking, you won't know if you're unfortunate enough to get a weak receiver until it may be too late.

For the difference in price between receivers ($9 versus $19), I would urge anyone other than a parkflier to whip the FlySky module out and throw an FrSky one in. Peace of mind is a wonderful thing!

I use the HK-T6A-V2 receivers with the Turnigy 9x transmitter as well as the GT-2 3 ch rx. All bind and work perfectly. We have range checked around 14 of these units to the limits of our field (500 yds). The only range problem I have had is with the 8ch rx that came with the original TX.

I have the Turnigy 9x V2 and HK 6 channel V2 radios. I can confirm too that the HK 6 Channel V2 and 3 Channel V2 receivers all bind perfectly to the 9x and also the otherway round. The 3 channel is really nice for weight and size and provides throttle, elevator and ailerons on both my mode 2 tx's. Obviously you could connect rudder servo to the 3 channel receiver but would still fly per the aileron stick movement. Range is good on all of them and I have tested them very far out. This is dispite the fact that the 3 channel has a quarter wave antenna and not a sleeved half wave dipole type antenna which maybe be better depending on orientation when installed in a plane.

At 2.4Ghz range is massive considering range doubles as height increases. Just remember that if you install the receiver antenna horizontally make sure the tx antenna is also horizontal. Range reduces substantially when mixing polarization - this is normal for RF anyway.

Bruce - I guess from the spectrum analyizer you are using that these radios have 16 channels to hop around on? Am I correct in making that observation? Each Channel seems then to use a fair amount of band width?

At 2.4Ghz range is massive considering range doubles as height increases. Just remember that if you install the receiver antenna horizontally make sure the tx antenna is also horizontal. Range reduces substantially when mixing polarisation - this is normal for RF anyway.

Mm my mind had a chuckle moment, 'I better not do any loops then, hate to mix my polarisation', hehehe.

At 2.4Ghz range is massive considering range doubles as height increases. Just remember that if you install the receiver antenna horizontally make sure the tx antenna is also horizontal. Range reduces substantially when mixing polarisation - this is normal for RF anyway.

Mm my mind had a chuckle moment, 'I better not do any loops then, hate to mix my polarisation', hehehe.

The FRSky DIY module lists the output wattage as 60Mw does anyone know the wattage of a Corona DIY?